But many readers and advertisers simply aren’t ready to make the switch. If we were to drop our print publication and go Internet-only, we’d likely lose at least one-third of our audience. That might be only a short-term problem (many might find us online if that was the only way to read the paper) but it’s a serious one on the revenue side.

Any suggestions for how to speed up readers’ desires for Internet-only publications?

While the LA Times’ news sections seem to be changing, the features section remains the same…very review-heavy and not a lot of fun, with a few old fogey first person columnists, and often terribly written first-person pieces on Thursdays. On a positive note, John Carroll did have the good sense to hire auto writer Dan Neil.

They have this blog, Postcards From Paris, by this LAT lady they let move to Paris — their travel writer Susan Spano — that’s about the most tiresome, unfun blog you could possibly read; occasionally accompanied by blurry photos of nothing in particular. Contrast her paid blogging with the unpaid Paris group blog created by Laurie Pike — TheParisBlog.com.

Finally, the LAT runs the usual “safe” advice columns, probably because their greatest concern is not creating engaged readers, but keeping little old ladies from writing angry letters…well, and maintaining seventh grade grudges against certain writers. My advice column, which often challenges conventional wisdom with reason and data, runs in papers across the country and actually beat Kinsley’s op-eds out for first place for “signed commentary” in the last LA Press Club awards. Of course, it’s banned from the LAT’s features section! (I’m not kidding: a features sub-editor actually wrote me a letter a few years back that said, best I can remember: “Never send us anything again. We’re content with the writers we have. We’re not seeking new writers.”) Meanwhile, I get between 8,000 and 10,000 visitors a day on my blog; many of them from LA; many of whom ask regularly why they can’t read me in the paper. Guess I’m just not boring enough to make it in some dailies!

Magazines have become saturated with advertising. And their stories sometimes suffer, but can contain good writing on interesting topics. But many magazines are eye candy with little substance.

And newspapers? They have cartoons in them on Sunday. And lots of coupons for things I’ll never need, like replacement windows and free label-makers and junk-collectible “americana”……. and their news is just as disposable.

I do think that the more “formal” papers (Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.) will survive long after the local papers have dried up and blown away. I still read USA Today online, for the headlines - but mostly because they have more pictures than most other sites. The AP wire by itself is a little dry for most readers.

I find it beyond laughable — this propaganda by Hewitt and friends — that conservative bloggers are the apex of truth-telling. And I’m not a liberal, but socially libertarian and real fiscal conservative (for example, I don’t think the government should fund schooling for the middle class and above [only for the poor] nor should tax dollars pay for NPR).

There are plenty of lies and distortions all around. Left and right. The difference is, the right wing seems smarter and more organized about spreading them.

This is so disingenuous. The dead-tree press manipulated policy and elections for decades, permitting the chance of a Republican only after even liberal noses couldn’t stand a Johnson, Carter, or Clinton. Now that the leftist press is losing its grip on the electorate’s throat, they’re panicking, and you know it, Mr. Jarvis. Yes, “the internet’s big enough for everyone”, and that’s a problem for those who have come to believe the electorate can’t be trusted to goosestep to the left-of-center march.

Just as an example, a women’s website I working with was blocked in Iran. We changed the domain two times and its new domain is not filtered yet. But we lost more than half of our readers. However, the writers of the site sometimes can publish their articles in newspapers that have national circulation. By these examples I do not mean to prioritize the print media over the online media. I personally believe that online media has had a big effect on Iran’s women’s movement for example. I just think online media has still a way to go to have the effect of print media in some parts of the world that have access issue.

How many of those places have unfiltered off-line newspapers?

Or is censored off-line news better than censored on-line news?

The economics of old media was based upon selling waste (unintended audience) at the same price as the targeted, intended audience. In most cases the waste was several times larger than the prize. The web has spoiled that formula and old media will never be the same.

Newspapers are the last vestige of manufacturing in a modern media world. The knowledge workers will make the shift, but the laborers tethered to the manufacturing model won’t, unless they change careers altogether. It’s sad to see the hardship on them and their families. It is what we have accepted as the inevitability of technological progress.

It’s not that everyone who wishes this wasn’t happening is a knowledge worker in a state of denial. There are others, probably more numerous, who are behind the economic eight ball. To them we can extend a nod of compassion as the newspaper industry begins its descent.

I happen to be a knowledge worker and feel the pain too, but at least have some hope of making through to the other side. I actually feel a great deal of excitement that this disruption has created so many wonderful opportunities for improvement of media and those whom it would serve.

True, but that presupposes that Hewitt is a person who is intellectually honest and interested in the state of the media generally, and not that he a worthless GOP hack (note, I don’t use the word “conservative”, because Hewitt is more interested in party than principle) who is more interested in logrolling for his friends than he is in actually providing a discussion about the diversity of ideas out in the blogosphere.

Not only is the news stale, but they now have their contributors posting online. So why wait a week to read an opinion piece when the same author has posted something newer online?

The small opinion mags all complain about the cost of paper and postage and the small amount of advertising revenue they get. Going online only (even as a paid site) would cut their costs dramatically.

The Nation now has web-only essays, print-only essays, some with overlap, and now blogging. I understand they are experimenting, but perhaps they are just unwilling to follow the trend to its logical conclusion…

My local weekly paper (The Kingstree News) is routinely two weeks behind on the news. No local sports coverage (HS, JHS, little league). I do not get the information I need like what happened at last nights County Council meeting or the town zoning board meeting. They give me fluff, not why the the town rec commission turned down money to build 2 tennis courts so they could build more baseball fields.

Newspapers need to start thinking as news organizations just like the railroads began think as transportation companies or the will be supplanted by many small news organizations delivering their own content via the web.