Seems lately that The New York Times also finds these topics surrounding the digitization of our lives quite interesting. In the Sunday, February 12th print edition of The New York Times, an article titled "A Newspaper, and a Legacy, Reordered" graced the front page of the "Sunday Business" section. The tagline reads: "For a Digital Future, The Washington Post Shrinks Its Scope."
A quote by Marcus Brauchli, The Washington Post's Executive Editor, leapt at me about midway though the article: “The Washington Post doesn’t need to cover everything, but what it does cover it will cover well."
Quality versus quantity. This is not a new philosophical conundrum. Socrates once said, "Quantity and quality are therefore more easily produced when a man specializes appropriately on a single job for which he is naturally fitted, and neglects all others."
Certainly according to the above mentioned article, The Washington Post aims to err on the side of quality, while also attempting to underscore the quantity of their specialized coverage, in a Socratic sense. However The Washington Post seems also to acknowledge that their Socratic version of quality quantity simply can't keep up with the digital world's version of (less quality) quantity.
If I've not yet lost you in a sea of tongue-twisting q's, then ponder this: What good will quality journalism be if it is run out of town by sub-par quantity? The Washington Post seems to be attempting to ride a tightrope of "quality versus quantity", while still digging one toe into the ground in a valiant attempt to resist bubblegum journalism (fun to chew on, but devoid of substance and tossed into the trash after a few minutes). Are they riding this tightrope well? Or are they practicing a doomed, specialized, soon-to-be-lost art? Are print newspapers a thing of the past?
Is it too late to turn the tide on bubblegum journalism? Can journalism ever return to a Socratic balance of quality and quantity in the age of 140 character-maximum Tweets?