Well, sort of. And yes, in the past—the distant past—that was the case. But newspapers are no longer where people learn breaking news. There’s a very abundant supply of news. We can find out what’s going on from television, the radio and the web, and we’re already paying for those mediums. If all we want from “newspapers” (organizations which find news and report on it primarily using text) is to find out what’s going on, they have no reason for existing. Other mediums do that quicker and they do so at no additional cost.
Tremendous piece by Kyle Baxter describing how newspapers should be handling the age of the web and how they can still make money with writing. I think it’s a brilliant idea and exactly describes the kind of content I would pay for, which can be summarized as, ‘something I can’t get elsewhere.
Straight news, unless it’s incredibly local, is available everywhere. A list, or description of what Apple announced Monday or who won Tuesday night’s basketball game are readily available in hundreds if not thousands of places. But good, thoughtful, researched analysis of things is still worth paying for.