Regarding the Future of News

I updated an earlier post about short feeds vs. long feeds with an item about Rupert Murdoch investing in a mobile news reader. The post started to take a spin towards talking about news and I thought instead of adding on to that more, I should start a new thread. I responded to Andrew Sullivan's recent post a few weeks ago about the Future of News, but did not hear back... so I thought I would write down my thoughts here:

...I think that the whole presumed demise of the newspaper business can be put in parallel context with the supposed demise of the music business. The key challenge everyone is focused on is that there is a new form of distribution that is threatening the old norms of the business. Mainly, it is cheaper, faster, more efficient, etc. to distribute digital content vs. something tangible. So people are saying, well, we just need to stop giving away the content for free or we need to publicly fund news organizations or whatever.

I think this argument fails to acknowledge the other thing that is happening. The web is not just an efficient distribution mechanism. The more urgent factor affecting newsrooms (and record labels) has to be that the web provides near infinite choice for consumers. This has been broached before but always in terms of the distribution question ("I can't charge for content because my competitors don't"). But the real challenge of infinite choice for traditional media is the fact that today's savvy internet user is their own editor in chief (or A&R guy). Who needs to have content arranged and chosen for them by an editor-in-chief when you can subscribe to 50 of your favorite reporters, bloggers or columnists websites? And because the subscription to any one of those websites can be changed at any time, the user is in constant control of their experience.

Check out the top 10 most visited websites online. 80% of them are focused on allowing users to find the content or products of their choice. 50% of the next 10 do the same. This is not going to change; choice is popular.

I can honestly say that the music I listen to is much, much better than the music I was listening to 10-years ago. This is partially because my tastes have evolved, but mostly because there is so much more choice. The same holds true for my knowledge of current events, world affairs, etc. I rely on about 50 others of my choosing to guide me through the interesting topics of the day. I am more than willing to support them, the content producers, but I can no longer stomach paying for a newspaper subscription which doesn't give me what I want and provides zero choice.

So the question really is: If we can retain the reporters doing the work they do and find an efficient way to pay them what they are worth, do we really care if the distributors of news papers die?