In this new, digital world, we’re beginning to move beyond this. Record companies have been pushing for more tiers of pricing on iTunes. Some television shows are free on Hulu. Some only show on premium cable and DVD. Once you eliminate the physical product, distinctions between perceived quality are able to be made.

It’s no longer about supply, demand, and the price of paper. It’s about quality and creativity.

Anyway. This article is worth reading.

While many locals have failed in their mission, the New York Times continues (in my mind) to stand out for its quality journalism and editorial content. I know many of the counter arguments involve the wide availability of publishing, multiple sources, etc. However, my concern is that without third-party editorial staffs and investments in journalism in faraway places you lose important stories that deserve to see the light of day. Otherwise, I foresee a vacuum where we have citizen journalism on one side and tabloid/television news on the other.

I’m closely watching the Times and it’s consideration of plans for charging for online content. I hope they’re able to develop a plan that will allow the paper to be profitable and continue to publish. We should not be celebrating the death of newspapers as a medium, but instead cheering them to meet the challenges of the future.

At this point, most of this interaction is formatted through blog response comments, which is great, but doesn’t really stretch that far beyond what newspapers are already doing in the online realm.  And as you find on newspaper websites, many comments are so biased, opinionated, or even venemous, that it really brings you down to read through them looking for additional perspective and insight.

There are some fresh and forward-thinking thoughts from readers, though.  In response to the article, “Imagining A City Without its Daily Newspaper,” reader Bill Grady comments, “Let’s keep our news organizations, but in a digital form that saves on our natural resources. Credit card companies and financial institutions are all urging their customers to go “paperless”, so why can’t the newspapers be financially viable by doing the same thing? Surely the minds of the industry can find a way to make money without the final product being on the printed page.”

Print newspapers are dying, in part because they have failed to adapt.  Information from the Pew Research Center identifies a tipping point in print versus online readership in 2008.  I certainly get my news online now, and though I have friends losing jobs in the newspaper industry and I recognize the local and civic impact, I couldn’t imagine paying for most of what I read out there.  I’ll admit my cynicism, but when I have such a hard time finding good writing and  I have to do so much work to read between the lines to inform myself, I lose respect for the writers, editors, publishers, organizations, and channels (online or print) and advertisers that presented the reporting in such a disorganized and misdirected manner.

Lately I’ve been watching another site, The Printed Blog. Today the New York Times called it the Penny Saver for the internet. Essentially, the Printed Blog is attempting to refresh printed newspapers by producing local and customized content.  While an interesting experiment, with portable internet devices becoming more and more powerful and Wi-Fi spreading, one has to wonder if this is an idea with a limited shelf-life.

Personally, I’m still a fan of the printed word and I’m interested to see how it pans out.  In many ways this site seems to correct some of the mistakes in traditional news printing but also takes on the risks and flaws of the blogosphere.

Check out The Printed Blog, their blog, and their Twitter @theprintedblog.