Given how few young people actually read the newspaper, it's a good thing they'll be reading a newspaper on a screen.
If you're the village blacksmith and a model T comes along, you better become a mechanic. People's lives are better when they get news online versus having to wait for the morning paper. It's a lot more efficient, a lot more real time, a lot less waste.
I worked at Salon.com way back when they started, and there's just unmeasurable value to distributing words online, too, but I still get my news from the newspaper in the morning.
A newspaper is complete. It is finished, sure of itself, certain. By contrast, digital news is constantly updated, improved upon, changed, moved, developed - an ongoing conversation and collaboration. It is living, evolving, limitless, relentless.
I love Twitter. Here, I get pieces of information quickly, and I also get myriad viewpoints rather than a one-sided view from a particular newspaper. Here, I have got a topic and 11 viewpoints, and I can judge for myself.
Anything remotely resembling news media is going to continue to migrate online until very little or none of it is produced on dead trees.
Today we all are enjoying the fruits of the digital era. Millions of sources of information coming at us at lightning fast speed. That technology has also democratized the gathering and dissemination of news, allowing for 'citizen journalists' to make their mark, even usurping the role of mainstream news organizations at times.
In fact, I don't read newspapers any longer.
The consumption of news is up, but the way people are receiving the news has changed
I remember having pizza at Shakey's in Vancouver, Washington in 1973 and talking about the fact that eventually, everyone is going to be online and have access to newspapers and stuff, and wouldn't people be willing to pay for information on a computer terminal.
Now if you look at the London 'Times,' you'll find that with quite a number of the photographs, you touch them, and they turn into videos. I think newspapers come alive that way. We talk about 'papers.' We should cut out the word 'paper,' you know? It's 'news organizations.'
I don't have newspapers in my house. I have a news application which only gives me important news, no Bollywood. So even if there is some report about me, I don't know.
A world without newspapers or a world where the newspapers are purely electronic and you read them on a screen is not a very appealing world.
I think international is a place that, actually, The Huffington Post and AOL have started to make moves in.
I live on my phone: I have a bunch of news and informational apps on there.
The thought that so many people get their news from social media really is scary.
I have not looked at a newspaper in twenty years; if one is brought into the room, I flee. This is not because I am indifferent but because one cannot follow every road.
The seed idea for Rappler really is looking at information cascades. If you think about it, the end goal - when I was raising money for Rappler, I didn't talk about investigative journalism, even though that's our core.
I get most of my news updates from electronic and social media.
I think the very best thing about the internet is that I can read all the London papers every day if I want to.
Instead of reading a paper, we now read the news online. Instead of buying books at a store, we buy them on-line. What's so revolutionary? The Internet has mainly affected our leisure life.
I believe journalism or news will migrate to the online medium.
Before I finished my undergraduate degree, I found 'TYT' and dedicated myself to helping it grow into a digital news empire.
Young people read their news online; they expect to get their news for free.
Paper is no longer a big part of my day. I get 90% of my news online, and when I go to a meeting and want to jot things down, I bring my Tablet PC. It's fully synchronized with my office machine so I have all the files I need.
