Commonly cited in media circles in Germany according to Wikipedia, Riepl’s law states that new media don’t replace existing ones. Instead, the older media learn to coexist by changing their focus to accommodate the newcomer. In an excellent article on The Future of Journalism, Mathias Dopfner, head of the Axel Springer publishing group, cites Riepl in compelling fashion:

Media progress is cumulative, not substitutive. New media are constantly added, but the old ones remain. This law has yet to be disproved. Books have not replaced storytelling. Newspapers have not replaced books; radio has not replaced newspapers; and television has not replaced radio. It follows that the Internet will not replace television or newspapers.

Yes, that seems right. McLuhan would theorize that each addition is a new extension of ourselves and changes our thought processes and even the focus of our senses emphasizing some and reducing others as the media environment changes. McLuhan’s view is larger, but in no way contradicts what Riepl pointed out. Although Riepl made his claims in 1913 his observation seems to be borne out by our experience of new media in the 20th century. Dopfner goes on to point how the apparent exceptions prove the rule and force a deeper distinction.

….there are exceptions: CDs really did replace old vinyl records; and mp3 technology is currently in the process of replacing CDs faster than anyone suspected. The same applies for DVD and video. And this is where things get interesting, for neither the CD nor the DVD nor the mp3 are really new media, they are merely improved technologies. The product itself, the creative medium of music or film, has not been changed by this new transfer medium. Which is why these examples, too, actually confirm Riepl’s Law.

I find transfer medium an interesting and useful term. It distinguishes between a core activity like music or making a record of events and the medium used to transfer them. Dopfner goes on to argue that electronic paper – a new transfer medium – will replace the current use of paper in newspaper publishing, but that journalism, like music, will remain. He sees the three core elements that will carry newspaper journalism into the future as:

• Exclusive news
• Independent opinions
• Captivating language

In dealing with the differences between newspaper journalism and Internet journalism he makes further penetrating distinctions:

The newspaper has breadth, the Internet has depth. The newspaper works horizontally, the Internet vertically. The second essential difference is that on the Internet, the user guides the journalist. In the newspaper, the reader is guided. The Internet has turned the hierarchy on its head. It is selflessly anti-authoritarian in character, profoundly democratic. Newspapers, by contrast, are confidently authoritarian.

I discussed this distinction recently here, making the point in a slightly different way that digital media fragments markets and allows greater user choice. Dopfner’s point that mass media like newspapers are “confidently authoritarian” complements my point that mass media choose what is reported and how because their structure puts them in control while the Internet breaks that monopoly. Newsweek spiked the Lewinski story, Matt Drudge ran with it on the Net. I probably differ with Dopfner in that I think that digital media seriously erode the authority of all mass media.

Perhaps Dopfner’s choice of the word ‘authoritarian’ represents a German way of thinking – it certainly fits the stereotype of German culture in the English speaking world – but I am glad he used it because it brings an aspect of mass media into sharp relief. Mass media do see their role as authoritative and as exercising a kind of benign leadership. The dark side of such leadership is a kind of tyranny variously known as elitism and political correctness. But it has a positive side too – after all leadership and opinion making is a primary and legitimate role of journalism. What surprises me most is how strongly Dopfner feels that people actually want newspapers in particular to serve this function:

Readers want orientation. They want pre-selection. In an anecdote dating from the anti-authoritarian kindergartens of the 1970s, a victim of this educational credo asks: “Mama, do we really have to play what we want again today?” Paraphrasing this, one could ask: Does the reader really always want to want something? The newspaper principle is based on leadership. This is what makes it so seemingly old-fashioned. And the leadership principle is also what assures the role of newspapers in the future. This principle of leadership, this deep-seated desire for hierarchy, is something I believe in almost as firmly as I believe in the function of the marketplace. People want to go where they will meet as many other people as possible to exchange information, opinions and wares. The more fragmented, diverse and fissured the media landscape becomes, with an ever-increasing number of specialized channels, special-interest magazines and websites, the greater the demand for a communication experience that fosters conversation. A demand for big brands. For the important television show. For the big newspaper. It is in this desire, independent of all fashions and trends, that opportunity lies.

That common experience created by mass media is what I think of as the happy feeling expressed by the Beatles line ‘We all live in a yellow submarine’. That is, we are encapsulated in a common experience driven by mass media. While I would argue that the fragmentation of that experience by digital media seriously erodes the common experience generated by mass media, I would not entirely disagree with Dopfner that people want such experience. We are not just individuals and we need our connection to the group. Still, I have serious doubts about the genuineness of the connection mass media make to the group – they are so open to manipulation by propagandists of both malign and benign intent. That is why I do not regret that the group experience of public conversation driven by big newspapers or other mass media is becoming a thing of the past. All too often the sense of consensus is unconsciously driven by the media consensus. There are simply too many voices now that disturb the illusion of unity we had when mass media dominated in one way or another during the 20th century. The new reality is that we have a public informed both as a group by mass media and individually by the newer digital media. Therefore I do not doubt that there is a role for big newspapers and other mass media in creating these community experiences because they meet a genuine human need. At the same time the mass media will have to deal with the changed media environment created by the new media.

Just what will and wont work is not yet clear. From Dopfner’s article I get the clear impression that there is stronger group emphasis in European culture and more individual emphasis in American culture. So opportunities will probably vary from market to market. Furthermore, I don’t think we know yet what accommodations newspapers will have to make to the Internet. We do know they are the hardest hit of the mass media and are losing advertising revenue rapidly and cutting staff. It is not an exaggeration to call it a market shakeout and it is clear that newspapers will have to change. It looks like many will go to the wall, but others will find ways to adapt. The response of radio to TV might be helpful to gage how great an accommodation a particular media sometimes makes to survive in accordance with Riepl’s law. Radio lost the evening news and the dramas that caused families to gather around the radio to TV very rapidly. It responded with music and ended up creating a whole new youth market. Good bye Bing Crosby. Hello Elvis. The truth is TV threatened radio’s survival and the creation of the rock phenomena and eventually the youth market were their salvation. Radio is the clearest example of Riepl’s law I’ve personally experienced. It is also an indication just how far newspapers may have to go to accommodate the rise of the Internet.