There’s no shortage of opinion today on the meta-analysis of the collapse of the newspaper business today in the wake of the leaked news of Hearst’s impending e-reader and the demise of the Rocky Mountain News.
I always feel as if I’m re-iterating what everyone else is thinking when I write on the topic as I did today at SiliconANGLE. I’ve been preaching a lot of the same lines, concepts and theories on New Media, particularly in relationship to Old Media, for so long that I could probably teach a college course in the material.
I guess I rather figured that my thoughts on the matter had become a commonly accepted fact given that the opposing theories have all been proven incorrect by free market practice.
Just to give you an idea of what I’m talking about, just peruse through some of these dissenting opinions:
- Newspaper Industry pummeled while Google swipes its lunch money – Tish Grier, a social media strategists, thinks that Google News is not simply competing with and beating newspapers, but stealing from them.
- Did the blogosphere kill newspapers? – Dan Tynman: “If daily newspapers disappeared tomorrow, 100 million bloggers would wake up and have nothing to say. Even the news aggregators would be in deep kimshee.”
- Cablevision intends to erect a paywall to save the online publication Newsday.
- And in other related incorrect analysis, Business Insider says that eInk is outside the core competency of the company, and should just be content to die.
Do I need to lead a campaign to properly explain this stuff? I thought Jeff Jarvis and his crowd were doing a good job with this, but maybe he’s not yelling loudly enough.