3 ms·

> Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. Much of it is, yes. Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continu

by untog 11y ago

> Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. Much of it is, yes. Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continue to exist in the way they do. Not that I have any answers here - I think your DVR comparison is fair.

Animats 11y ago
"Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continue to exist in the way they do." Not any more. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist are all paywalled. Those are some of the few remaining newspapers with sizable reporting staffs. Most other US "newspapers" have a few reporters, but mostly regurgitate wire services and press releases. The "fluff" sections (cars, real estate, food and wine, sports) are outsourced, sometimes to Demand Media, the content-farm company. Buy a newspaper and mark all the articles that didn't originate as a press release, press conference, national news service, or ad. There will not be many.
- untog 11y ago
  Those organisations have paywalls, yes, but they still depend overwhelmingly on ads for funding. If they lost it all tomorrow their paywall earnings would come nowhere near filling that hole. And you seem to be ignoring cause and effect here - the reasons many newspapers have much smaller staffs these days is because the bottom fell out of the ad market and left them with no money.
  - ergothus 11y ago
    ...and having online ads didn't improve the reporting, so it earns me no particular allegiance to maintaining the status quo.
    - austenallred 11y ago
      If they didn't have online ads they would pretty much be out of business and there would be no reporting.
    - untog 11y ago
      I don't really understand the point you're making here. Who suggested having ads improved the reporting? It made the reporting available to you at a lower (or free) price.
      - ergothus 11y ago
        The argument made slightly above was that without ads, we lose the current media environment. I'm saying (agreeing with some) that since the current media environment contains very little reporting of value, I don't see a real reason to maintain it. Ads providing revenue has not led to value, ergo I don't see much reason to protect the status quo for fear of losing it.
- freehunter 11y ago
  NYT has tons of ads, even for paying subscribers.

by untog 11y ago

Animats 11y ago

"Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continue to exist in the way they do." Not any more. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist are all paywalled. Those are some of the few remaining newspapers with sizable reporting staffs. Most other US "newspapers" have a few reporters, but mostly regurgitate wire services and press releases. The "fluff" sections (cars, real estate, food and wine, sports) are outsourced, sometimes to Demand Media, the content-farm company. Buy a newspaper and mark all the articles that didn't originate as a press release, press conference, national news service, or ad. There will not be many.

untog 11y ago
Those organisations have paywalls, yes, but they still depend overwhelmingly on ads for funding. If they lost it all tomorrow their paywall earnings would come nowhere near filling that hole. And you seem to be ignoring cause and effect here - the reasons many newspapers have much smaller staffs these days is because the bottom fell out of the ad market and left them with no money.
- ergothus 11y ago
  ...and having online ads didn't improve the reporting, so it earns me no particular allegiance to maintaining the status quo.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    If they didn't have online ads they would pretty much be out of business and there would be no reporting.
  - untog 11y ago
    I don't really understand the point you're making here. Who suggested having ads improved the reporting? It made the reporting available to you at a lower (or free) price.
    - ergothus 11y ago
      The argument made slightly above was that without ads, we lose the current media environment. I'm saying (agreeing with some) that since the current media environment contains very little reporting of value, I don't see a real reason to maintain it. Ads providing revenue has not led to value, ergo I don't see much reason to protect the status quo for fear of losing it.
freehunter 11y ago
NYT has tons of ads, even for paying subscribers.