BuzzMachine

wasn’t too long ago rush went off on a tangent about “blogs” like they were one of carlin’s 7 words.

that was back when i actually listened to car radio AND it just happened to be on when i took delivery of the rental car.

i immediately headed back to the check-in desk and demanded a different car.

No quibble with the point, and the trend is clear enough, but I will point out that there is still a difference between circulation and readership. My wife and I both use the Internet to publish our thoughts etc., but we still buy, and read, only one copy of the newspaper a day.

I still doubt newspaper is the reason for the decline in newspaper reading.. I m sure people most who read news online would care to buy a copy of a newspaper.. And people who have never have the habit of reading newspapers would never follow the news online too..

To Chuck,

I am over 50, I’ve been online for 25 years, every one (every single one) of my friends over 50 are online, know how to use the Internet, and most know about blogs, twitter, wikis etc. And (if my recollection holds) the fastest growing demographic segment of those going to and using the web for news and learning about various issues are those over 60.

Brian,

I apologize. No insult or agism was intended. I didn’t mean to say ALL people over 50 will never adopt new technologies.

The average reader of newspapers is 55. The % of people reading newspapers btw 18-34 I think is 19%.

I learned how to program in grad school from a brilliant technologist well over 50.

Do you feel there is no generational aspect to these trends?

Do you and friends of yours in your similar age group use twitter or friendfeed significantly?

I’m curious as to your thoughts on this.

Chuck

Not only is it a myth that over-50s don’t adapt to and adopt new technologies, it’s also a myth that all teens are techies.

Not so at all. I used to teach in a university and while some students were techie, many were not at all. Couldn’t research on the web, didn’t know the most common software programs well at all. couldn’t hook their computers up to the AV system, etc.

“Perhaps we will see a bit of informal news gathering via cell phone cameras and the like, but where is the digging going to come from to reveal the story about the Pentagon prepping shills to promote their agenda on TV if not for newspapers?”

Newspapers used to be the portals and aggregators. In the pre-digital days every town of consequence needed their own portal. Newspapers made a lot of money in that role. However, even good newspapers had half their daily ink spilt on non-original content. Most local TV stations couldn’t break a story if it fell on their heads.

The issue today is more one of consolidation. Not every town needs its own portal. But many blogs rely on the information aggregators to launch their discussions. My belief is there will be sites doing the original work, just much fewer of them. Many will be local “news” sites, a few will be national. Regional newspapers will have the biggest problems initially because they are neither and are also far less likely to have the mechanism to grab the dwindling advertising dollars.

News happens. People want to know. So mechanisms will grow up to replace those newspapers that served a necessary purpose even if those newspapers die because they couldn’t figure out how to live on less than 25 percent profit margins. But in the interim many journalists will lose their jobs (and probably their ideals) and much information will not be conveyed as effectively as it was.

Anyone who believes newspapers will survive just because isn’t paying attention to the harsh realities of todays economy and the fact that many newspapers aren’t seen as any kind of public service. The internet will re-invent newspapers. But those of us pushing 50 or beyond are going to find the process is hard on our careers.

I stopped buying the newspaper because all that crap happened yesterday.

Jeff,

Your title is misleading regarding newspapers. More accurately stated, there are more writers on the web than there are readers of newspapers. Of course, phrased this way, the point is . . . so what?

I’ve seen technology change many industries, and for the most part your observations parralel the observations made durring the transitions of these other industries. While the observations are usually correct, the implied impact is almost always nearsighted. In my world, the PDA pundits of the 90′s observed accurately the changes to their industry (traditional, non-wireless, PDA sales began to tank), but painted pictures of a dying industry (therefore the PDA industry is dying). The reality was, and is, that MANY more people buy handheld computing products in the shape of smartphones, BlackBerries, Windows Mobile devices and even Palm Treos than did before the transition. The industry didn’t die, it transformed into a stronger, more vibrant industry because of connectivity. As an outsider to the world of journalism, I will confess that I may not know all the nuances, but I still think the story is analogous to what you are writing. Yes, newspapers are a dying medium. This doesn’t mean that the newspaper industry is a dying business. Connectivity and community of the internet are tools that could help this industry deliver the same valuable content in new and even more compelling ways. As soon as the news business realizes that wood pulp is the only thing that has to die, the industry will begin to find creative ways to grow with its readership instead of just standing still and watching their readership find someone else to give them what they want.

In almost any industry today, if you want to keep your customer, you need to keep up with them.

Even people who are reading newspaper content online are getting a much different experience than offline readers. RSS feeds and personalized news updates, for instance, allow readers to read what they want from a source without even visiting their sites.