You said it’s not too late and there’s still hope for the Herald.

But if they’re still having the bloggers v. journalists debate in 2010, it’s definitely too late.

If, instead of buying up other newspapers after de-reg in 1996, there was diversification in media via merging/aquiring print and broadcast, these information outlets would be able to compete in the convergent scenario we are beginning to operate under. Papers bought other papers, adn broadcast mostly bought broadcast. Howz that workin’ out for ya?

Instead, we have newspaper people limiting online content to try and push people to their print products…and some are looking at micropayment models.

It’s a monkey-see, monkey-do industry where innovators that don’t bow and kiss the press’ footings get marginalized/launched.

Daily papers are dead….old info as soon as the plate is made. But there is still room for weekly publications, and money to be made.

Great post. Love it.

This whole thing turns out to be almost comical. I always find it interesting when someone tries to sound strong from a position of weakness.

Rather than fight reality good newspapers would be smart to learn how to incorporate new mediums effectively rather than just poo-poo them.

As for sources and newspapers? Why should I trust something in a printed word that has no bibliography or reference other than a columnists “say so” over anything else. Does anyone remember the scams run by reporters at such BIG time papers like the New York Times

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/may/12/pressandpublishing.usnews

(link for reference )

Great job of taking a stance. One of the main troubles with the newspaper industry is that for years they were a one way channel which just put out content with no balance. It was pushed out to the reader and the reader was told to just believe it. That’s bunk. Times have changed and those in the newspaper industry who do not adjust will do what the free-market intends: shrivel up and fade away.

Great job!