I don't share your optimism, Sam.

I agree that certain things are going to flourish online (and on tv), namely opinion, whiz-bang gadgetry, and talking-head "news" of the kind FOX does. That stuff is popular.

But what about old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting? Fact gathering? Investigating?

That stuff is not as popular to a media generation that likes candy more than fiber. And it's expensive. Pretty much the only institutions left that do it are newspapers, and they do it less and less.

Despite all the hoo-ha about "citizen journalism," nothing beats a focused, funded reporter pursuing a story. Who's going to do that stuff when newspapers go under? Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to read it?

I fear we're going to end up in a media environment where there are only competing talking points, competing realities, and there will be nothing left of the investigative reporting that once gave this country at least the illusion of a shared body of factual knowledge.

www.grist.org

Some random thoughts:

Newsprint is useful for mopping up major household spills, starting a barbeque fire etc.

Things have more credibility, somehow, in 'hard copy' than on the Net. It's very easy to make stories vanish and thus surpress history on the Web - if there are thousands of hard copies made of a story, it's more likely to survive somewhere in a more credible from (that we know hasn't been edited or electronically messed-with).

David, don't make the mistake of tying hard copy newsprint to well-funded reporting. Thriving newspapers don't necessarily mean well-funded (or even extant) investigative divisions. I could go on a long mission here about the massive changes in the structure and motivations owners of the press over the last 15 years or so, but the bottom line is not the format that stories come out in, it's the morality and business models behind them that count. These have been changing rather profoundly, recently.

I lecture a bunch of media students every year on freelancing and copyright issues. More and more valuable stories are going to be done by freelancers outside of the big media companies, because those companies (the world over) are less and less interested in funding any investigations, particularly of corporations (they still investigate sex scandal in govt becasue that draws readers without hurting advertising revenue).

The bottom line is that good journalism needs time and money for good research. If you are freelance that means you have to become very money-savvy, and cultivate a way of doing business that makes sure that you are paid well and NEVER give up your copyright. If you are in a big organisation, you need to know how to lobby hard for the funds to do your job properly.

Journalism schools still, by and large, don't teach this - earning a living is very much secondary to crafting a good story, if it's mentioned at all. Unless you learn to bring in the bucks WHILE MAINTAINING YOUR PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY (which is worth a lot of money in the long run) you will not be able to do good stories based on proper, first-hand research.

I think that people should support whichever sources that they think have integrity and ability to deliver the information that matters - don't sweat the format. That will probably mean paying a higher cover price for something that isn's so oriented towards delivering eyes for advertisers, and is thus not heavily advertiser-subsidised and controlled.

4) At the university I part-time study at paper consumption has shot through the roof (we're talking orders of magnitude increases) since the library decided to get online journal subscriptions for many key journals. Instead of one copy of Science and Nature for people to read, the whole zoology department prints out their own copy (people don't like reading off screens and do like doodling in the margins). What a disaster...

Cheers

Whiskerfish

Electronic media cannot be assumed to be environmentally benign either!

You may have read in the news lately about new internet data servers locating in the Northwest.  Those data centers are approximately a 50 MW load each (my utility has an average load of 75 MW for 31,000 customers).

So, there is still a fairly significant environmental impact even if you convert to an electronic format.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

Keep it coming please engineer.  

Ad revenues from newspapers still dwarf internet ad revenues.  Most people still look in the newspaper classified ads for the things they need, like apartments and used cars.  These ads are available online too, but only if you pay for the print ad too.

Will free sites like Craig's List take over eventually?  Maybe, but for now newspapers are still raking in more ad dollars.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I'm sure there is an overall net energy benefit to the internet, I know we did the vast majority of our Christmas shopping online rather than deal with the malls.

Just (as usual, I guess) pointing out factors that people tend to overlook.  

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!

George Monbiot (Heat) claims significant energy-savings w Internet shopping/home delivery. Makes total sense to me - far fewer trips...

Cheers

Whiskerfish

Given problems with peak oil, the difficulty of finding alternative sources of energy, and the fact that much of the world remains dependent on paper, we might see return to lower levels of technology. Also,

I read somewhere that a computer turned on for three hours uses up the equivalent of one tree. This probably doesn't include the chemicals used to make it, and the fact that most of them are toxic and difficult to dispose of.

With regards to shopping, factor in the high level of consumption of products, shipping costs, etc., and one might still see environmental problems.

The last I heard, less than 10 percent of human beings have access to computers, most are poor, and greater amounts of wealth are concentrated on fewer people.

If what they say about energy problems is true, then we might see the collapse of high-tech industries that are heavily dependent on cheap oil, and with that both the Internet and computers. Communities will likely end up going local, i.e., buying and selling things from nearby places, the formation of local newspapers with any international news passed through wire services, an emphasis on farming and practical skills, and probably a return to libraries filled with books.

All of these will likely be part of the argument that says that the way we live now is not, in the long run, sustainable. Something will have to give.