19th July 2011, 1:40 AM
It's "messed it up", I guess, but it can ALL be done online. Every last one of those things you listed gaming magazines doing? That can, and IS, done online, right now! There are letter columns, commentary, "articles" (that's very generic, ALL of that is articles), "reveals" (you just said that reveals are done online, why are you claiming this is exclusive to magazines in the next paragraph?), and so on. Yes, I did used to read gaming magazines. I read PC Magazine too. There's nothing there that isn't also done online, and nothing there that isn't done just as well online.
It's a fact that a lot of online news sources are just regurgitators. That's also true of the printed newspaper business. 90% of everything is karp. So? As long as the ones that aren't garbage can stand out from the crowd as more reliable, less tabloid like, then they will do well. Investigative journalism can still happen. Funding can be difficult, but there are ways, and saying "I ideologically believe that I should sign up for it, but I'm too cheap to pay" isn't really saying much more than an admission of a lack of integrity. Do what you believe, or don't. If you can't afford it, that's fine, but say that. Don't try to say you being cheap is some big example of the problem when fixing that is perfectly within your power.
I'm sure the printing press destroyed the jobs of countless scribes, but people moved on and adapted. People want news. If the source dries up, they'll pay. If too many people are stealing news from others instead of contributing, it's the same as drying up. More to the point, there will always be people willing to do a deep investigation perfectly free of charge, as wikileaks can attest to. It'll be fine. This is a self-defeating prophecy, because people WANT to get information and society at large will step up to fix it one way or another, just like Y2K.
It's a fact that a lot of online news sources are just regurgitators. That's also true of the printed newspaper business. 90% of everything is karp. So? As long as the ones that aren't garbage can stand out from the crowd as more reliable, less tabloid like, then they will do well. Investigative journalism can still happen. Funding can be difficult, but there are ways, and saying "I ideologically believe that I should sign up for it, but I'm too cheap to pay" isn't really saying much more than an admission of a lack of integrity. Do what you believe, or don't. If you can't afford it, that's fine, but say that. Don't try to say you being cheap is some big example of the problem when fixing that is perfectly within your power.
I'm sure the printing press destroyed the jobs of countless scribes, but people moved on and adapted. People want news. If the source dries up, they'll pay. If too many people are stealing news from others instead of contributing, it's the same as drying up. More to the point, there will always be people willing to do a deep investigation perfectly free of charge, as wikileaks can attest to. It'll be fine. This is a self-defeating prophecy, because people WANT to get information and society at large will step up to fix it one way or another, just like Y2K.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)