The future of newspapers is uncertain but surely grim

Who reads the newspaper anymore? I don't know about you, but I surely don't.

The future for newspapers is bleak, but as this well-written comment states, "Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism."

Problem is, journalism doesn't come for free and someone needs to pay for it. The closest to "free" it could be is government-subsidized, but all of us should be fearful of a state-sponsored press. The papers are too deferential to government as it is without the government paying for it outright.

None of the proposed models are working (from ad revenue to paid subscriptions) and people want free, up-to-date information via the Interwebs. Something's got to give, and as the comment points out, it's unclear what might happen:

Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That’s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we’re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead.

When we shift our attention from ’save newspapers’ to ’save society’, the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.

We don’t know who the Aldus Manutius of the current age is. It could be Craig Newmark, or Caterina Fake. It could be Martin Nisenholtz, or Emily Bell. It could be some 19 year old kid few of us have heard of, working on something we won’t recognize as vital until a decade hence. Any experiment, though, designed to provide new models for journalism is going to be an improvement over hiding from the real, especially in a year when, for many papers, the unthinkable future is already in the past.