Print Vs. Online

I've always found the argument in regards to newspapers going online a bit perplexing. However, the idea that a entrenched culture is helping to prohibit (or at least delay) the seemingly obvious and inevitable move is something that I tend to agree with. There is a great deal of stress and anxiety generated by this topic but it seems quite simple to me. If a newspaper wants to survive, they have to successfully navigate the changing times (like every other industry) and redesign their product to fit into the rapidly changing 21st century. The easiest way to do so is to bring it online.

Too many newspaper types seem to be antiquated in their views and beliefs. I enjoy the medium of print as much as the next guy but as times change, so too must a medium. Most major media have made the jump to the 21st century, with the music industry leading the way with the now pervasive MP3 existing as the industry's vehicle of choice. The film industry made the jump from film to video to digital as necessary. Why can't newspapers (and their readers) relinquish some of their nostalgia for how things were and realize they need to change their product to fit how things are now? People decry the death of newspapers constantly. Why can't their be a slight concession to the ways in which you consume your news?

Let's take, for example, my father who had previously been a subscriber to 3 newspapers: The Hartford Courant, The NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. He would spend hours (especially on Sundays) with the paper scattered about the room, reading each section as he felt necessary. However, my sister and I purchased him a Kindle for his birthday. Almost immediately (literally within a week), he had subscribed to the Kindle's free trial of the NY Times, found almost no difference to his ability to consume the content within and canceled his print copy. Not only does the Kindle's edition allow for easier transport and less mess, it's cheaper to boot. There are a few subtractions from the Kindle edition (most notably the crossword) but the difference in price is significant. Surely a crossword isn't worth the additional 3 dollars or so on Sundays.

My point is that if the newspapers are failing because their product is antiquated and waning in popularity, people should spend less time gnashing their teeth about the death of journalism and spend more time determining how to take the product and move it into the next generation. If they can't, then the publisher and newspaper deserve to fail to other groups that have determined a better way of doing things.