Category Archives: Long Relief

Should NU Pres. Morty Schapiro be the Athletic Director instead?


Probably not, but that’s only because Jim Phillips is going to take NU athletics to new heights. Morty, however,  isn’t far off the pace in terms of sports enthusiasm and knowledge.

Read this Q&A conducted by Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune with NU’s top dog about his new love for Northwestern athletics.

There had been grumblings about Morty being a big sports fan. My boy EZ claimed that Morty was a diehard Mets fan, which can only mean that he is a glutton for punishment. But if he can stick with the Mets, he must be a sports nut.

Which it appears he is. The way he rattled off games, players and coaches was beyond impressive for a man who normally deals in the anti-sports world of academia.

I saw Morty on the sidelines after the game at Purdue. The fact that he rode the team bus to and from makes him that much cooler. And hearing that he was giving the refs a hard time about the spot of a punt is music to my ears. I hate refs, too.

But my favorite line is the last one in the interview. While talking about NU’s failure in reaching the NCAA tournament in basketball, Morty rattled off the 4 other teams joining Northwestern in that group. Teddy Greenstein, who wrote the article, asked Schapiro if he knew the list “in the vein of getting it down to four.”

Morty’s response:  “Exactly. And I’m not talking about St. Francis of Brooklyn.”



An Open Letter to Roger Goodell


Dear Commissioner Goodell,

Congratulations. You are in charge of the most popular professional sports league in the United States, and one of the most popular leagues on the entire planet. You inherited a moneymaking machine, and so far have done nothing to mess that up. But that doesn’t mean you should rest on your laurels, because there are problems with the NFL that are bubbling just under the surface.

Some are more serious than others, but addressing these as soon as possible will make your league so much better. The NBA and MLB are catching up to you, so if you want to remain the top dog, here are some pieces of advice on how to make the NFL better:

– Cut the preseason games in half, immediately. I can’t take 4 weeks of training camp/preseason talk anymore. Nobody cares about the preseason. The players certainly don’t. So why continue to shove 4 games down our throats? I’m ready for the season to start right now, but since it hasn’t, I’m subjected to constant NFL talk about nothing. Just make the switch to 18 regular season games and we’ll all be much happier in August.

– Address steroids in the NFL as soon as possible. We all know they are in the locker and training rooms. And most of us are content to turn a blind eye, for now. But it’s only a matter of time before an investigative journalist blows the cover off steroids in football. When that happens, you are going to have a problem that would take 15 Bud Seligs to address. If you institute extremely rigid testing now, that has the ability to detect all of these crazy drugs that players are probably taking, you have the chance to do something that baseball will forever regret not doing: preemptively stopping a huge scandal in your sport.

– This might be wishful thinking, but I would love if you told all 24-hour sporting networks (ahem, ESPN) to chill on the NFL coverage during the week. The league is being stuffed down our collective throats. This might be appealing to some fans, but many I have talked to are getting sick of it. Hour after hour of meaningless talk before the games have even started. Then, during the season, we are forced to suffer through storylines such as “Does T.O. think Tony Romo puts too much ranch dressing on his salad?” or “Should Chad Johnson trademark the phrase ‘Child please’?” (the answer is yes, he should). My point is, give the sport and its fans some room to breathe. Maybe you can’t do anything about this, Roger, but talk with ESPN and let them know that we can’t take constant Monday-Friday NFL talk.

– Stop extending your Sunday Ticket package with DirecTV. I don’t know the numbers, but I can’t imagine you are making more money by giving them exclusivity than by giving the package to a couple of different companies. Put the package on cable, please. Not everyone can get DirecTV. But many of us would, I promise. So stop making us wake up early on a Sunday just so we can go to a bar to watch our out-of-town game. Let us roll out of bed and watch the game on cable. You’ll make a lot of people happy.

– Change the salary cap structure. It’s only a matter of time before the players’ union strengthens, and when it does, we are going to have one nasty labor battle. If there is anything to learn from MLB, the NBA and the NHL, it’s that you better not lose a season via a strike. That’s the best way to dethrone yourself. I don’t think the system should resemble baseball’s by any means, but the fact that a team can cut a player for absolutely no reason, and not have to pay him the remainder of his contract, is pretty ridiculous. There has to be a happy medium we can find between the baseball and the NFL, where small market teams can still compete without having forcing players to suffer under a hard salary cap.

