In a post noting that the Boston Herald is no longer making readers pay for online access to their columnists, Dan Kennedy also references an April 2005 story in which he argued that the paper should “[d]ump [its] Web site.”

It pains me to say this. I live online. I probably read the Herald more online than I do in print. But the Web is not the Herald’s friend. Purcell told me this himself years ago. Now the time has come for him to follow his convictions and get rid of BostonHerald.com — or most of it, anyway.

Dan’s suggestion didn’t make sense 15 ½ months ago, and it makes even less sense now. Jettisoning the website and keeping only dead-tree version? Not exactly an idea that is keeping up with the times, Dan.

Herald reporter and blogger Jay Fitzgerald is much more on the mark: “[Our] readers are moving to the web — and thus content is inevitably flowing to the web. I don’t see a way around it.”

There isn’t.

This much is inevitable: Circulation of print newspapers will continue to fall, while website readership will continue to grow.

For the Herald to survive and ensure Boston remains a two-newspaper town, it must continue to attract visitors to its website with unique and compelling content. It most devote more resources — not less — to the web. If there are enough eyeballs, the advertisers are sure to follow.

Share This