The world's great contextual magazine applies that technique to the quandary of the newspaper in its latest edition. It looks at the major technology that disrupted the newspaper more than 150 years ago, the telegraph.
The magazine examines how the arrival prompted fears of diminution, activity of change, and expectations of loss. It didn't work out that way. Newspapers didn't get contextual, because they were still the mass distribution vehicle. They still reported the latest information because the telegraph couldn't reach the large audience it could.
With the Internet, the Economist is brief but tries to draw a parallel: Until people have access to the news easily, the new technology won't gobble the old one. The demand for news will continue, perhaps even grow, as new technology enable access.
While the magazine is wrong about how no one has figured out how to make money in this environment, it does stress the point that any loss of medium is not the same as the loss of journalism.
The magazine examines how the arrival prompted fears of diminution, activity of change, and expectations of loss. It didn't work out that way. Newspapers didn't get contextual, because they were still the mass distribution vehicle. They still reported the latest information because the telegraph couldn't reach the large audience it could.
With the Internet, the Economist is brief but tries to draw a parallel: Until people have access to the news easily, the new technology won't gobble the old one. The demand for news will continue, perhaps even grow, as new technology enable access.
While the magazine is wrong about how no one has figured out how to make money in this environment, it does stress the point that any loss of medium is not the same as the loss of journalism.
