Quite astonishing I sometimes find him. He\’s clever and all but manages to get the wrong end of the stick all too often:
This is, in part, why you\’re seeing cutbacks in many newsrooms. I\’m not supposed to say this, but journalism has gotten easier, and fewer individuals can do more of it.
Excellent, productivity is rising therefore we need fewer people to do it.
But as productivity rapidly increases, either the market has to expand or staffs will be cut. And to make matters worse, much like in manufacturing, the rise of blogs and online magazines has created intense, low-cost competition that simply didn\’t exist before.
Indeed, just like manufacturing. what we actually see is both output going up and fewer people required….those people being able to go off and do something else even more productive, like cure cancer or wipe babies\’ bottoms. Excellent!
So the world is getting better in every way, we\’re getting more journalism and more people doing other more important things and thus, we need public subsidies to stop this happening? How in hell do you get to that conclusion from that set of facts?