What would a newspaper look like if it were invented today?
smokingapples.com
smokingapples.com
The reason I read a physical paper or watch the news on TV is because unlike most digital formats, I end up getting introduced to issues that aren't normally on my radar. This is the I have problem with much of the digital news where I would just click on what interests me.
With a regular newspaper, multiple articles sharing a single page, and the effort of changing a page (let's face it, it isn't like flipping through a magazine) there is enough resistance that I find myself spending a few extra seconds at least scanning the first few lines of every article on the page and sometimes I get sucked in and end up learning some amazing things.
For me, this is one thing that digital just can't do. Clicking and swiping is just too easy and too fast.
The periodical arose because of printing costs and distribution time. You need to run the presses all night to print a morning edition, so at most there's going to be one issue per day.
If the newspaper were reinvented today it wouldn't have those constraints. It certainly wouldn't be a once-daily edition.
However, I do think there are merits of the edited "digest" format inherent to a print release cycle. My RSS reader is a great example of the shortcomings of a continuous release cycle. It's a fire hose of information because there is no editorial intermediary. Social aggregator sites like Hacker News, Reddit, and once upon a time, Digg, provide a distributed method of determining the value of content, but I find they lack consistently. The dynamic of the community changes over time. Just look at what happened to Digg. Look at the changes and cycles that Reddit and Hacker News go through.
As I drown in the stream from the fire hose on a daily basis, I am increasingly willing to pay for the benefits of browsing a curated view of the news. A skilled editor acts as a filter and adds value by providing commentary. They represent a layer that is missing in todays internet. We are all our own editors. Consider how inefficient that is.
Think of websites that consist mainly of links to other news/content. Jason Kottke's blog is a great example. He doesn't focus on one particular topic, but most of the things he posts are interesting to people who are "in to" the internet. John Gruber is an example of a more focused approach. He covers Apple almost exclusively. His blog is a stream of links with short editorial content, punctuated by long, well thought-out opinion pieces. Not everyone agrees with him, but if you're an Apple fan, his site is a must-read.
Imagine building a team of Jason Kottkes and John Grubers, all focused on their specialty, along with an editorial hierarchy to consolidate and filter the information. What have you got? You've got a newspaper. The answer isn't more content, it's less.
I'm a 29 year old that still reads the paper ever morning. If I could get my local paper on my iPad in this format, I'd be quite happy.. especially with the ability to feed back to the writers -- I thought that was particularly cool.
I read the newspaper because it isn't google reader -- there is an editor filtering the crap for me. I can't help but feel that if local newspapers use this technology there will be too many internet memes slipping in. Sometimes, less is more.