comment #1

rocco says ...

I'm 27...I read the WSJ and peruse the NY Slimes every day...print versions. I prefer print because all the stories and articles are there for me to read at my leisure, there is no need to mine for information. There is also a certain refinement and confidence in the veracity of print articles that doesn't exist on the web. Of course I also spend copious amounts of time reading news online, so...

The average age # is misleading. If you assume only people from about 22-80 (and 80 is a stretch) are targeted, 56 doesn't stray too far from the middle...and boomers might be retiring, but they ain't going anywhere for another twenty/thirty years.

I'd be more interested to know what the median age is.

Print will adapt and survive.

comment #2

travis b says ...

As part of the age (25) that supposedly doesn't read print media, i find the newspaper a much better source for news that is actually fact checked and properly edited as opposed to some of the news stories that appear on the web and are updated as they happen, which at times leads to a completely different story than what first appeared (and leads to a lot of misinformation). The newspaper may have its faults, but I feel that there will always be a market for it to survive.

comment #3

Edward says ...

I love being in the digital age, information available on the web 24/7, but a valid arguement can be made that we have too much information too quickly.

comment #4

corey3rd says ...

newspapers are yesterday's news. why wait till the paper to read the wire reports?

Seems like a lot of the major newspapers are changing themselves around so that they'll be online news channels. New York Times wants more video action. Since video production has become more compact, it's not that out of reach to bring that element into the news. Nobody will be able to stick to just doing print and survive as a media source.

comment #5

ArchiveGuy says ...

I loved picking up a newspaper for years, but haven't in ages since it simply seems wasteful to me--I'd rarely have time to read all of it, and what I did read regularly I could find in the online version. There are plenty of free weeklies around if I need something to nurse in a cafe or whatnot, so I don't pick up the print versions anymore (except for a rare Sunday supplemental).

comment #6

rocco says ...

"a valid argument can be made that we have too much information too quickly"

I'll take it one step further Edward...the internet is breeding a generation of dunces. Information on demand requires no retention, no effort, no *learning*. Mobile phones are a perfect analogy...think about how many phone numbers you actually know these days. I have hundreds of numbers in my phone, yet I can recall five or six at most that aren't work-related. Seriously.

comment #7

Arizona Joe says ...

Lots of good comments here.

Newspaper business is dying. In addition to people turning to the Internet for information , the loss of advertising revenue to internet is a problem with Google and Yahoo selling so much in general, and craiglist doing classifieds in particular.

The sale of the Los Angeles Times and the Tribune company will be a watershed. Some smart people will chart a course for the direction of newspapers. Then we will see real change.

Newspaper informaton is still superior for a variety of reasons. Internet information is far from a primary source in most cases. And I really don't understand the gravitational pull of blogs. Most times, it's just a bunch of self-appointed expert schmecksperts blathering or discussing personal issues sotto voce.

You can have it. I wanted articles written by educated journalists whose facts are vetted.

The New York Times had an interesting piece last week about Wikipedia being used in legal filings and court opinions. Surprising. I like wiki for more or less trivial questions and background information, and it's a wonderful thing. But it is hardly a rock solid journal.