Finally, a pair of "death of newspapers" columns that acknowledge reality, a prerequisite for directing thought to what's next. They are noteworthy because so much of the genre has been devoted to figuring out new ways to keep doing the same thing (while the rest has gone to over-hyping unproven replacements). From Clay Shirky:
Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving
newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will
work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work.
There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the
internet just broke.
Similarly, Michael Kinsley writes:
We're in a transition, destination uncertain. Arianna Huffington may
wake up some morning to find The Washington Post gone forever and the
nakedness of her ripoff exposed to the world. Or she may be producing
all her own news long before then. Who knows?
Neither touts a single medium or activity as replacing newspaper journalism, but rather a number of overlapping special cases, some of which will become part of the landscape. It's not the newspapers that society will seek to replace, however, it's the journalism. As Kinsley puts it:
If General Motors goes under, there will still be cars. And if the New York Times disappears, there will still be news.