The "Ramen Noodle" theory is interesting, but I think it's lacking on a few points. I disagree that digital newspapers are inferior. There's simply an excess of supply. The staying power of print media may be due to generational forces. The demographic most able to afford print subscriptions is older and accustomed to ink. Their children, in turn, came of age watching their parents read the paper. Even though digital natives gather news online, they may gravitate towards print because of early childhood impressions.
That's changing. As millennials grow-up and have children, the new generations will watch their parents accessing digital media more often than print and form early preferences for digital media. I don't think this will spell the end for "Ramen Noodles," but will change it's comparisons from print vs. digital, to digital vs. digital. For example, quality news behind paywalls vs. free blogs.
I was born near the end of Gen-X. I watched my parents and grandparents read the paper, but I have never subscribed to a print edition myself. I have subscribed to digital editions, but occasionally purchase individual issues in print. My siblings, all born as millennials in the late 1990s, never read print editions and prefer online. It's a small sample, but forms the basis of why I think the "Ramen Theory" is lacking.
The online scanning article hit on an important observation. I see this behavior in myself. I do recall information learned years ago from printed works more readily than I remember what I glean from digital editions. I sometimes find extreme difficulty focusing while reading either, and often need to re-read passages immediately after completing them. Is this caused simply by the difference between page and screen? What else could cause it? Could it be a difference between sitting at a computer desk or more comfortably in a recliner with a book? Is it the portability of digital media? Maybe the small fonts used on smartphones cause more strain, or the necessity of sitting still with a large/heavy book versus walking with a tablet.
There are ways to make digital print more closely mimic ink-on-paper. Hyperlinks, pop-ups, auto-loading media, etc can be turned off in settings. The image itself can be manipulated like with Kindle's Paperwhite. Digital print distractions can be turned off and ignored, if there is a will to do so. The scanning article discussed having to "re-train" the brain to absorb convoluted text. That's the key. Researchers should look into training the brain to absorb screen content in the same way as print. I don't believe there's an inherent property of digital that would prevent this.
The article about how millennials get their news is a ray of hope. It indicates that millennials are growing up. The stereotype of youth isolating themselves from live interpersonal interactions by escaping online may have possessed some truth a decade or two ago, but it's fading. The article pointed out that younger generations now view social media as a tool, not a lifestyle. The statistic demonstrating a lack of concern for privacy is alarming, but understandable. Identity theft is a more likely personal violation, even though it's connected to the broader issue of online privacy.
The age old question of how to convince audiences to pay for news, or really to pay for anything easily found for free. I adopted e-text books early on due to the ridiculous pricing of printed books. I took undergrad courses where the books cost more than the class tuition. It's only natural for the prize to go to the lowest bidder. I don't know how to fix this in the near future without some seemingly extreme measures. It's like the news industry engaged in unprotected sex during the early phase of online journalism and caught an incurable STD. They did it to themselves. But like a lot of STDs, after years of research, financing and public awareness, cures were discovered. Hep C is curable and HIV is almost there. Maybe we could change the frame concerning journalism's decline to a public health issue, as it certainly could be considered.
Another far-fetched solution is to remove the option of "free." Nobody wants to pay when they don't need to, so transform the free sources to pay ones. If there's no choice but to pay, eventually people will. Either that or better tap into group psychology making it desirable to pay because everyone else is, like with ISPs and cable TV. Instead of allowing "third-person paying intent" to continue, try to convince those unwilling to pay to fork over cash through social rejection if they don't. Not a method I endorse, but necessity often isn't pleasant.
I think time is the biggest factor in saving the industry. Every technical and public revolution endures a period of chaos and growth. Some institutions survive, some don't but once emerging on the other side people rarely want to go back except in temporary nostalgic fantasies. Adapt or face extinction. Not everything can be a mammal. There's an awful lot of dinosaurs about to fall as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment