It was recently announced that, after a proud 30 year history, The Independent will cease to be produced in a print edition. From March this year it will only be available online. This marks a significant moment for the British media as the online news revolution has claimed its first victim. The many eulogies that have been published in the wake of the news have been quick to sing the praises of print as a medium and express regret for the Indy’s unfortunate paper-based demise. However, the inevitable death (and it really is inevitable) of even those behemoths of print media, The Sun and The Mail, is not something to be mourned, it is something to be celebrated. After all, through our collective predilection for online news we are ultimately the ones who are killing print.

When one considers the obvious disadvantages of physical newspapers it is no surprise that the industry is in dire straits. By the time a newspaper is printed it is already out of date, whereas websites can be updated in real time to ensure that they reflect the story’s latest developments. Moreover, newspapers, even in tabloid format, are cumbersome and detrimental to the environment. Just as the first decade of the 21st century saw the fall of the daily broadsheet (the Daily Telegraph remains as a notable exception) the second will see the decline of the print edition.

Decimated circulation figures stand testament to the public’s preference for online journalism. After free or discounted copies are stripped from the equation, The Indy can only count upon 40,178 daily readers. This is a far cry from the paper’s March 1990 zenith of 423,000 readers. The fact that this trend is particularly pronounced among those under 35 illustrates how newspapers are living on time borrowed from older generations. In 2014, readership among the 15-24s fell by 9.9 percentage points, and by 7.8 percentage points among the 25-34s. Clearly, print media has fallen prey to a hostile economic climate, with us, young people, rejecting the idea of paying for out-of-date news in a physical format.

However, this does not necessitate an uncritical response from those who, like me, believe that we require a robust media to hold our politicians and business community to account. It is vital in a democracy that a symbiotic relationship exists between the public and the media, both to ensure that the public is informed but also that its views are adequately represented. However, it is my firm belief that the mass media’s move to online platforms will be, on balance, a positive in this regard. News is moving towards universal availability as smartphone apps allow us to stay constantly updated wherever we are. Furthermore, the comments section grants the reader a right of reply that was non-existent prior to the advent of online news. Although, the comments often lack nuance and have the capacity to platform prejudicial views, they encourage an active debate around the opinion expressed above the line and subsequently they have an enfranchising effect.

It could be argued that the integration of social media and news has lead to a dumbing down of our public discourse. This is in part a consequence of the pay-per-click advertising model many outlets have adopted in order to render their online operations profitable. Sensational or punning titles, once the preserve of cheap red tops (which are similarly dependent on advertising revenue) are now prevalent on the websites of the most reputable media companies. In a similar vein, media outlets tend to devote more energy to producing eye-catching opinion pieces which are designed to affirm rather than challenge the prejudices of their readers. The tribalisation of the socio-political landscape is, in no small part, a consequence of social media’s propensity to facilitate the development of echo chambers. While these are undoubtedly legitimate concerns, they are concerns that could just as easily be levelled against the newspaper industry. People tend to only purchase those newspapers which mirror their ideological standpoint. This may explain why largely Labour-voting under 35s are more likely to read The Guardian, and predominantly Tory over 55s are more likely to read The Mail. The difference with online news is that provided the other side’s views are not obscured behind a paywall, the best (and worst) journalism of left and right is available to a much wider audience.

The extent to which my argument applies to student journalism is contingent on what the individual believes the value of student journalism to be. If it is to provide a light-hearted and digestible review of that which most directly concerns the student population then I’m afraid the online-only Tab will continue to play a dominant role within the national student media. The challenge then for publications such as this one, Varsity, is to chart an alternative course. Perhaps one that unashamedly fetishises quality over quantity, that is prepared to simultaneously tackle the biggest questions facing our turbulent age and the minutiae of college life and crucially, and that seeks cultivate a dynamic and inclusive online presence is indeed the answer.

It is the responsibility of all those who seek a mature and informed debate to ensure that the internet does not descend into a mere cacophony of opposed opinions. Reputable sources of objectivity established in the 20th century such as The New York Times and The Economist must ensure that journalistic integrity is not abandoned on online platforms. The beauty of the internet is that there is infinite space for these titanic names to be supplemented by creative newcomers such as The Huffington Post.

Although the internet brings an unprecedented level of uncertainty to print media this should be a source of excitement, not apprehension. We must seek to harness rather than condemn a medium that ultimately has the power to revolutionise our society in a manner unseen since the invention of, well, the newspaper. The internet holds the key to our current age of enlightenment. It should be embraced, not feared.