So what happens next? Fiery inferno or somewhat less fiery inferno?

I've probably had/heard more conversations about the future of newspapers in the past two weeks than the previous six months combined, and surprising number of them have involved people who aren't in the industry themselves.

If you're so inclined and have plenty of time on your hands, here are three long big-picture pieces published in the last two weeks that are required reading for anyone trying to understand what's next for newspapers and journalism. I was pointed to all three by NYU media professor Jay Rosen, so hat-tip to him and to "mindcasting."

In order from most to least depressing:

--"Goodbye to the Age of Newspapers (Hello to a New Era of Corruption)" by Paul Starr, The New Republic. This is the traditional-media viewpoint, the classic "you'll miss us when we're gone" argument. The title says it all: Starr chronicles how newspapers are dying, then warns of the widespread government and big-business corruption that will result without an institutional watchdog. It's pretty scary stuff. He finishes by looking at a handful of economic models (like public and nonprofit funding) that could save newspapers.

Like many in the newspaper industry, Starr (a professor himself) is primarily concerned with the question, "What will happen to newspapers?" The next two have already moved on to the next question: "What will happen after newspapers?"

--"Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable" by Clay Shirky. Shirky, a pioneer of internet philosophy, argues that the correct answer to that question is essentially "No one has any idea, and that's OK. Information revolutions are, by nature, chaotic." He compares the current situation to the one soon after the invention of the printing press, when old institutions like the church and the Ancients were beginning to be viewed with distrust, but no new ones had yet sprung up to take their place. We're in the middle of that phase right now, says Shirky. The systems to take up the work to be left behind by dying newspapers haven't been developed, and they may not be for some time. But realizing this is far better than pretending everything will be OK just because we feel it has to be.

--"Old Growth Media and the Future of News" by Steven Johnson. Johnson's essay sychronizes well with Shirky's; both start with that same fundamental question, and both acknowledge that nothing sufficient is in place to succeed newspapers yet. But Johnson has a more optimistic slant, using the examples of technology news and political news to argue that the internet has already shown an ability to produce an information "ecosystem" on various subjects that is superior to the old newspapers-and-TV-dominated one. It's only a matter of time, he says, before that ecosystem develops for local and regional news and sports. 

And one bonus, for those of you not as into the whole "reading" thing: This podcast (hopefully this link works--if not, you're looking for Part 2 of their podcast) is a fascinating discussion of why newspapers are failing from two rather unlikely sources: ESPN's Bill Simmons, the premier sports columnist of the internet generation, and Chuck Klosterman, one of the top pop-culture critics of that same era. It mostly takes the angle of sports news, but it's a fun listen anyway.