Sure, but broadband penetration in the U.S. is in the low 60’s. So 40 million homes denied access to a local newspaper is a good idea why?

- Are the 40 million homes who don’t have Internet access shelling out money for a newspaper?

Sure, but broadband penetration in the U.S. is in the low 60’s. So 40 million homes denied access to a local newspaper is a good idea why?

This feeds directly back into what I was saying about how while a new mass populace alternative to newspapers has emerged and will continue to form, newspapers will survive because of the niches they serve. Even if you do get the ‘net at your shack in the boonies, chances are no one from your small remote area is blogging or putting together a forum or any of that. It’s for that reason we continue to see the community newspapers thrive despite “competition” from the big boys and lowering ad revenues. People understand that if you live in Lake Stevens, and you want the best local news available, you pick up the Journal, not the Times or PI. Same thing in Gig Harbor; you’d go Gateway over the Trib; etc etc. The same could be said from coast to the Wa-ID border and everything in between.
So while we do have more information and more avenues to explore, in small community cases, the local paper continues, and will continue, to be one of the top sources of news and information.

Just because people do not use newspapers to get their news does not mean we are living in a “sad age”. We now live in an age where there is about 100xs more access to information then we’ve had in the past.

Sure, but broadband penetration in the U.S. is in the low 60′s. So 40 million homes denied access to a local newspaper is a good idea why?

We are living in a very sad and increasingly iliterate age. Newspapers, even twenty years ago, were an important and vital community sounding board.

- Just because people do not use newspapers to get their news does not mean we are living in a “sad age”. We now live in an age where there is about 100xs more access toinformation then we’ve had in the past.

I would argue that your point is completely opposite of the fact. We live in an age where if you have an opinion and you search hard enough you can find other peoples who share your opinion (no mater how valid the opinion is). This causes everyone to back into their own corners and not allow for any sort of compromise.

Hopefully the PI will figure out how to become an online newspaper. I know that from a content standpoint I read the Times and PI more then ever due to their constantly updating blogs.

Also, as a conservative, I’ve grown tired of the relentless liberal slant of newspapers like the PI and would rather pick and choose sites where I’ll get fairer and more balanced news. Frankly, I won’t miss either the PI or the Times if they both go under. I think that the death of major newspapers will create the opportunity for more diversity, not less.

However, with blogs like USSM, and sites like Fangraphs and ESPN, and MLB, there is more information out there for baseball fans than there has ever been before. Ten years ago it didn’t really matter if there were ten dailies covering the M’s, we still didn’t have the data like Pitch f/x, wOBA, FIP, BABIP available to us as fans, at our fingertips, while we are watching the games, all of the games on HD.

And the fact that you can read the Times or the PI for an entire season and not see a reference to wOBA, shows why they won’t be missed very much in terms of giving people insight into player and team performance. I don’t think I’m going to miss the breathless stories about locker room intrique either. What will be missed of course is the original reporting from sources that just aren’t available to anyone else but credentialed reporters.

I’ll have to have a long chat with Mr. Sullivan.

No one told you that you were paid per article?