[FC-discuss] Brill's "secret" plan to save the New York Times

[Karen Rustad]

Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
>
> I think his assumptions are flawed.  He assumes that traditional media
> is higher quality journalism than good blogging, that it must be more
> expensive than good blogging, and that people would want to read it over
> good blogging.
>
>   
The thing about the newspaper versus blog debates that has never ceased 
to befuddle me: Newspaper proponents argue that papers support 
international correspondents, in-depth investigation, and a high level 
of fact-checking which (most) blogs do not have the resources to 
support. Yet, in hard times, what always gets the axe? International 
correspondents, in-depth investigation projects, quality control--all 
the things that are supposed to make newspapers unique! I actually had 
the chance to ask the head editor of the NYT this and all he could say 
was, "I should have you ask my boss that..."

If they're gonna get rid of everything that makes newspapers worth 
reading...why read them?

-- Karen