– Too often, a player who has spent his whole career in one city is forced to leave because of cap issues at the very end of his career (think Jerry Rice, Emmit Smith, etc.). The  NFL needs to institute a rule similar to the NBA’s Larry Bird exception, which allows a team to exceed the cap to resign one of its own players for an amount up to the maximum salary. In fact, a soft cap like the NBA has seems pretty fair to me, though I am admittedly unaware of its shortfalls.

I love the NFL, and football Sundays are some of the best days of the year. But my loyalty to your league, Mr. Goodell, is not unwavering. Please consider some of these changes (I’m sure you have already) before it’s too late.

The clock is ticking.

Your devout fan (for now),


P.S. The comment section below has some of the gripes of the readers of this blog. I invite you to check them out as well (that’s your cue to comment, readers).

ESPN’s Foray Into Social Media Quicksand

pacman twitter

When I first saw the two stories I linked to in yesterday’s post regarding ESPN’s social media smackdown, I was admittedly pretty shocked. The World Wide Leader decided to place some serious stipulations on their talent’s presence in the social media world. No platform was excluded: Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, blogs and any other social media outlet there is, are now all subject to ESPN’s Gestapo-like smackdown on their on-air personalities.

It’s unclear to me why ESPN would do something like this, but I’ll explore a couple different possibilities and then take a look at what this might mean for the rest of the industry in the social media world.

So what motivations does ESPN have for this and why is it a bad move on their part?

-ESPN seems to be worried about damaging things that its employees could say, either about their co-workers or about the company. The statement reeks of lawyers and jurisprudence. ESPN is most likely paranoid about a potential P.R. nightmare if Bill Simmons tweets a sarcastic comment about Rick Reilly, or if another personality is unhappy with an editorial decision and decides to write a blog post about it. The Leader, presumably, wants to avoid the situation entirely.

espn devil

-Like any other “brand,” ESPN wants to keep its message consistent. That means that the company wants its  goals and ideals to remain on point, from the leadership at the top down to its employees. This becomes very hard to do when your employees are off tweeting and blogging about a million different things, generally still related to the company’s focus, but not in the same way in which the company would like. For instance, if Tony Kornheiser tweets about a photo shoot with Danica Patrick, while this still relates to sports, it’s not exactly the message ESPN wants to be sending.

-ESPN referenced several times in its memo that the purpose of its employees using the social space should be to constantly promote and enhance ESPN. That tells me that the network is worried its parts could potentially become bigger than the whole. It seems they are worried that a Bill Simmons or Kenny Mayne could become so big in the social space, whether it’s on Twitter or Facebook or a blog, that they are no longer driving people to ESPN, but instead becoming their own entity.

– Because so many athletes now use social media, I think ESPN is worried about the types of interactions its personalities might have with these athletes. The ethical codes of the online world are hazy at best, and people often don’t think before they throw something in a blog post or tweet (which is stupid, because an online trail is easier to track than an offhand remark made on the street). Regardless, there could be some athlete-analyst conversations online that ESPN might not wants its employees to engage in, for whatever reason.

So what’s my problem with ESPN’s stance? A few points:

– The whole point of social media is to engage. For brands, social media engages consumers at the micro-level, developing a sense of brand loyalty and inter-connectedness that traditional means of advertising can only dream of (again, see: Buddy Media, the experts on this new form of targeted advertising). When ESPN’s personalities blog, tweet, message, etc., fans are able to interact with them in a way that is not available through television or writing. So why in the world would ESPN try to limit this? Though I mentioned they might fear their personalities grow bigger than or separate themselves from the ESPN brand, I don’t actually believe that. People know the talent works for ESPN. By engaging with them, they only grow closer to the network, even if it’s indirectly. If Person A likes what Scott Van Pelt is tweeting, and maybe gets a message from him, you better believe they’ll be tuning in to watch Van Pelt on Sportscenter. The same goes for writers and radio hosts. Engage the audience in their living room, and you’ll earn a permanent seat at their dinner table.


– By limiting the content that its personalities can use in the social space, ESPN loses a major edge in the race to deliver instant news. As Deadspin notes, people use Twitter to find out information when it’s happening, rather than waiting for an editor to parse through it. The Leader could fall victim to its own cautiousness if it keeps getting beat to scoops by reporters from other outlets tweeting.Plus, reading about the behind-the-scenes aspect of reporting is really appealing to me and many others, and makes following these personalities worthwhile.

