3 ms·
There is no depth. There is nothing to analyse. "He thought about what his users wanted, and put very little on his site that wasn't useful to them." That's it.
by GHFigs 17y ago
There is no depth. There is nothing to analyse. "He thought about what his users wanted, and put very little on his site that wasn't useful to them." That's it.
- tptacek 17y agoThis article is a capsule summary of what Wyman's been writing for about a year now. Here's a much more detailed piece: http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/five-key-reasons-why-newspapers-are-failing http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/five-key-reaso... The piece you're critiquing is a WSJ editorial, written for a generalist audience. Wyman may be the only media critic out there pushing the argument that it's not just the business model but the technical design of newspaper sites that's holding them back. It's hard to say there's nothing to his argument.
- Dbug 17y agoYes, his more detailed piece (in two parts) tells far more. And it isn't only insightful about the blunders of the newspaper industry, much of it applies to the mess that is commercial t.v. broadcasting and the broadcaster websites as well. (at least for the U.S.)
- GHFigs 17y agoWhat I meant was that there was nothing to the workings of Craigslist--it really is that simple--and not to Wyman's argument, which I agree with, though I realize now that it wasn't clear. Thanks for the link, though!