Philip Roth Quotes

We're in this transition period of figuring out how to deal with all the new technology that is out there, but television still proves to be the granddaddy of them all.

I think that cinema and television have nothing in common. There is a breaking point between photography and cinema on the one hand and television and virtual reality on the other hand.

Digital television, satellite radio, videogames, iPods - so much media. Do books even matter anymore?

In a television age, the record is lame; it never catches up.

I said the screen will kill the reader, and it has: the movie screen in the beginning, the television screen, and now the coup de grace, the computer screen.

We recognize that the whole world is kind of moving in this direction to digital distribution, but at the same time, there are still people who only watch movies in a movie theater, and there are some people who only watch certain programs on television or certain things on Netflix.

The more I watched cable, the more I realized the value of newspapers.

I do not think that there need be the conflict between books and videos, that one would drive out the other. It certainly is possible to watch the screen for some things and for others to sit down and read, because the screen is easier to do, to watch is easier than to read because you don't have to contemplate anything. Someone else has done the work of putting it on the video.

I think the Internet is to MSM what TV was to yellow journalism.

What's better these days, television or film? It's a dead heat. In fact, one could argue for television with more regularity.

I think in future people will take television in eyedrop form. All media will be in eyedrops.

When CNN launched in the early 1980s, everybody said: A 24-hour news network won't work. They launched, they did ok, CNN went almost bankrupt because of the risks they had taken, they got bailed out, and 25 years later CNN is a huge global brand. I think the same is going to happen in digital. If you look at the younger generation, there is a huge consumption of digital media and almost no consumption of print or traditional television. Eventually money will follow that. It is just a question of which companies win, how long it takes to get there and what kind of model you need to apply.

Consumers are freeing up an enormous amount of time that they were spending with stereotypical old media, and clearly, that time is going primarily two places: videogames and online.

If the first lady is concerned about this Internet cycle, what would she have done during the heyday when there was 12, 13 editions of a paper in one day? What would she have done with that news cycle?

I'm not really one for reading books. I have a very poor attention span. I'd rather listen to music, play games or watch films on my iPad.

Television has done a lot for me, and I can never stay away from it.

The next evolutionary step is into the screen.

I still have the 'New York Post' delivered because it's so garrulous and nasty and wonderful when you read it in print. Some things just don't translate online.

Digital media has destroyed much of the magic and mystery of the medium.

Newspapers and magazines have been valuable to us precisely because they apply filters to information, otherwise known as editing, and often the Internet seems valuable for exactly the opposite reason: You can get your news without a filter.

We all grew up, our grandmothers and mothers had about three channels to watch, so we watched those soaps and now, a generation has grown up with the Internet and computers and video games.

I'm very happy where 3-D is going, which is that it's becoming a choice - and thankfully, most people are still choosing 2-D.

I barely watch TV. Somehow, I make it work with just the Internet. On TV, there's always so much crap, and you have to flip around.

Television's not going read stories to you.

I'm an Old Media guy. I don't have a website; I don't Twitter. I love magazines, yet I love video games. It's a strange disconnect.