As far as what this means for the rest of media depends on what they think of ESPN’s crackdown. If other outlets think this makes sense, Twitter might start to lose some of its luster. But I think media outlets currently make good use of Twitter, and reporters enjoy the new level of communication they have with their audience.

But all it takes is one bad apple to spoil the bunch (I think that’s the expression). Inevitably, a situation will arise that forces all media outlets to evaluate their use of social media. At that point, media outlets will either continue engaging its audience in the social realm or they’ll move back offline.

If they’re smart, they’ll choose the former.

Confession: Why I No Longer Hate the Yankees

yankee stadium

This is a post that probably won’t be popular with those back in Baltimore or in Boston, but I need to get something off my chest.

I’ve spent the summer in New York City, and have spent time interning in the sports department of a local television station. During that time, I have watched my fair share of Yankees baseball, which, at the beginning of the summer, would have sounded like torture. But two months later, I am no longer a Yankee-hater.

By no means am I a Yankee fan. I grew up hating the Yankees. Remember Jeffrey Maier? I cried during that game. Remember Luis Gonzalez’s World Series winning single in Game 7? I cheered just like any Diamondback fan may have.

But over the last couple of years, I have slowly softened on the Yanks. I can’t say I’m happy about it, but I like to think that I have solid reasoning behind it. My allegiances still lie with the Orioles, but I now want the Yankees to finish in 4th place in the AL East every year, rather than dead last.

So here it is: How I learned to stop worrying and start (not hating) the Yankees.

– The seeds were planted several years ago, when some of my closest friends at school happened to be Yankee fans, including my roomate, Between the Headset’s very own critic, Abfus. They would regularly tell me that it was only a matter of time before I started to root for the Yankees. And while their prophesy has been fortunately unfulfilled, the amount of time I spend listening and watching Yankee stuff, all discussed in such a positive manner (except discussion of A-Rod) laid the groundwork for my current change in feelings.

– Spending two summers on Cape Cod caused me to absolutely despise the Yankees’ biggest rival, the Boston Red Sox. Their fans are obnoxious and many jumped on the bandwagon after the 2004 World Series. My biggest problem with Sox fans is related to the Yankees. Whenever the P.A. announcer would relay MLB scores between innings, the fans would always cheer louder if the Yankees were losing than if their Red Sox were winning. This kind of fandom drives me crazy, and gave me a firsthand look into the perpetual inferiority complex to which Red Sox fans cling. It came off as pretty pathetic, in my opinion, and put the Yankees above the Sox in my book.

– Joe Girardi. The Yankee’s manager is a Northwestern alum, which already gives him major points in my book. But I also have heard him speak, both on television and live during press conferences, and he really seems like a great guy. He is comfortable in front of the media, answers questions that reporters ask honestly and straightforward, and seems to command the respect of his players. Of course, I don’t know what kind of manager he is in the clubhouse, or what the players really think of him, but my impressions of him have been very favorable. Plus, I will always remember watching a teary-eyed Girardi announce the death of Cardinal pitcher Darryl Kile in front of a packed Wrigley Field right before game time.

girardi kile

– EZ Baby brought up a great point the other night- the Yankees have a ton of lovable players on this year’s squad. Even if you don’t like Derek Jeter, which to me is hard to believe, because he doesn’t really have any bad qualities, there are still a bunch of great guys on the team. Mark Teixeira (though I wish he were an Oriole), Mariano Rivera, C.C. Sabathia, Jorge Posada, Nick Swisher, Johnny Damon and Robbie Cano are generally guys that fans like. Melky Cabrera, A.J. Burnett, Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes are also players who fans are not going to boo on a regular basis. Really, the only hated guy on the Yankees is A-Rod.

-Finally, I have gotten over one of the biggest reasons that baseball fans hate the Yankees: their ridiculously high payroll. The defense that Yankee fans use is valid: the team sells out its games and merchandise flies off the shelves. Instead of that money lining the pockets of ownerships, it goes back into the team (though the Steinbrenners are definitely well off). If you want to be angry about it, tell baseball to impose a salary cap. But don’t hate the Yankees for playing by the rules. I wish the Orioles would throw around that kind of money to attract free agents.

Overall, the Yankees are good for baseball. The Yankees sell out many games on the road (even if New York fans takeover the stadium) and cause a buzz that is non-existent in cities like Kansas City, Baltimore and Oakland in August and September. Plus, every league needs to have a villain; a team that is hated by the majority of fans across the country. The NFL has the Patriots, the NBA has the Lakers or Celtics, the NHL has the Red Wings and baseball has the Yankees. It’s more fun to beat those teams than it is a cellar-dweller.

