While I agree that subscriptions and off-the-shelf sales of print news are going to diminish over time, probably rapidly as we draw closer to 2009/2010, I’m not sure I agree that newsrooms will suffer for this. Sure, certain companies that produce print news are going to need to embrace the web to ensure the continuity of their businesses. However, start-ups and old-hats alike ARE embracing new and varied ways of delivering their content to people, and are doing so in the way that gives people options on how they consume that content. More-and-more I see social news sites and blogs popping up, but more-and-more the content on those sites is the same no matter which site you go to. Additionally, as more sites pop up the percentage or ratio of trusted sites decreases.

The content on these social websites, blogs, and podcasts, still comes from a traditional source, be it AP, Reuters, the town radio station website, or the journalist in the field. However we now have the great addition of Joe Blogs (no pun intended) being able to take some photos of a gas leak in Lambton Quay and upload it to his blog before any newsroom or journalist even knows about it. The aggregation and social aspect of news 2.0 (to coin a phrase) only survives because the traditional newsroom environment survives. You could call it a symbiosis if you like.

There are blogs, podcasts, forums, Usenet, etc….and they provide a great way to complement, or supplement, the traditional sources of news. However without those newsrooms, stressed out journalists, cranky editors, I think there would be a lot less trusted and reliable information reaching you to help you embrace your passion.

But please feel free to email me an edit (samuelfarrow@gmail.com)

I have a few ideas on the add value to encourage people like you to pay for news content but think Jason is wrong and believe the internet is an unprecedented paradigm shift for the news media and am not convinced the news industry can survive the change. Printing presses and radio and television frequency licenses have been exploited by media companies, particularly in NZ, as single point of control monopolies to monetise mass audiences.

The internet sidesteps this single point of control, and as the mass audiences dissipates to the fracturing channels of information - advertiser dollars will shift to smarter demographic targeting and expensive news gathering operations become a dinosaur of an age of ignorance.

This risk to revenue is what I fear, and the end to the exciting and action packed environment of a newsroom.

I am going to pick up on some of these ideas soon; but the bottom line is that thinking about these kind of issues is my day job - and I would welcome any ideas you have as a comment, an email or indeed face to face.

Picking up on Jason’s point, the news industry has always gone through changes (the advent of printing press, radio, television) and I’m certain it will adapt to the information/internet age. It is full of opportunities and it’s about what makes it different from rest. Maybe less ‘reporting’ (regurgitating) and more investigating.

Why pay for a paper when I can view online content for free (and it is exactly the same as in the print edition). But I would quite happily pay for higher quality content that is more indepth and targeted to my information needs.

Jason thanks for commenting: You are so right about news being the most social of commodities, it is interesting to think about it like that; but my feeling is, it isn’t going to be enough to sit back and watch. We, as a business (and I include you in this industry too); need to get the basics right; and the first step there is start to agree the things that are wrong. The sad truth of it is that there are only a handful of media companies who actually understand the business model; for the rest of them it is about protecting revenue generated from killing trees, or powering broadcast antennas.