On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:02:36 -0600, mike tribby wrote:
>"The survey showed that newspapers continue to lead the Internet in nearly all categories for readers seeking local news and information on products being sold in their communities. But it also showed the progress made by alternate sources, with a large share of state residents preferring the Web for information on places to visit in the state and nearly as many using theThe issue for newspapers is money. It has been shown that the public wants their information more than ever, but they don't want to pay. Therefore, Rupert Murdoch keeps the paywall up, and the NY Times is expected to (re-)try the paywall at the beginning of next year.
It doesn't say that people don't use other sources of information, but it certainly doesn't sound the death knell for newspapers' usefulness frequently aired on this bandwidth either. I don't claim that it indicates the Internet and digital news sources in general are dead or doomed as a popular information source, though predictions of the imminent demise of paper and ink resources sometimes seem to be based on less factual evidence than this IMNSHO.
Who knows if people will pay for it? There has to be the idea in people's minds that if they have a choice of sites for free (which will always happen) and others that are for pay, the pay site had better be significantly better. There have been lots of problems with the accuracy of professional news coverage in the last several years (I won't go into that) so, at least I am skeptical.
Also, I think that more and more, people will be using tools such as Google News with mashup results: http://news.google.com/. With this type of option, I don't know how many will miss the NY Times, e.g. the following story from Google News with links to CNN, ABC, Reuters, plus 1,223 others.
No NY Times. Big deal.
My concern is how we will deal with this same situation when (not if) our library metadata is mashed up in the same way.