Newspapers = Convenience

So this morning while eating breakfast, I read the following in just one newspaper, the Wall Street Journal (a copy of which lands in our driveway every morning) (*1)

--- a front page story about people who hate cilantro (Me? I love the stuff.)

--- a long piece by science reporter Robert Lee Hotz on "radio astronomers," scientists who hunt for extraterrestrial intelligence

--- a report about sharp declines in consumer spending on food (not necessarily because people are eating less but because they're finally figuring out that Hamburger Helper and Kellogg's Sugar Flakes don't, ya know, offer much dollar value....)

--- a review of what sounds like a fascinating book, Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives

--- an essay about Willie Nelson's current passion: Western Swing. (He has a new album out titled "Willie and the Wheel.) (I'm a serious and decades-long fan of Willie Nelson. When he dies, Frank and Johnny are gonna have to make room for him on their bench next to god. I'm also a long-time fan of Western Swing and Bob Wills.) (*2)

--- an article about Toyota's cost-cutting measures, which are designed to reduce company expenses while protecting its employees' jobs

My point? I got all of this in one convenient package, namely a "newspaper." The one I read happened to be made of paper, but it would have been fine with me if I'd read it on some other "delivery" device (a Kindle, a laptop, whatever).

What mattered was that a single entity, the Wall Street Journal, delivered the content to me. Each piece was well-written and -research, and I didn't have to roam all over the web to find them.

Yes, the web is stuffed to its e-gills with great stuff, and I'm not opposed to roaming around hunting for it. But I love that a "newspaper" delivers this content to my door, so to speak. I love the convenience. Which, now that I think of it, may not be much of a point.

But presumably you get my drift: As a mode of communication, "newspapers" have been successful for two centuries because they offer not just content, but a convenient way to access that content.

_________________

*1: As always, a caveat about the WSJ: there is no rhyme/reason to its website content. Some of it is free; some of it is not. Also, the WSJ has THE worst website of any major media organization on the planet. Truly, it's awful. Last year, the company revamped the site, and the new version is a significant improvement over the old one, but it's still, well, awful.

*2: A week or so ago, the Journal also ran a piece about the release of Bob Wills' "Tiffany" recordings. You can read that here.

As I Say: Tipping Point, Newspapers, Etc. [UPDATED]

I'd no sooner posted my previous entry when this came zooming through from Nicholas Carr, who's tackling everything and the kitchen sink.

Added minutes later: I posted this link simply because it landed in the in-box just as I was finishing the previous post. I'd not yet read Carr's essay when I posted the post (if you know what I mean.) Now I have.

You should read it. It may be the single smartest, most common-sense commentary yet on how and why newspapers (and other media) will survive. And it's worth reading an unintended companion piece that I'd linked to in the previous post, the report about TV in the Wall Street Journal. The reporters who wrote it also framed their piece in the context of supply/demand/shakeout. Fascinating. The context of the debate is shifting from "people don't read anymore" to "there's a demand but too many suppliers."

That's a major shift in perspective that reframes the discussion and moves it from abstract to concrete. Also reminds me of, well, the history of the brewing industry .......)

More On Newspapers

I think it's safe to say that we've hit the tipping point when it comes to thinking about the future of the printed word, whether books, newspapers, whatever. (And in the past week, the chatter has also, and rather suddenly, shifted to visual media as well.)

Anyway, links to a collection of recent pieces. Some are now about a week old (positively dinosaurish in blog-time), but . . . . Major piece in last week's Time magazine. Much better (more thoughtful) than I expected.

In response to that piece, an excellent essay at Newspaper Death Watch.

And this in response to the idea of "micropayments."

Thoughtful (albeit somber) observations for Robert Stein at Connecting.The.Dots.

In today's New York Times, this collection of short essays from the most mainstream of the mainstream.

As for visual media, it's worth reading this from last Sunday's Times, and this in today's Wall Street Journal

. What I find odd about those last two reports are their inherent contradications: The Times piece argues that television is in great shape; the Journal piece says, yikes!, the TV network sky/system are falling. What I think the Times writer misses completely is this: he argues that modern humans simply prefer visuals and "non-visuals," by which I gather he means words, are doomed.

But I don't know about that. I don't think he's taking into account WHY so many of us turn to "watching" images (television, movies, etc.) I can't speak for anyone else, but at the end of the day, I turn to visuals because I've spent the entire.damn.day. reading words (and writing them) and I can't bear the idea of doing it anymore.

So I "watch" something. (And I don't "watch television," meaning clicking around randomly, so much as I use the object in our house as a device for watching stuff that I choose.)

Two Quickie Comments on the Future of Reading-and-Books

This from Web Ink, which I found thanks to this from Joe Wikart (who also blogs about the Kindle here.)

When A Book Is Just A Book -- Or Not . . . .

More fascinating reading on, well, reading -- or at least how we do it, might do it, or not do it.

When is a "book" not a "book"? Hmmmm.....

And then this response from David Nygren at the Urban Elitist, who pointed me toward that essay.

And then this thoughtful assessment yet of "reading" and the "e-book," or, er, the not-book, or, er, whatever....

(Although I must say, aside from a brief, emphasis on brief, mention of the "content providers," aka "writers," he, like just about everyone else, forgets that, well, someone needs to provide the damn content.)

And then, if you're still wondering why I care about all of this, here's an old piece from Salon about why books cost what they do.

And Then Of Course There's Self-publishing

Leave it to the Times to suddenly discover the world of self-publishing (although this is actually a pretty good round-up of the current state of affairs in this matter). As David said in a comment on an earlier post): "Look for them to re-discover the internet in the coming months."