I picked up a New York Times today, Monday May 2, 2011. I did thisĀ  because I have a habit of collecting front pages. It is a trait that I inherited from my family. I have Obama’s election, every Yankees World Series win in my lifetime (thanks Grandma!), my Grandfather had the falling of the Berlin Wall, and so forth. In light of last night’s events, I went to grab a copy of the paper today. I didn’t grab the USA Today that had the headline “Osama Bin-Laden is Dead, Obama Says” but instead, I grabbed the New York Times which had no mention anywhere of Bin-Laden’s death. I grabbed this one because print media is dead.

This isn’t a new statement, or really even really a bold statement. People have been saying this for years, but the events of May 1, 2011, prove that social media is our news outlet. It wasn’t the revolutions in Egypt or Iran that did this; Twitter nor Facebook were widespread enough throughout these countries to have such an incredible impact. But everyone I talked to today found out about the death of Bin-Laden through some sort of status update, whether it was Twitter or Facebook, BBM status or text message. Therein lies the true power of social media That is it. That is the nail in the coffin for print media. “All the News That’s fit to Print”, and the New York Times doesn’t have arguably the largest event since 9/11.

On a side note, Cornell went crazy. There were fireworks, people driving around with flags and all sorts of tomfoolery. Pictures to follow!

2 Responses to “The day print media died”
  1. It’s almost sad that print media is basically dead. However everyone is going mobile with sms text messaging, video, and photos. This trend makes it easier for people to get the news they want from almost anywhere in the world. Pretty amazing actually. Good article. :)

  2. Excellent stuff here. Print media, for all intents and purposes, is on life support. It is only a matter of time.

  3.  
Leave a Reply