[L]et's say [...] that technology is on the verge of removing some traditionally vital organs of the body politic. What should we do?
How about nothing? Capitalism is a "perennial gale of creative destruction" (Joseph Schumpeter). Industries come and go. A newspaper industry that was a ward of the state or of high-minded foundations would be sadly compromised. And for what?
You may love the morning ritual of the paper and coffee, as I do, but do you seriously think that this deserves a subsidy? Sorry, but people who have grown up around computers find reading the news on paper just as annoying as you find reading it on a screen. (All that ink on your hands and clothes.) If your concern is grander -- that if we don't save traditional newspapers we will lose information vital to democracy -- you are saying that people should get this information whether or not they want it. That's an unattractive argument: shoving information down people's throats in the name of democracy. [...]
But will there be a Baghdad bureau? Will there be resources to expose a future Watergate? Will you be able to get your news straight and not in an ideological fog of blogs? Yes, why not -- if there are customers for these things. [...]
If General Motors goes under, there will still be cars. And if the New York Times disappears, there will still be news.
GET REASON MAGAZINE
Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online
- Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
- Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
- Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
- And much more.