So newspapers are going ker-plunk. But magazines are doing dandy. This is odd to me because I think most newspaper writing styles show a magazine envy. You’d think newspapers would just follow their noses. That’s what Pat Thornton thinks will happen anyway:

Print can be a great medium when it concentrates on its strengths. The Economist does a fantastic job of this. It is not trying to break news — print can no longer do that — but rather it is trying to take a look back at the news and provide context.

Pat proposes newspapers create an additional Sunday edition that will focus more on analysis. He adds that this would probably be best as a glossy.

For someone who works in the newspaper industry, I subscribe to a lot of magazines. I’ll spare you the list. I like magazines because they are more permanent than newspapers. You can put them in your bathroom or on your coffee table. They’re also nicer; they’re easier to manage and probably no one will be allergic to them. Earlier this month The New York Observer posited that magazines are becoming luxury items.

The Economist may be a little too luxurious for me; it is God-awful expensive. The Economist’s Web site provides some, but not all of its content. Instead it acts like a portal to subscribing to the magazine. That definitely sounds like something newspapers could do.

But I’m not quite sure that is going to happen very soon. Writers already whine about having to write a story for Web AND a story for print. Two stories for print?? Forget it …