I believe that publishing online in conjunction with publishing in the real world should be done to complement each other.

Thanks for your comments. I know that if we lived close to each other we would meet regularly for coffee and have a great time discussing some of these issues. And I'm really glad we're able to talk here and not in a combative way. So thank you!

I do agree with you that the web is an incredible platform. It's dynamic and there are a myriad of ways to create income by using it.

I like to think of the web as one more prong in the fork of content distribution. Multi-media projects like the ones you mentioned are certainly viable.

But, the real value in something like that happens in conjunction with a printed product, a physical product.

I believe that publishing online in conjunction with publishing in the real world provides the most impant. And they should be done to complement each other.

So, if you have a limited news hole, you might run a brief feature piece with a tag inviting people to visit a web site to see more.

I do that all of the time in my print advertisements for wedding photography. It's typically the path that new customers find me. (I like to think of the web as a terrible way to start your search, but a great way to find the answers.)

And newspapers, magazines and commercial businesses are doing this too.

The trick is how to entice a viewer to see more. That's what I mean by real money. If you can move content on both platforms you're much more successful in attracting an interested audience and advertisers interest in both platforms.

But further, the fact that not everyone uses the web and (I might try and argue;) more people still see a newspaper, magazine, poster or billboard means that the hook of any campaign, mulit-media project or news story still remains in the real world. That may be changing, but I still think it's the right approach.

Ok, so back to this business about newspapers dying. I've written about this before.

http://rising.blackstar.com/are-newspapers-dinosaurs-only-if-they-refuse-to-change.html

And I still think it's true. They aren't dying. They are changing and they will continue to change as content distribution and advertising revenue changes. There will still be newspapers and they will be distributed, but perhaps not at the same size or breadth that they are today. The content and content creators will change as well and the newspaper (I think) will become a platform that works in conjunction with content online.

Thanks again for making this a great topic for discussion! It's wandered a bit, but I think in the right direction.

A few different points of view from Iraq.

http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/iraq/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jan/07/iraqandthemedia.digitalmedia?gusrc=rss&feed=media

A political report:

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/06/59086

From the online journalism review:

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/060615niles/

And the infamous Greg Palast:

http://www.gregpalast.com/

My sister is a features editor at a prominent wire service. I think she's going to take the plunge as a professional journalist who publishes via a blog.

I think the craft part is important. And journalists will continue to hone their craft in a new medium with infinite possibilities. (Read no news hole)

Do I think newspapers will disappear. Obviously not. And many will find a way to be very profitable! The paper could be (and increasingly is) seen as the lead.

Thanks very much for reading and contributing your thoughts!

I think it's important to separate information (which is often easily had) from actual reporting and investigation, which *uses* information to shed light on an issue. They're very different. Journalism has not found a way to make money from its craft and its content IS going away, not to be replaced anytime soon.

Remember, few stories that are truly important are readily accessible to the public because there's so much interest in keeping them secret. Such as a corrupt government agency or violation of the rights of the underprivileged.

Do you think recreational blogs and social networks are going to uncover these stories? If so that's incredibly optimistic.

Neaderthals I accept. =) But not for the business, for the country. I think we'll adapt after corruption gets bad enough that we appreciate journalism again. And I'm not a doom and gloom guy normally! I just think most people have taken for granted how much of what they consume comes from a dying creature.

'I hereby inaugurate my New York Times Deathwatch, which will continue until the last Sulzberger has left the building.'

Here's the url with great data on... you guessed it the death knell of the 20th century newspaper.

http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/02/inaugurating-th.html

Where do you get your information and what do you read these days?

I can tell you categorically, that everything I need to know about any interest and any 'community' that I'm interested in is online. And nearly everything is reported to me by other people passionate about the same interests as I have.

Seriously, papers will take this route too. And so will professional journalists. They will (and many already have) construct their own frames and distribute (for pay) their stories. Call it a new kind of syndication. But it's syndication nonetheless.

Are we really losing out? Not in the least.

In fact, the sources and breadth of information and reporting that is distributed online via thousands and millions of blogs is more extensive, more robust and more complete than any team of investigative reporters in any paper in the country.

And the dinosaur thing? That was meant to be a metaphor. I picked the wrong one. How about go the way of Neanderthal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#The_fate_of_the_Neanderthals

Those kinds of journalism actually require money - as in salaries. Unfortunately I think it will take significant corruption and suffering on the part of the public to rebuild the business infrastructure needed to support real reporting. And it will happen long after all the skilled journalists have found other careers.

The dinosaurs didn't die because they didn't evolve. A meteor hit the planet... and they just died.