• The post you are reporting:
   
  Yes thats an interesting one Bern...in fact something of similar nature was brought up on the Andrew Marr political show on BBC1 less than an hour ago.
  
  The main problem is this.....
  Websites dont have any money, nor can they generate any money( unless they are obviously commercial like Currys etc). Newspapers raise cash every day or every thursday as the case may be, so are able to have enough staff to go out and about and cover school events and local theatrical stuff and community hall events and what have you. The kind of stuff that broadly speaking makes up a community. Therein lies the cohesion.
  
  Back to the Andrew Marr show...there were two noted editors on the sofa. Tina Brown english but formerly big time New York editor of cosmopolitan, and Andrew Neil former Sunday Times editor. Tina Brown now edits a big website. They were talking about websites and how good they are etc but also about how they cannot compete with something like the Daily Telegraph because of revenue shortfall.
  
  The Daily Telegraph, said Andrew Neil, had 25 journalits working around the clock on the Expenses scandal. They also have a huge team of lawyers backing the journalists up, with a pot of money at their disposal so huge that they care little if anyone takes them to court. If only we had a tiny bit of that at our disposal we could certainly do a lot more.
  
  As is probably gathered we have no money whatsoever but soldier on...doing the frontpage takes a lot of time to produce and of course there arent 25 journalists helping out.
  
  So newspapers are here to stay, or should be, as they can generate the cash to make a difference.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason