3 thoughts on “The future of journalism: from 1981

  1. Great spot Adrian.

    Who would have thought it-Newspapers on your com­puter com­ing down the Tele­phone line.I bet there are still some con­nec­tions that take longer than a hour to down­load the morning’s news

  2. Adrian

    Your 1981 video, which I actu­ally listened to, accur­ately reflects what a lot of people were say­ing in 1981. We were mov­ing into a new age when news­pa­pers were going to be prin­ted out at home. No need to buy them any more. No need to wait for the news­pa­per boy to deliver them.

    But the import­ant point is that it has not happened. No-one I know prints their news­pa­per out online. Because, even now 27 years later it takes an age and is not easy to read!!!

    The people I talk to still read news­pa­pers. But they also read many news­pa­pers online. And the day before they read whatever news­pa­pers they buy.

    I know because in 1981 I was doing the job you are doing now. Run­ning City U journ­al­ism depart­ment and try­ing to pre­pare stu­dents for a work life in the new era. The then sol­it­ary vis­it­ing pro­fessor at City, Har­old Evans, then editor of the Lon­don Sunday Times, thought just like then just like your 1981 clip.

    He was wrong.

    The San Fran­cisco Exam­iner did not make a for­tune out if its futur­ism. Then, as now, it is a decent local news­pa­per, but it does not com­pete with the New York Times, the Wash­ing­ton Post and the Wall St Journal, who got into com­puters rather later, and still depend on selling their own print ver­sion to survive.

    How much longer they will be able to do that is an import­ant question.

    But the answers are not to be found by look­ing un-critically at what was being pro­posed in 1981.

    Cheers

    Bob Jones

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>