It will be interesting how it all plays out.

I am not as concerned as others. I think most people get their news from the electronic media in any case. I would be much more worried if the ABC vanished.

As for myself, I hardly ever read hardcopy Australian newspapers. I mostly listen to radio, watch current affairs, read OLO, and surf the net through google by typing certain subject topics alerted to me by radio (including Aust online newspaper sources).

I think if people want to be informed, they still will be. The others, i suspect, will stil rely on the electronic media.

The smh with a "soft left ideology". Well, I suppose it depends on where one starts in the ideological spectrum. In recent years the smh has supported the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently it is content to repeat the neocon argument about Iran,s supposed nuclear weapons program. I cannot recall the last time if ever there was an honest appraisal of the threat Israel poses to peace. It provides editorial opinion space to a range of right wing view points, eg Gerard henderson, but no comparable space to any columnist who could be even vaguely described as "soft left".

A although olo is not perfect it does provide a wider range of views, particularly in its comments sections. I suggest it is that function, as with cricket, new Matilda et al that is a major reason people are deserting the so-called mainstream in droves.

I believe what is occurring around the world to the print media is probably a good thing.
There was a time when we had a veritable plethora of print media. This was the time when editors had complete autonomy, and or Journalists focused simply on reporting the news, rather than highly partisan opinion?
The sheer weight of competition for readership compelled that very outcome and limited the plaguerism; given that would be quickly exposed by eagle eyed Journalists, who as a group, would be arguably incensed by this sort of, piggy back, lazy journalism!
The one hundredth year centenary commemorative issue of the London times, reportedly cost the lives of 50,000 trees?
The print media needs to go completely electronic if it would survive; ditto the planet's forests!
And it would need to compete with sites just like this one, for the rivers of gold that classified ads used to produce, and the very readership that produced that very outcome.
In fact, that single source of income, made it possible to sell every edition, for a lot less than it cost to produce.
Some of the very small and still very successful urban papers, supply their papers entirely free!
The very best outcome of the print media being compelled to go electronic, is the diffusion of ownership, editorial opinion, and the need to once again, have a very real competition for readership, ideas, and or, potential customers for the advertisers, that pay for the site?
[Hopefully, occasionally?]
Most of the people I know, even pensioners, would pay 50 cents a day for a quality electronic product, particularly one that relies entirely on quality, [rather than tracking cookies,] to keep their loyal readership involved and interested!
The soft sell is still the only one that really works!
The appetite to visit a particular site, will quickly wane, if we the readers have to spend half a day disinfecting the PC after every visit!
Will never ever pay for or subscribe for that intended invasion of privacy.
Rhrosty.

As one of the potential losers in yesterday's announcement - I am not likely to be retrenched but will Fairfax last until I retire? - I cannot disagree with anything Graham has written. However, I will point out that the Alan Kohler Business Spectator/Eureka site he mentions - an all digital online site - is known to lose money. A few hundred thousand a year, as I understand it.

The trouble with going online is that consumers are just not willing to pay for content, any content, no matter who provides it - whether it is the soft-left journos who Graham quite rightly says still dominates the media, or anyone else. If consumers are asked they say they want quality content, but when asked what consitutes quality they will nominate topics like the environment and education, when there is already heaps of that stuff around and they are turning away from it. In fact, what they want is light entertainment, lifestyle stories and celebrity gossip, which they also won't pay for.

Although the technology has changed the way people consume news, consumer tastes have also shifted away from the hard news beloved of political writers. My colleagues will just have to adjust to that.

I guess people who think know that what is printed in the media or shown on television has little to do with either 'news' or 'the truth'.

What is presented is what the media barons and corporate crooks want people to think, to believe, and to buy. They media is mainly an instrument of indoctrination, one which, for most, eventually takes the place of parents and teachers.

Until humans break this cycle of indoctrination, they will be manipulated and used by the Oligarchs who runs most of the world through the 'media' and captive Governments!

David G

nope, all wrong.. go back and read Graham's article and a few of the posts. the problem is that the media reports news and consumers, by and large, no longer want news, or at least aren't going to pay for it.. One problem with Fairfax is that it sin't controlled by anyone, although Reinhart is messing around with it.. News Corp is, and it has broadly the same problems - albeit a bit less so because it doesn't have quite the same soft-left bias of Fairfax.

Part of the problem is that people moving away from thinking in the left-right terms that are still important to you, and that's part of the reason why political news no longer holds their attention like it use to..