If the print product of most papers die and they retreat online (if they can make money that way, of course) and you have to subscribe to the New York Times or Washington Post in order to get a morning paper, that won't be the worst thing in the world in terms of content. It may even be an improvement for a lot of people in terms of national and world news analysis and arts coverage. But the connection to the local community will suffer, I would think.

If the print product of most papers die and they retreat online (if they can make money that way, of course) and you have to subscribe to the New York Times or Washington Post in order to get a morning paper, that won't be the worst thing in the world in terms of content. It may even be an improvement for a lot of people in terms of national and world news analysis and arts coverage. But the connection to the local community will suffer, I would think.

If the print product of most papers die and they retreat online (if they can make money that way, of course) and you have to subscribe to the New York Times or Washington Post in order to get a morning paper, that won't be the worst thing in the world in terms of content. It may even be an improvement for a lot of people in terms of national and world news analysis and arts coverage. But the connection to the local community will suffer, I would think.

Because newspapers have (or maybe I should say “had”) to not only report a story, they also have to do so in a thorough manner that goes beyond the headline (Just think of the pyramid structure most newspaper stories follow). TV and radio can't do what newspapers do because their news segments are formatted so news is mostly summarized (i.e., just the tip of the pyramid), but not analyzed. Newspaper reporters who are good at their craft do both in the space alloted, but TV and radio reporters, in their breathless rush to be the “first on the scene,” rarely have time to reflect on what it all means in a larger context.

I still get a paper copy of the SF Chronicle — even though, like the L.A. Times, are probably going to go under in a few years. I read a lot of news online, but there's something about having a physical copy to read that creates a different level of concentration. I don't have the same “deep reading” experience reading news online that I have when I'm reading a paper.

But it's probably because I'm old.

In every field, there are spoilers. There's no avoiding them. Castigating the whole of print journalism is as irresponsible as celebrating the entire political blogosphere. The integrity of individual outlets can't be so easily wrapped in ribbons and bows.

Clearly you haven't gotten around to my post where Garfield dies of a heart attack. Arterial disease is not a laughing matter and I'm more of a Bill & Opus man anyhow.