So forgive me, Baltimore fans, for succumbing to the dark side. I promise I won’t be donning the pinstripes anytime soon, but you also won’t hear me roaming the streets of the Bronx shouting “Yankees suck.”

I’ll at least try to come up with something more clever than that.

To Be or Not to Be? The Homer Announcer

mets broadcast

There’s an obvious difference between a national PxP sports broadcaster working for a big-time network and a local television or radio announcer. The difference, of course, is the fact that the national broadcaster (think Joe Buck, Al Michaels, Marv Albert) is supposed to stay neutral, giving equal time and excitement to both teams during a game.

The local broadcaster, on the other hand, does not hide behind a cloud of objectivity; rather, they make no secret of their hope for their team to win, and, for obvious reasons, devote more time and attention to that team. There are clear reasons behind this. For one, the broadcasters are often employees of the team, so if they are too harsh on their employer, they probably won’t last very long. The broadcasters are also playing to their audience, who is overwhelmingly going to be fans of that team.

For instance, Pat Hughes, radio PxP man for the Chicago Cubs, is going to yell louder when a Cubs player hits a home run as opposed to a Cardinals player because most people listening to the game on WGN are Cub fans.

But there is a line between pulling for a team and being an outright, obnoxious homer. Below are a couple examples of calls from announcers, both national and local. I want to know whether you feel any of them are too over the top in their excitement for the team, and whether the national broadcasters are being too objective (not showing any sort of passion).

John Sterling, Yankees’ Radio PxP Man:

Pat Hughes and Ron Santo during the ’98 season:

Marv Albert’s radio call of David Tyree’s great Super Bowl catch:

Hawk Harrelson’s call of a Mark Buerhle homerun:

A collection of NBA announcer Kevin Harlan’s best calls:

I actually don’t have a problem with a broadcaster favoring the team he announces; in fact, I prefer it when I am watching my local sports teams. As a fan, I want my announcer to share my passion for the team, without taking it too far. But if my team hits a three at the buzzer to win a game or a grand slam in the 11th inning to win, I want the announcer to go crazy just as I am.

But I don’t want the announcer saying “We are winning,” as Harrelson does. The announcer, even if he used to play, is not a member of the team, and thus has no business saying “We need some runs” or “The bad guys are winning.” That’s just plain amateurish.

My favorite broadcast team, though, might be what the New York Observer aptly named “The Anti Homers” crew of New York Mets’ television broadcasters. I have listened to these three a lot this summer, and find myself laughing out loud throughout the entire game. I highly recommend this article, which highlights all the reasons Gary Cohen, Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling make such a great team (hat tip: Whitehead).

The problem I have with some local announcers, such as Hawk Harrelson of the White Sox and John Sterling of the Yankees, is not their fanaticism for the team they broadcast; instead, it’s their gimmicks. I can’t stand “You can put it on the boaaarrrddd….YES!” I cringe when John Sterling goes into his “It is high, it is far” routine, only for the ball to land on the warning track. And, like everyone else, I can’t stand Chris Berman’s “Back, back, back.”

Genuine excitement is one thing. Gimmicks are another. Something simple like Marv Albert’s “Yes!” is fine with me, because it’s simple and pure and doesn’t sound forced.

Announcers don’t have to reinvent the wheel or spend their nights coming up with a catchphrase. I just want them to show some passion and let their calls come to them. Is that too much to ask?

The end of the Radio PxP Broadcast?

michaels madden

Whenever I consider the consolidation of media outlets, particularly in regards to sports broadcasting, I would always tell myself this:

“There will always be jobs for PxP broadcasters, because sports aren’t going away and fans will always need access to their team’s broadcasts.” I apply this theory to television and radio broadcasts alike, knowing how different the two are in style and content.

But that all changed when I read this report from Darren Rovell, former WNUR Sports staffer and namesake of the famous “Darren Rovell Cultural Embodiment Award,” given to the WNUR Sports staffer who best exemplifies what WNUR Sports is all about.

Anyways, if you were too lazy to click the link, let me give you a quick summary. The New York Islanders last week canned their radio announcers, Chris King and Steve Mears. Instead, Islander fans will now be able to listen to a simulcast of Howie Rose and Bill Jaffe on both television and the radio. This is the third NHL team to simulcast their television announcers on the radio; the Buffalo Sabres and Dallas Stars have done so as well.

