This column by Michael Kinsley on the future of newspapers is more thoughtful than most because it doesn't dwell overly on the "paper" issue, which most commentaries do, missing the point. Kinsley just assumes the paper product will be gone and asks, "What next?"
The "me to you" model of news gathering--a professional reporter, attuned to the fine distinctions between "off the record" and "deep background," prizing factual accuracy in the narrowest sense--may well give way to some kind of "us to us" communitarian arrangement of the sort that thrives on the Internet. But there is room between the New York Times and myleftarmpit.com for new forms that liberate journalism from its encrusted conceits while preserving its standards, like accuracy.
The main problem with newspapers is not that our news isn't fresh. We've haven't had the "latest news" in a long time -- radio could beat us and TV beat us long before the Internet came along. The main problems are that there are so many choices now that advertisers have a hard trouble deciding where and how to sell their goods. At the same time, they are less interested now in seeking a "mass market" approach and want to target their ads to niches. What we're dealing with is that the whole model -- news piggybacked on advertising -- is breaking down.
