What's black, white and red all over?

I heard today that Seattle is now without a major newspaper after the Post Intelligencer decided to go entirely online after the cost of using paper proved too expensive. This is a sign of the times as people prefer to get their news from alternate sources. While on the plane, I read that TV might also be in trouble as those in the industry look to go online.

At first I was saddened by the news that their would be no news, on paper at least. After all newspapers have been a regular feature of the home for scores of years. There are many reasons why newspapers in their current form, will continue to struggle. They simply can not compete with the up to the minute updates, of internet, mobile, TV and radio news. As a news follower it also doesn't make sense to pay for a newspaper, when you can get the same article online for free and possibly a free video update. In this scenario I get to decide what is and what is not newsworthy. Not even Cable television or satellite radio can compete with that. If the website I'm looking at doesn't have the news I'm after I can quickly and easily switch news services, much like changing channels on the TV or the radio.

I then thought, if there are no newspapers, then what will I use to squash bugs? I then remembered that I've used everything from flip flops to the bottom of soft drink cans to get the job done and they've all be relatively effective. So once again, newspapers appear to be replaceable.

It also seems that Paper boys (or newspaper delivery persons if you want to be politically correct), will be out of a job. Will this mean that more children will be asking their parents for extra pocket money, thus adversely effecting the economy? I'm not economist, so my sound financial advice is, look elsewhere for sound financial advice.

The one advantage that newspapers have is that once something is put down on paper, it is undeniable. It is there for all to see. It can not be deleted or infected by a virus, it can not be hacked into or changed.

I wouldn't suggest that newspaper reporting is flawless in its factuality, but you can generally be sure who wrote it and the circumstances in which it was written. I'm not sure the internet has the same assurances.

On that basis then it could be said that newspapers could in their current format if they manage to 'sell' integrity. Emphasize good factually based reporting, rather than sensationalism and bias. I'd like to think that facts are still important and if their important, then surely they are profitable.

I went into a record store today and saw that they were openly selling vynil records in a commercial fashion. There was a sign declaring 'Vynil is Back!'. Perhaps there is a precedent there. Vynil as I understand it and again I'm no expert, has a better sound quality than CD's, but they just don't last as long and aren't as easy to produce, therefore, newspapers could survive as long as they pride themselves on quality reporting as opposed to 'fast food' journalism.

Although I think its perhaps slightly unfair to suggest that journalists who go online are 'fast food' journalists, as there is quality out there.

Also do you really want to see a family sitting around a breakfast table, where everyone has their eyes fixed to a laptop? It would be interesting to see what the effects of that are.

Just a thought. By the way did you like my financial pun of a title? Think about it...there you go.

ctb