Rovell points out that the deal was made easier because Cablevision owns the rights to both the television and radio broadcasts. He asks whether more radio stations will follow suit by negotiating with stations that own the television rights to simulcast the tv broadcast on their airwaves. This will allow radio stations to save money by not paying the salaries of the broadcasters (they would probably help subsidize the tv broadcasters’ pay, which definitely would not equal what they pay their own talent) while continuing the keep the steady stream of advertising revenue they get from broadcasting the games.

So from a business standpoint, this all makes sense. Keep the revenue flowing while cutting back on expenses. As Rovell wrote, “The bottom line is the bottom line.” But from a fan’s perspective, and from a broadcast quality perspective, the move makes very little sense, and is a trend which, if it continues, will frustrate any team’s fans trying to follow their team without a tv in front of them.

There’s a reason that, until now, radio and television sports broadcasts were always done by two different teams. Without overstating the obvious, the ability for fans to see what is happening on the field creates a different role for the television broadcaster in contrast to the radio broadcaster. On television, the PxP broadcaster’s job is to deliver something to the fans that they would not get from watching the game on mute. In other words, they must bring analysis, anecdotes and stats that a fan at the stadium watching the game would not know. The TV PxP man’s job is NOT to describe every play for the viewer, because that would be redundant. They can already see what is happening.

baseball stadium

That’s the job of the radio PxP man. He needs to be the eyes of the listener. My favorite phrase use to describe the role of the radio PxP man is to “paint the word picture.” Radio broadcasts relay everything that happens on the field, on the sidelines and in the stands. Their job is to make the listener, through description, feel like they are actually at the game.

In my opinion, radio broadcasts are more suitable for television than vice versa. There are obvious logistical problems with the idea, but at least you are not compromising the ability for television viewers or radio listeners to understand what is happening on the field or court. By putting television broadcasts on the radio, you are subjecting the listener to descriptions of instant replays that they can’t see and jokes about a fan doing something in the stands or a coach’s antics that again, they can’t see. TV broadcasters are not going to change their style for their radio listeners, and tv color men will not stop talking over plays so that the PxP man can call the action. Basically, if tv simulcasts take over radio, it will eliminate a listening radio audience in sports.

It would be annoying for the television audience to have to listen to the PxP man describe everything they are watching, as well. It would probably drive a lot of people to mute the broadcast. There’s just no need in television for the announcer to call every pitch, describe in detail every shot or tell the viewer every yard line that the running back is crossing. But, again, it’s all about money; however, unlike Rovell, I believe that fans will refuse to listen to radio broadcasts if they can’t follow what is happening in the game. There will be so much complaining on message boards and blogs that radio stations will be forced back into providing their own broadcasts.

Now, if there is one sport that this idea COULD work, it would be hockey. With the constant action, television PxP men are already calling most of the action, so it wouldn’t take a huge adjustment for them to cater to a radio audience as well. Still, some of the problems mentioned above, such as the color man talking over plays, will plague the simulcast from the radio end. But in every other sport, putting a tv broadcast on the radio would be disastrous.


Can you imagine having to listen to John Madden diagram a play on your radio? What about Joe Morgan explaining a hitter’s swing while you drive on the highway? Wouldn’t this cause you to drive over the divider? This is not just an inconvenience, but a major safety hazard for drivers everywhere. Plus, this would put an end to one of my favorite sports traditions: picking out the fans who wear headphones to the game to listen to the radio broadcast while watching.

So here’s hoping this experiment fails, both from an aspiring broadcaster’s viewpoint, and from a fan’s perspective. I really, really, REALLY hope the next time I’m driving and turn on a college basketball game, I don’t hear Dick Vitale blaring through my car stereo. It might just cause me to drive into oncoming traffic.

Should we even try to save Newspapers?


I’ve devoted more than a few lines in this blog to discussing the state of the newspaper industry, and have spent time thinking about how a once proud, now dying industry can be resuscitated. But I have yet to articulate my thoughts on whether the newspaper industry is even worth saving. The answer, in my opinion, is no.

To be clear, the following will be reasoning for not saving hard-copy newspapers. I have no problem with newspapers existing online; however, unless they decide to start charging for online content, papers will be unable to survive in an online-only format.

