This week the BBC’s Andrew Marr revealed he wishes he could turn the clock back and begin again in journalism, such is the opportunity presented by digital.
By his own admission he is somewhat behind the curve in reaching this conclusion, certainly comparative to early adopters if not, perhaps, Fleet Street-era journalists.
And yet, as media commentator Ray Greenslade points out on his blog, Marr is astute, and raises an interesting conundrum.
Namely, if news becomes constantly available – if we are freed, as we increasingly are, from morning newspapers and evening television news bulletins – it becomes easier to ignore.
As Marr puts it: "As news ceases to be gathered round the event of a big-guns bulletin, or a wad of Sunday newsprint, it bubbles along and becomes easier, not harder, to disregard…
"Pasted endlessly on to the screens in trains or shopping malls, news ceases to be the theatre of the real, and becomes muttering walls."
Both commentators speculate on the potential consequences of this, but the point itself is worth considering.
Almost by definition news will not be ignored. Simply, if it is ignored, it isn’t newsworthy!
So it seems perhaps the problem is in publication or delivery. The content has not yet caught up with the kit. Radio, then television, created an entirely new way of delivering news.
The internet is now so much a part of people’s lives that connectedness is now considered essential for an acceptable standard of living.
Has there really been a similar revolution to deliver the news for the internet? I’m not sure. There has been a big move towards convergence, to the extent that, as Marr points out, before long there won’t be much difference between broadcasters and newspapers.
But no one has developed a new model for news. That might be the ticket to those elusive online profits.
It seems like a conversation that has already been ongoing for years. Really, we’re still at the starting line.