Going by the photo accompanying this article -- Gina has had an impressive makeover.

Lest we forget, looking at the steady decline, in all printed news media world wide, the "Melbourne Age/Fairfaux Media" is not the only paper, so afflicted. Murdoch Print Media, is also in decline as well, world wide. Packer Industries Print Media, is in decline too. The reality is, that all print media has entered it's twilight years and is dying before our very eyes, slowly bleeding to death, by a million paper cuts daily.

As one dinosaur dies, due to Moore's Law, another will rise to take it's place in the age of the Internets, the world wide web.

At the dawn of the 21st century, the Internets world wide web, without a border, armed with camera smart phones, made all printed news papers obsolete, in one push of a button.

For example, in many countries, facebook social networking, using mobile phones text messages, directly replaced print media film critics, as to which new film dies or becomes popular. Such is the power of the Internets.

Thus, no matter how much money and new equipment, Gina Rinehart throws at the dying moribund "FairFaux Media Empire". It is and will always remain, a complete waste of money, generating only a sea of red ink in return. All Gina will do, is accelerate the demise of the FairFaux Media Empire, directly into the grave of obscurity.

Such is life.

I'm fairly sure Chris is extracting the urine, although who could deny that Laurie would look particularly fetching in one of Mao's boiler suits, or wearing a red-starred beret and smoking a Cuban at a jaunty angle?

Mat is surely right when he points out that the press has always been controlled by one political faction or another. Rewind a hundred and fifty years and every tin-pot politcal, religious and cultural movement had its own newsheets. All of them pushing their version of the truth in a way not dissimilar to the vicious polarisation of the bloggers of today.

The difference I think is that people today have a cultural memory of a reasonably fair and balanced media, which I think will fuel a demand for a moderate 'clearing house', where respected journalists can filter, interpret and present for them the tsunami of information that exists out there in the form of podcasts, tv and text. All the major newspaper websites, as well as the ABC, BBC etc, already combine all of these elements.

I also believe that they will be happy to pay for it since people are time poor and the alternative is just to be drowned out by the white noise of information. Although a long time subscriber to The Age I'm sad to say that I don't think that the quality of the material on the Fairfax website was worth paying for. I think a lot of people feel the same way about Fairfax and other newspapers which is why, to date, pay-walls have had mixed success.

Those who want extremes will always be able to find them, but then they could always do so even before the internet. The positive element will be that these news sites will be able to plow all of their revenue into journalism rather than having to invest in hugely expensive printing facilities.

A well written & smart analysis, except it feels overly despairing to me, as if simple solutions to the authors concerns aren't readily available.

First I think it's refreshing to remember that more information circulates between people now than ever before, and at a faster speed, allowing everyone who accesses the Internet to publish their own op-eds.

Second is that newspapers are increasingly irrelevant. To admit this is not necessarily to under-appreciate journalists as much as it is to accept reality, to accept that a non profitable business is unsustainable.

Thirdly the idea of particular groups of elites commanding respect more and more is derived from their natural (intellectual) abilities rather than anything else, although of course savings allow for greater flexibility.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, is the comment that:

"the left is good at identifying problems, but unable to shift people’s views"

Without knowing who constitutes the 'left', I'll refine my response to just the author, who presumably wants to speak on behalf of the 'left'. Is shifting peoples views all that you want to do? Communicating is probably the best way to persuade people over to your views, but herein lies what I suspect is the problem -- do you want to persuade people, Mark, or force them into being as you approve of? The drawing of this distinction is increasingly important because to not do so risks placing oneself into bed with a nowadays distinctly unfashionable class.

Separate from the left or the right, these unfashionables are the political class, or to be more accurate: the Debtors. Just think. Could it be that this class (elected & appointed) are exploiting citizens to live beyond their own means, making unreliable promises to voters based on debt financed by a rapidly diminishing tax base care of the GFC? And that these dreams and promises, however well intentioned they are and from whichever side of Parliament they may emanate from ... all depend on fear: threatening monetary punishment or imprisonment unless obeyed?

Contrast this stifling idea to the liberating fact of far more numerous self-publishing op-ed writers & you've immediately muddied the ideology framework. Add to this that the influential position of the political class is completely dependent on the power afforded by the easy money debt machine that is now crumbling, that their "power generator" is out of gas, and that it's not the kind of gas you can legislate or print, means more and more that communication is how to address serious issues....rather than relying on a steering committee to force fellow citizens to change their actions.

This to me, all of this represents a more important topic for discussion compared to which well-to-do person is deciding to buy an unsustainable newspaper business

It would be great if some some people trained in investigative journalism joined together to make a collective, pooled their resources, and started an opinion free news outlet. I'd support that. Some decent whistleblower protection laws would help too.
The Conversation may find it's readership numbers explode soon too, as it is being promoted online as the "go to" place if Faifax ends, or is turned into a quarry bulletin. Of course the trolls will probably follow, but you can't have everything (sarcasm).

To get the right answer, one is well-advised to start with the right question.
The function of The Age and The SMH was to act as a printed portal, where the news, comment, photos, ads for cars, jobs,places to rent and to buy were all aggregated.
Each of these functions have been moved largely to various internet sites, such as Seek.com, realestate.com, google images, etc.
The current newspaper dilemma is that which faced Kodak when it ignored digital photography, Nokia when it slipped behind the innovations of its competitors.
Yet the journalists of Fairfax seem to have missed this biggest story of all, and one which imperils their employment.
To see the ownership of Fairfax as having any significant impact on democracy is to ignore the numbers. How many people each day read a Fairfax paper or its online version compared with those who listen to a radio station or a TV station or get a link to a story via Facebook or Twitter.
Having worked at polling booths, I am aware that many voters are unaware of the difference between state and federal politicians, let alone what the policies are of the various parties.
As for fears of Gina Rinehart trashing the reputation of the SMH, I thought that the current lot of journalists have done a pretty good job of that already.