Isn't this the question we've been asking here for months, months and more months? And Time is asking the question NOW? I'm baffled.
From the piece:
Let's assume that you can improve journalism as much as you want, take advantage of the possibilities of new media as much as you want, but in general, people still simply do not want to pay for it, and it still remains worth far less to advertisers than it used to be. Let's assume newspapers fold en masse, and going online-only does not save enough money to pay people to do journalism as their chief source of income. That's gone.
What replaces it? And by that, I mean, who pays for what replaces it?
Writer James Poniewozik then follows up with a list of possibilities. Again, none of which are new. Incredible, really, that a weekly newsmag would be so far behind the curve. Maybe it tells us something about why journalism as we know it is in trouble, yeah? bk