Comments on: GateHouse online media guru has a blog, which he uses to dismiss any danger to print from online media sources

By: John Scanlan

John Scanlan — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:04:22 +0000

As cgiselle12 mentioned in the post above, newspapers are shrinking. The Wall Street Journal’s printed area is now about 11 1/4 inches wide by 21 inches deep. It wouldn’t take much to make it 11 X 17, which would enable readers to print it out at home. Newspapers might even shrink to the size of a news magazine.
What if people could have the best of both worlds: the newspaper on the web and the printed newspaper? Wouldn’t they prefer the option? What if they could select what they wanted from the newspaper web site, meaning the newspaper as they themselves define it, and print it out any time they wanted to read it – 24/7? Wouldn’t they sometimes (frequently?) prefer to print it out and take it with them to the breakfast table or the back porch or the beach or the local bar or the john?
There is simply something about our nature that seems to make us want to hold a book or a newspaper or a magazine in our hands. And it has nothing to do with how old we are.
What if newspapers could eliminate their presses, their inks, their paper, their delivery trucks and their carriers? At today’s prices it would be cheaper for newspapers to simply give every reader a printer and a monthly supply of paper.
Recently I purchased a complete 11 x 17 inch copy of the New York Times – ads and all – for $5 while on vacation in Mexico. It was printed on both sides and bound with an adheasive similar to the glue-like substance that sometimes binds the perfume ads in magazines. It was quite readable, even though it was a reduced copy of the actual printed pages.
It wouldn’t take much for newspapers to redesign their page templates to make them more attractive and readable at a smaller size.
Wouldn’t it make sense for readers to be able to get their newspapers both on the web and be able to print it out at home when they buy their newspaper subscriptions? If it was important to them, they could even set their computers to print out the lastest sports scores, political news, weather, etc. automatically as the information is posted instead of checking the web every 15 minutes.
It is indeed a brave new technological world and it is limited only by our imagination and our ability to understand human nature. Remember the e-book? It never succeeded because people prefer to hold a book in their hands, turn down the page ears and write in the margins.
The web is truly a revolutionary wonder. It will find it’s place as the major content provider, knowledge resource and a community meeting place. But it will never eliminate print.
Thanks to the web, the printed newspaper will be around for a long time. The web will save newspapers, not destroy them.

By: ben

ben — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:28:10 +0000

I hope that comment was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:13:10 +0000

Major newspapers and news magazines are definitely on their way out. The people at Time magazine and the NY Times are moving toward internet versions as sales continue to plummet. If these “institutions” are preparing for an internet future coupled with the 24 hour news networks how long will the smaller newspapers survive? It would be far easier to tag local news on a large regional news internet venue.

By: Billy Dennis

Billy Dennis — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:32:00 +0000

You mean the post about how newspapers should hand their reporters cheap-ass video cameras and tell them to get some video for the Web version of their stories.

Hey, why not? They can take notes with their right hand and operate the cheap-ass cameras with their left. Of course, if they aren’t sitting at a table (always the best vantage point for photography, BTW) they won’t need someone to hold their notebook for them while they scribble.

Of course, you can’t hand these cheal ass video cameras to their regular photographers, because GateHouse is going to fire most of them and make whoever is left do double duty shooting negatives for the plates (I’m not kidding, that’s a true story).

*sigh*

I pity the JS. I really pity them.

By: cgiselle12

cgiselle12 — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:58:13 +0000

I think we’ll have paper for a while to come, and I certainly wouldn’t say 80%.

Here’s a thought – I’m all tech advanced and stuff. I get most of my news online, yes. But it might be a good transition thing for someone to come up with a printable paper. You could go get it from the website and print it yourself, or the paper could email itself out to “subscribers” who could then print it out if they wish.

it is certainly a trend for newspapers to be downsizing – purely size wise. WSJ recently shrunk it’s size. I personally hate big ass newspapers. Freakin’ impossible to deal with!

This is actually reminding me of something I read at another blog, about school days being totally misaligned with the modern work day – or, to paraphrase, why are 21st century schools still sending kids home to milk 19th century cows? The size of our current newspapers, to me, seems nothing more than tradition. Or is it so retro it’s cool now, NOT.

By: Ed Sanders

Ed Sanders — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:56:53 +0000

If they are so leftist, then why do they usually endorse GOP candidates at the state and federal level? I don’t recall them ever endorsing a greenie for office.

By: Lou Faugerburg

Lou Faugerburg — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:54:39 +0000

Howard Owens is an idiot.

You should read what he says about newspapers producing online video stories. It’s a joke.