As a young man in love with the nuts and bolts of publishing, beginning in high school in the 1970s, I spent a lot of time in print shops. The industry had just undergone a wrenching transition from “hot type” to “cold type” — abandoning a venerable technology involving hulking machines and heavy metal slugs in favor of phototypesetting systems that input text digitally (usually clumsily, via paper-tape rolls) and churned out fast-drying galleys on thick paper. Many print shops of the time existed, like those used by both my high school and college papers, as small offices carved out of much-larger spaces that had been used for the hot-type machinery. Often, the big old rooms were dark and still littered with debris — linotype detritus, boxes of metal slugs. The homes for the cold-type machines were comparative oases, well-lit and air-conditioned to keep the expensive new equipment happy.
This technological transition seemed momentous for the newspaper industry at the time; it rendered an entire tradition of printing skills obsolete and led to wrenching labor battles. But of course it was only a preface.
I was cleaning out my garage recently, combing through some old files, and stumbled on a research paper I wrote in 1981 as a senior in college. The title was “The Electronic Newsroom and the Video Display Terminal.” I was writing about the moment that the digital transition rolled out from the back shop to engulf the newsroom, as — almost overnight — the typewriters were put out to pasture and a generation of journalists learned to love cut/paste and the “delete” key. What would that mean for the future of news?
The paper isn’t a big deal; it was written for a course I’d taken mostly for its reputation as an easy way for humanities types like me to fulfill the science requirement. But I’d spent enough time as both a student journalist and a computer enthusiast to know that the changes taking place wouldn’t stop at the newsroom door. Here’s what I wrote:
In trailblazing information delivery uses for electronic technology, the newspapers have in a way introduced a Trojan horse into their midst: for in the coming decades newspapers may well find themselves supplanted by a combination of home video terminals, central information computers, and entrepreneurs in specialized information delivery systems.
Let’s see: “Home video terminals”? Check: that would be your PC. “Central information computers”? Check: the vast network of web servers that feed you your Google, YouTube and so on. “Entrepreneurs in specialized information delivery systems”? That would be your blogging multitude.
I make no claim for great prescience — quite the reverse. I was a college kid who had no particular inside knowledge or knack for future-gazing. I Even so, it wasn’t hard to see where things were leading.
I’ll think of my little paper every time I hear news execs making the excuse that “no one could see” how things were going to play out between print and the online world. If a kid could see it nearly 30 years ago, maybe they should have tried a little harder.


Salon.com
Comments
The pricing model is what killed the industry. Real tough to charge for something again, once you start giving it away for free. In short, the stodgy old industry underestimated the new technology coming up on its rail, figured it was not a big deal, put up a website, forgot about it, and then was dumbstruck by the number of hits they were getting as their subscriptions dropped like W's approval ratings.
And, as I said on Jeremiah Horrigan's blog, we value least that information segment providing the most data. Newspapers dig out the stories that feed the 24 hour talking head newscycle. Eliminate that information "service" that enhances the professionalism, integrity, and quality of the data put out into the public domain, and it could result in some very interesting results.
Interesting, that is, if you get off on rubber necking at spectacular car wrecks on the highway.
I bought my first 'home computer' from Texas Instruments, the TI-99, which had NO operating system or recording capabilities (RAM/ROM) and used a fairly ordinary cassette recorder to save both programs and data on. I still managed to produce a newsletter and do my business work on it...and was happy to have it. It wasn't until Apple came out with the IIGS series that I owned anything that resembling a modern desktop computer, and, hooked up to the Internet...not the WWW, that came later. I ran my business from that quite effectively, almost no one I knew had an email address, let alone their own computer at home.
Now, I have a desktop, a laptop and a cell phone, all of which have more capacity than the IBM 360 mainframe my college owned...and I keypunched my way through my computer classes. Thanks for the walk down memory lane...and the feeling of gratitude that we have such options!
deLuvCoach
...and when you think about it the next generation is hardly going to believe that people used to pay money to get "yesterday's news" in printed format!
I too wrote a paper in 1979 predicting the complete automation of design work--(although my talking "Hal" computer and design partner has yet to be realized).
Our regional newspaper seems to be going thru upheaval--trying to adapt to hard economic times. One of the things the paper is borrowing from the internet is by having more reader input (photos, columns, forums, etc.). They don't pay the readers so they have cut down on costs by reducing staff (sorry for some reporters though). I hope they succeed.
I graduated from college in 2000. With a Bachelor's in Journalism. Kinda wish I had read your paper before that. Even then, when I went into my first newsroom, the Internet was being ignored and down-played. Colleagues who were my age tried to push for new ways of using the Internet, but it was an uphill battle... mainly on the corporate level.
In the end, even those of us who realized the potential of the Internet for news did not understand the potential of the Internet to kill the news.
some other musings on my blog, 1st post.
ps you pick great topics for writing
I have no clue why I thought that and years later I laughed at the ridiculousness of my theory.
Today I think all the toxins we surround ourselves are suspect, including detergents. Maybe my weird little theory wasn't so off after all.
Youth has a strange way of opening your mind.
I still feel that copyrights are a form of protectionism....
Look at the computer industry...
People in their garages could make a living making computers, assembling them. Now? The only way someone in a garage could make money was either by printing it, or using the most dubious sourced parts and software imaginable. And Dell and HP are laughing their way to the bank...
We signed up to sell Dell. The 'guaranteed a 2% margin'. That's hardly worth the effort... We said 'Thanks Mike but no thanks.'