Here are my reasons for allowing hard-copy newspapers to fade away:

  • Hard-copy papers are always outdated. By the time you read a newspaper in the morning, you are generally reading a story that had been written at least 5 or 6 hours earlier, and sometimes even more. Things change, particularly with big, breaking news stories. Why does anyone need to read old news on a piece of paper when they can get up-to-the-minute coverage of the same story online or on their phone? The answer: they don’t.
  • Papers are slaves to the word count and copy space. Since a broadsheet is a finite thing, journalists have to limit the content in their stories to fit within the design of the page. This means they are generally unable to use all of the information obtained in reporting on a story. While this might seem like a good thing for the reader, who is then given a version of the story highlighting the most important details (often the role of the journalist), it also puts power and trust in the news judgment of a) the reporter and b) any editors who have a chance to tinker with the story. But this might lead to the omission of details that readers want to know. So why not use the unlimited space of the online world to include everything that’s important in a story, allowing the reader to take away the most important details?
  • The limited space in newspapers also prevents the necessary contextualizing that big stories require. Readers are inherently curious about the opinion of journalists, which is often found in small doses on blogs (without compromising objectivity, of course). These blogs might make for good post-scripts on a story or might allow the writer to put a story into perspective. These things are rarely possible in newspapers because of the need to save space for advertisements and pictures. A lack of context for big stories won’t give readers the tools they need to properly digest and understand what is happening in the world around them (television newscasts struggle with this as well). But having an online story, plus links to blogs and other sidebars to help the reader put the story in perspective, makes infinitely more sense to me.
  • Speaking of links, newspaper stories are dead end copy. There is nowhere for the reader to jump to from a story, except the next story on the page. They can’t find out more information about a person, organization or event in a newspaper instantly, for the obvious reason that newspapers can’t link to the massive online database that is the Internet. Instead, those reading newspapers are stuck with what’s given to them, without the ability to dig deeper into a story on their own.

ny post

  • Newspapers are clumsy and difficult to maneuver. Instead of using simple tools such as tabs and search bars, newspapers require folding and waste the readers’ time perusing for a desired story. Tabloid papers are a little easier to navigate than broadsheets, but the stories in tabloid-style newspapers are generally even shorter and less in-depth. It’s very annoying to sit on a train or bus next to someone struggling to fold over a big newspaper, making noise and brushing the paper against you. Maybe that’s not a huge concern for some, but I can’t stand it. Though, I have a lower tolerance for annoying things than a lot of people.
  • Hard-copy papers make revenue based on flat, boring, non-interactive advertising. This is the type of advertising that is ignored in today’s digital world, particularly by the demographic that these advertisers are trying to reach. Why would companies choose to advertise in boring print when they can use flashy videos and games in the online world? Newspapers were slow to come around to this realization, but advertisers are starting to catch on, as evidenced by research in social media advertising budgets. Brands don’t want to try to shape their message through old-world means, so they are pulling out of newspapers. Thus, if newspapers do collapse, the companies will be no worse the wear.
  • Though there have been no conclusive studies done on the environmental impact of newspapers vs. their online counterparts,  it seems like common sense to me. If you don’t print off millions of sheets of paper every morning for all of the world’s daily newspapers, you’re going to save a ton of trees. And I doubt that web traffic on a lot of these news sites will increase enough to offset the environmental gains with the added energy needed to host the extra web hits.

man on blackberry

  • The more pervasive PDA’s and smart phones become, the more on-the-go society will become. Whether or not this is a trend with which you are comfortable, the fact is that people, in ever growing numbers, are going to get their news on the train, in their car, while walking in the park or at their kids’ soccer games. The idea of a bulky newspaper, printed every morning without the ability to update itself, seems completely incompatible with this trend. So why continue to fight the quickening current of news on-the-fly by stubbornly printing thousands and thousands of newspapers each day, that within an hour of printing are already grossly outdated?

The only good reason I can think of for keeping hard-copied newspapers is for tradition purposes. Some people (mostly of an older generation) like the feeling of a newspaper in their hands, and enjoy reading their news over breakfast or on the train. To those people, I say: tough break. Some traditions need to be let go of in the name of progress. I honestly believe that the day of the hard-copy paper is almost over, with its sun set to fully shine on the digital media world.

I’m curious to hear what you think. Should newspapers go by the wayside, or is there a compelling reason to keep printing off the daily copies? Leave a comment below.