But how will those reporters make money on their blogs? Who will pay them to do their work? Good reporting costs money and takes resources. Eli: Would you consider going totally to a blog?
Also: Never discount the power of big corporations to co-opt new forms of media.

Doesn't paragraph 2 answer the questions you raise in paragraph 1?

Right you are, James.

And Prospero: I like where I am right now, getting to blog AND write for a printed edition.

But when newsy blogs start being able to pay reporters good salaries, I think it's going to become an attractive thing for a lot of journalists.

Well, if big corporations are paying reporters then ... what has changed? Eli seems to be positing a scenario where reporters would become independent, reporting on their own blogs. But I'm wondering how they'll afford to do that.
Many reporters/many blogs also seems inefficient for readers. They'll have to search out and find blogs for the many topics they might be interested in. I suspect they will find it easier to visit sites operated by more traditional newsrooms which offer a range of coverage on a variety of topics.

Who will provide the salaries for those newsy blogs? Who will sell the advertising? Or solicit subscriptions? Will readers want to make small payments to dozens of blogs or make one larger payment to a single source?

Good points, Prospero.

Eli and His Brethren: If I'm a print advertiser (especially one with the means to purchase a full page or more), why would I want to pay the same for an online ad that's roughly 1/15th the size of what I'm placing in your print edition?

All the questions about how the business end of things will work are valid. But just because there is currently so much uncertainty doesn't mean that change isn't good. New business models will emerge. Embrace change (especially when it is inevitable) and figure out how to make it work. Crying about the "good old days" or wasting time fretting about all the things you don't know will get you nowhere except left behind. As consumers of news, we should stay focused on how this radical upheaval in the way news and information is gathered and disseminated can be of greatest benefit to us.

A question/response to Horatiosanzserif: If the online ad is 1/15th the size of what's available in a print edition, yet more people see it online and respond to it, would you find that beneficial? Isn't your concern over response to your ad, not necessarily how it's delivered to potential customers?

HORATIOSANZSERIF Worte:
"....why would I want to pay the same for an online ad that's roughly 1/15th the size of what I'm placing in your print edition?"

Circulation and Demographics, my son.
Size really isn't necessarily important here.....

---Jensen

Jensen, my dad:

I'd read up on this topic if I were you. While you're at it, I'd also try selling the concept of "page hits" to the still-massive flock of old-school-educated ad reps out there.

As long as we're on the topic of circulation, I'd also check the demographic age-spread of the major newspapers' subscribers and compare them to what we know about Web users.

And hey, if you can find me an paid-staff online-only pub that can pull a profit, type that crap in ALL-CAPS ASAP, honey bunches.

I do hope that day comes before I have to sit through a three-minute Cingular Webmercial just to access the Slog.

Right now, online news doesn't make money. Not much, anyway. But the potential is great and it will happen. Much of the stuff we get for free we're going to pay for some day, some how (more ads, subscription fees, whatever).

Yes, bloggers will do some great journalism but the heavy lifting (reporting from Iraq, writing about race in America as the New York Times did so memorable a couple of years ago) will require bigger resources than a blogger can muster. I, for one, don't want to lose that kind of reporting. I hope we don't lose it.

What will happen when the disgruntled focus of a story threatens to sue or does sue? Newspapers (and their web sites) have lawyers to prevent that sort of thing or fight it when it happens. A lone blogger probably wouldn't have access to that kind of help. The threat of a suit might be enough to silence her or him.

I think there's room on the future playing field for both big newsrooms and small bloggers. People have been writing the obit for newspapers since radio was invented. It hasn't happened yet.

Framing this discussion based on what we currently know is missing the point (pitting newspapers against blogs). News on paper (newspapers) may not exist in the future. Blogs likely won't long exist in their current form.

Large news-gathering (or infotainment) organizations will always exist. The debate here is in what form. The secondary debate is about what will challenge them in terms of providing news and information to the masses. We're at the beginning of an era when everyone will be able to contribute to news gathering. It's difficult to see that now, and to understand the consequences.

HORATIOSANZSERIF Wrote:
"I do hope that day comes before I have to sit through a three-minute Cingular Webmercial just to access the Slog."

It is already being developed, son. You just don't really know about it quite yet.

Patience,curiosity and study. You must become a salesman(-person?). Buying something is the easiest thing a person (or company)can do. Just
remember everyone is trying to sell you
something. When they are not, they are telling you that they love and respect you.

Good Luck.

---Jensen

Well shoot, if Sharkansky and Merdoch agree on something it must be true. If the future of journalism is plugging the same crap into a spread sheet and constantly getting different results and then obsessing about it for going on two years, count me out.

Nice site