These days, I read the Orlando Sentinel’s printed newspaper and the online versions of both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I listen loyally to National Public Radio’s news and talk programming. I want to know what’s going on in the world, and television news has become, well, an oxymoron.   

So, from which of these otherwise reliable and well known media outlets do I learn about the enormous schism that exists between the administration and it’s military apparatus regarding the war in Afghanistan? Why, from Rolling Stone, of course! 

I may be making light of this pathetic performance by our so called mainstream media, but really, Rolling Stone?  When did Rolling Stone become a bastion of investigative journalism? Why did Rolling Stone’s writer get the story that these other perennially Pulitzer-worthy chronicles of our times simply missed?   

Actually, a cursory review of the past few years reveals that much of the most in depth, non-pop culture journalistic output has come from places like Vanity Fair, the New Yorker and, yes, Rolling Stone. I refer readers to the archives of these excellent periodicals for evidence that in the new world order that is our media landscape, it’s not the historically dependable and reliable sources we should necessarily count on to provide the role of the so called fourth estate. It’s these others. 

And, all I have to say about that is God Bless rock ‘n roll!

Having grown up on the New York Times of the 1950s and 60s, I find it difficult to compare the 2009 version of “the daily newspaper” with that which influenced me to get involved first in journalism and then in strategic communication. The explosion of media choices has all but marginalized the newspaper both demographically and as a social force in our pluralistic society. Overall, it’s “thinner” in terms of content, “weaker” in terms of influence and less likely to survive long-term than other, newer channels of communication delivered via the Internet. That’s why my eyebrows went up when I noticed, tiny in the upper right corner of page one, the information that the Orlando Sentinel now charges $1 for the printed paper on weekdays. I’m sure this has been the case for a while, but as an annual subscriber for decades, I guess I just never paid attention. $1. Wow. With Sunday at $1.50, that means we pay $7.50 per week for the daily newspaper.  

I’m of the generation that enjoys the ritual associated with a cup of coffee and a tactile front to back read of the entire newspaper. It’s important for me to be informed; it’s part of what I do, but I also can fire up my computer, Google the words “Orlando Sentinel” and get the same content (and more) essentially for free.  So can and do lots of other folks. 

Media outlets (except apparently for the Wall Street Journal) are struggling with the notion of getting paid for on line access and content. My beloved New York Times failed miserably at trying to charge $1 a WEEK for its editorial and opinion pages, and I can (and do) track more than a dozen media outlets on my phone, at no additional charge above that of my calling plan.  

The two questions that haunt me are, if we’re able to get content like this without having to pay for it directly, does it truly have value? And, if it does, what does that mean for ALL of the other content carriers that rely on direct payment (magazines, cable, etc.) and for the advertising industry that both supports and depends on those media choices? 

I’m definitely not an economist but I can’t see how a product in obvious decline can survive by charging more and providing less. Nearly every week we learn of another daily newspaper either eliminating its printed edition or shutting down entirely. We don’t hear this yet, or as often, about broadcast and cable media outlets, or about the plethora of magazines at the front of Borders and Barnes & Noble bookstores, but that day can’t be far off.  

I sense that they too may be living in fear of the FREE power of the Internet and the global juggernaut that is Google.