Dwindling of old media

There's a story in today's New York Times that I've been waiting to see for a long time: an influential daily newspaper is ending its print edition and going online.  The newspaper paradigm isn't shifting.  It's fractured beyond repair. 

In this case the paper is the very specifically focused Christian Science Monitor, which has made up in clout what it's lacked in circulation.  The Times story says, "Under the new system, reporters will be expected to file stories to the Web and update them a few times a day, along with writing longer pieces for the weekend magazine."  (Emphasis is mine.)

Excuse me, but does this sound like the HuffPost?  Does it sound like blogging?  Of course it does. 

Now here's a prediction in wine media:  at least one print publication will go 100% online rather soon, just like the Monday-Friday editions of the CSM.  Along the same lines, staffs will shrink and there will be more participation by "expert amateurs." No doubt some of these amateurs will come from today's blogging ranks -- as if they weren't already infiltrating wine print -- and others will truly appear from nowhere.

WE: The next to go?

All of this should vindicate people like Tom Wark, who believes that bloggers shall inherit the world.  Certainly the lines between amateur and professional communicators will blur into meaninglessness.  Out of the ranks of the expert amateurs will rise the next Parker or Robinson.  Or someone radically different from either of them. 

Comments

[Dale Cruse]

I find the news of the Christian Science Monitor fascinating as well. However, I'm not sure that I agree with your assumption that by posting online, all their reporters become bloggers. Coming from a news background, I believe what they're doing is fundamentally different than blogging. Of course there's some overlap, but there are strong differences as well. First, the Monitor does not accept comments on posts. Many of us in the blogosphere argue that it's not a blog if it doesn't accept comments. Second, most blogs are self referential: the authors generally write about themselves or their experiences. The Monitor staff is reporting the news. That's called reporting - not blogging.

[Marco]

YOU

[Strappo]

I'm not assuming that, really, but I do see a long-term convergence. In the shall we say soft news world of wine writing/reviewing/bullshit, the convergence may well take place faster than in strict news venues like CSM.

As far as the self-referential nature of blogging, long noted and either praised or deplored, I think it demonstrates our (we bloggers') affinity with commentary, not with hard news. Let's admit that a hard-news wine blog wouldn't be too interesting. Or isn't. You need a POV and a lens for evaluating wines, producers, etc. That brings us a lot closer to "MSM" wine version.

[Strappo]

Grazie, Marco, but that ship done sailed.

[Fredric Koeppel]

my newspaper's website (www.commercialappeal.com)accepts comments from readers to news stories. unfortunately, as with talk radio, the responders are often from the right-wing fringe of racists and xenophobes. there are also several blogs, one for local politics, one for dining and wine, one for movies and so on. we are being encouraged to "do" video with feature stories, so i have taken to checking out a tiny video camera and taking it on interviews. my first one goes on the website sunday. it's a different world.

[Strappo]

FK, when I wrote the post, I thought, "Oh shit, Fredric." I didn't mean to stick a hot poker in the wounds, old bean.

I don't doubt that the fringe element takes the paper's invitation to make itself heard. That's depressing, but maybe it diverts them from making fertilizer bombs in the barn.

As to the blogs and so forth, that's one of the things the NYT has done very right to protect its brand in the past few years. The Pour, Conscience of a Liberal and so on -- they've drawn in their local readership, not to mention fans from 'round the world. The level of involvement is intense (and by and large intelligent and not too nutty).

The video bit...I guess it's inevitable. But do you know what I hate about video on news/blog/etc. sites? It's in real time! I have to sit through all that boring shit! It's hard to skim! Which is why I love print, whatever the medium.

Then there's also the fact that I am woefully unphotogenic AND love to spin verbal webs...feh.

[John]

Please remember there are fringes on both sides that make all of our lives miserable.