The news came down today that technology publisher CMP is laying off 20% of its workforce and merging several publications out of existence, including Network Computing and Optimize. I don’t suppose this is a surprise, for the print business in the enterprise technology market has been on the decline for a long time, but the scope of the cutbacks and the extent of the changes to CMP’s portfolio were breathtaking. Most publishers have been bleeding away properties as print business has turned down. CMP’s action was like an execution.

It’s hard not to feel like an old codger at times like these, for I remember the days when Computerworld’s print business was so healthy that the company had to start ancillary publications just to handle the overflow of ads because the printer couldn’t produce issues that were large enough to hold them all. I don’t pine for those days, though. There were times when the editorial staff was slapping almost anything it could find onto a page in order to fill space around the ads. No one was well-served by that. What’s different about online publishing is that the space expands and contracts to fill available content. There is much less of a need to provide some content — any content — to run around advertising. It’s perhaps one of the great under-appreciated benefits of new media.

People sometimes complain that one of the shortcomings of new media is that space is unlimited, meaning that writers can write as much as they want about whatever they want. I suppose that’s a problem in some respects, but isn’t the ultimate arbiter of value the reader? If writers don’t produce interesting copy, then no one will read them, and it won’t matter how many words they write. The Web is liberating in that way. In removing constraints of space and time, it frees the writer to focus on content and the reader to make choices based upon what they want to read rather than what the publisher chooses to give them. I think that, in the long run, we’ll realize that this was a great liberator and a step forward both for the craft of journalism and the service that publications deliver to their readers.

For now, though, I feel badly for the 200 people who lost their jobs today. They were victimized not by any failure on their part, but rather because of a structural shift in the market over which they had no control. I fear that they are simply the first casualties of a much bigger change in consumption habits that will sweep over much of the mainstream media in the coming years. In the end, it will lead to a richer, more vibrant media landscape, but there is bound to be a lot of suffering in the meantime

Kevin Allen, a smart young writer who works for Ragan Communications, knows my rather strong opinions about the future of newspapers. He sent me a link to this story about Sam Zell’s acquisition of the Tribune Co. and asked for a comment. Here’s what I said:

“I would never want to be quoted questioning Mr. Zell’s wisdom or insight, since he is clearly a very successful investor. I was struck, however, by the fact that neither the Tribune article or the video interview went into any detail on the challenge that digital media presents to newspapers. In fact, I could find the Internet mentioned only once in the Tribune article, in the first paragraph.

“This seems curious to me, since online competition is clearly the biggest challenge facing newspapers these days, particularly in their classified advertising businesses. Longer term, the newspaper’s value proposition as a timely source of information is under siege. This article seems more interested in the Tribune’s ESOP plan and ownership stake in the Cubs than in the serious long-term problems facing its industry.

“It’s been my experience that people of Mr. Zell’s age are almost incapable of relating to the culture and lifestyles of today’s digital youth. This is not their fault, for it’s almost incomprehensible to someone who grew up in the 50s or 60s to relate to the always-connected, always-interacting lifestyle of today’s teens. It’s hard enough for me, at 49, to understand it. I would think that anyone buying a newspaper today would have to look at what they’re going to do to court this next generation of consumers, who have almost no affinity for newspapers. The fact that this critical issue was not addressed in the Tribune interview or video is a glaring omission, in my view. I can’t believe the editors didn’t bring it up.

“Apparently a lot of them aren’t even paying attention to it. As reported last week by MediaPost, “The first Newsroom Barometer survey–conducted by the World Editors Forum and Reuters–found that a staggering 85% of editors and news executives of 435 polled were optimistic about the fate of their publications.”

“As they say, denial is not just a river in Egypt :-)”