Finding a solution to the evolving landscape of journalistic media isn’t easy, as Blodget points out. That said, it’s not difficult to take a first step, which is what this examination seems to offer. I particularly found the comment under the “Cut Cost 40% by 2010” header interesting not necessarily for it's content, but for it's tone. Change MUST be made.
If journalism leaders continue denying there is a problem or remain stale in their solutions, then what? How would the scope of journalism economics change if no change was made at all?
From an economic standpoint, the initial supply-demand theories are correct in Blodget's argument, but the numbers used are fast and loose. Is there a stronger way to locate and implement these numbers?
Elsewhere, there seems to be an ocean of “experts” offering non-economic based solutions for saving journalism as well. A Google search for “Saving Journalism” brought up more than 2.45 million hits. A quick skim shows little economic foundation in these suggestions, making Blodget's argument a stronger start.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment