Eisendrath: “I think we’re going into the Final Four. The big ones will be The New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post probably.”
Interesting, Eisendrath is “wildy optimistic” about the future of local journalism.
After Eisendrath hangs up Albom admits (go to about 10 minutes in) he doesn’t agree with “90%” of what Eisendrath said. I agree that it’s a stretch to project that the future of online news will be pay-subscriber based. But then host starts to lose me.
First, Mitch gives zero credit to you, the reader:
“You can’t tell me that the average person, who already has got the attention span of a gnat, can distinguish between whether they’re reading a blogger or [an accredited journalist].”
Sure, it’s the wild west out there but give some credit to the consumer. It’s natural selection. How many times can a blogger write garbage or cry wolf on a bogus rumor before you don’t go back? And it’s not like word/reputation doesn’t travel quickly on the internet.
Then he argues that a newspaper is more portable than online media and that readers don’t want to go to “14 different places to try to find news on the internet. People don’t have time.” No, I don’t like to go to 14 places. I like to go to 140 places. Umm, that’s how I found this podcast and was able to consume this interesting discussion (since I don’t listen to WJR on the regular).