Walked to the metro this morning, my head swimming in 10 hours of news and analysis about the demise of Osama bin Laden. The friendly man who hands out the Washington Post’s Express at the top of the escalator handed me my daily copy, and I opened it curious to know whether the news had broken in time to make their printing deadline.
Nope:
I like reading the paper, but this is why the medium won’t last. Good journalism is crucial, but paper is not. This issue looks silly in light of the news that broke nearly half a day earlier.
UPDATE: Counterargument, or sign of nostalgia for an outdated news format? Newseum website crashes as people search for newspaper front pages about bin Laden’s death.
Come on, Clooch. Using the Express, a free advertising circular that Metro riders grab for the sudoku puzzle, as an example of “newspapers” is really unfair. I’ll gladly grant you that newspapers are dying and journalism is struggling mightily, but the fact that the Express didn’t have anything on OBL’s death is hardly an example of these things. The Post’s front page was 100% Osama, even the early edition that makes it out to my place in the burbs.
Good to hear the burbs editions got it right. I get perhaps more news from the Express than I should. But the downtown DC rags, including The Hill, Roll Call, and Politico, all went to press without this story. Though I did just hear a report that a later edition of the Express may have been printed with a new cover.
Regardless, this happens all the time. Faced with reading yesterday’s news in the paper or reading actual news on my phone, it’s getting harder to justify reaching for the inky version. I enjoy the paper, but at the end of the day there’s just no way for it to keep up.
Apparently the NYT also went out to some subscribers without the news. Tim O’Reilly tweeted this image of the cover he got in Rhode Island: http://twitpic.com/4sczug#