Here's a Sunday morning riddle: does the blogosphere's contention (Buzz Machine, John Dvorak, Corante) about the impending end of mass media (newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, books) have any credibility given that many bloggers see themselves as the New Media? Or is there a future for the mass media if they can successfully embrace elements of the New Media such as blogs, podcasts, video blogs, RSS, etc.?
   Personally, I think people who believe the mass media will disappear are wrong because they focus too much on the wonders of technology and too little on how people actually consume media. Sure, newspaper circulation has arguably been falling for the past 30 years but millions of papers are still being sold every day in Canada and the U.S. Why? Well, you can't really lie on the couch to read an online newspaper or take the sports section into the bathroom for a private moment. As important, newspapers are designed to encourage discovery because you can quickly browse through several sections and read the news items that capture your attention - something difficult to do online even if you are a big Google News fan. From a technology perspective, reading online is apparently about 20% slower than paper, which explains why so many people print stories they really want to read. Still, newspapers need to complement newsprint by launching blogs, podcasts, etc. while developing new revenue models such as subscriptions and contextual advertising.
   As for Jeff Jarvis' contention the book is dead, it makes for a good headline but books have been around for more than 500 years. If the book is dead, why are thousands of titles are still being published every year? Surely, there are small people in the publishing industry would must realize most of the books that see the light of day fail to sell anything close to recouping their costs. In a lengthy and well-written post, Jarvis raises several provocative issues such as the economics of the book business and the large amount of crap published every year - a point supported by the mountain of books in our newsroom that appear to have been written more as vanity projects than anything someone else would read. It's not that the book is dead, it's just that the industry needs to get smarter about what it deems sell-able and adopt new technology to read niche audiences. This is where technology may have a role to play. While the Sony Reader may not be perfect, it's a sign of things to come that books have another chapter or two left before they are dismissed as dead.
  As for movies, television and radio (aka the electronic media), I would argue their futures are more exciting than discouraging if they can embrace digital technology. Consumers will continue to watch movies and TV and listen to radio but in different ways and at different times. Rather than go to theatres, some people will download movies - much like they use video-on-demand and rent DVDs. The couch potato isn't doomed for extinction but he/she will take more control over when and how they watch. Of course, the economics of movie 2.0 and TV 2.0 are still unclear (subscriptions, ad-supported, pay-as-you-go?) but they will be resolved over the next few years. As for radio, satellite radio has resonated with consumers, and I think podcasts will only give choice more momentum.
  Bottom line: To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the mass media's death have been greatly exaggerated. Sure, the mass media will change in the face of new technology and changing demographics but they're not going the way of the dinosaur. For an interesting perspective on the mass media's future, check out CBC journalist Jian Ghomeshi's three-part documentary series called "The End", which explores the idea of the end of print, radio and TV.