3 ms·

Blaming Craig Newmark for destroying journalism is, in a way, accurate, but, in an important way, inaccurate. Sooner or later, someone on the internet was going

Blaming Craig Newmark for destroying journalism is, in a way, accurate, but, in an important way, inaccurate. Sooner or later, someone on the internet was going to make a free "classified ad" and distribute it. If it wasn't Craigslist it would have been MySpace or Facebook or someone else. Maybe the newspapers themselves would have done it.

dsr_ 7y ago
Even more than that: Craigslist wasn't alone. Craigslist is the survivor.
- smelendez 7y ago
  And Craigslist itself isn't the juggernaut it once was. Facebook, Zillow, NextDoor and other sites are all taking bits of its market.
DonHopkins 7y ago
It's like blaming the undertaker for murder. Just because he was recently seen in the vicinity of the corpse, doesn't mean it was his fault. He was just there to provide a valuable service.
tunesmith 7y ago
Probably the way he is arguably more responsible for "destroying" it was by deliberately choosing against selling out for big money. If he had sold out, it would have been monetized, thus costing more money, and it would have been easier for journalism to compete against it. It's kind of a perverse argument overall, generosity being responsible for killing industry. But even if he had sold out and there had been a higher price point set, someone else could have undercut it, since classified ads are pretty easy. So if anything he just accelerated the inevitable. But also interesting that the value of journalism (the specialized abilities of the profession) was funded by something that could be commoditized like that. Makes me think more about the post-scarcity economy. This is an example of how it changed something that could be commoditized, meaning something that didn't take particularly specialized skills and could easily be cheaply automated, but didn't change something that did require specialized skills, like journalism skills. So maybe that means the way to future-proof is to make sure your specialized abilities aren't funded by non-specialized abilities.
rapind 7y ago
Where I live people use Kijiji instead of Craigslist, so yeah it's obvious and proven. Mainstream journalism died when it became about profit (wasn't always). * Interesting note. I've seen many complaints and unofficial redesigns touted for Craigslist, but go and take a look at the monstrously ad-ridden Kijiji on your phone in comparison. Craigslist is holding up pretty strong.
- eli 7y ago
  What do you mean journalism wasn’t always about profit?
  - rapind 7y ago
    Stations didn't use to rely on or require News programs to make a profit. It was a loss-leader to create prestige for the networks and comply with the FCC's Fairness Doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
    - eli 7y ago
      Ah, I see what you mean. I'm not sure the Fairness Doctrine is a model for how to improve the quality of journalism in the future. During that same time period print newspapers were enormously profitable and were also doing good work.

dsr_ 7y ago

Even more than that: Craigslist wasn't alone. Craigslist is the survivor.

smelendez 7y ago
And Craigslist itself isn't the juggernaut it once was. Facebook, Zillow, NextDoor and other sites are all taking bits of its market.

DonHopkins 7y ago

It's like blaming the undertaker for murder. Just because he was recently seen in the vicinity of the corpse, doesn't mean it was his fault. He was just there to provide a valuable service.

tunesmith 7y ago

Probably the way he is arguably more responsible for "destroying" it was by deliberately choosing against selling out for big money. If he had sold out, it would have been monetized, thus costing more money, and it would have been easier for journalism to compete against it. It's kind of a perverse argument overall, generosity being responsible for killing industry. But even if he had sold out and there had been a higher price point set, someone else could have undercut it, since classified ads are pretty easy. So if anything he just accelerated the inevitable. But also interesting that the value of journalism (the specialized abilities of the profession) was funded by something that could be commoditized like that. Makes me think more about the post-scarcity economy. This is an example of how it changed something that could be commoditized, meaning something that didn't take particularly specialized skills and could easily be cheaply automated, but didn't change something that did require specialized skills, like journalism skills. So maybe that means the way to future-proof is to make sure your specialized abilities aren't funded by non-specialized abilities.

rapind 7y ago

Where I live people use Kijiji instead of Craigslist, so yeah it's obvious and proven. Mainstream journalism died when it became about profit (wasn't always). * Interesting note. I've seen many complaints and unofficial redesigns touted for Craigslist, but go and take a look at the monstrously ad-ridden Kijiji on your phone in comparison. Craigslist is holding up pretty strong.

eli 7y ago
What do you mean journalism wasn’t always about profit?
- rapind 7y ago
  Stations didn't use to rely on or require News programs to make a profit. It was a loss-leader to create prestige for the networks and comply with the FCC's Fairness Doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
  - eli 7y ago
    Ah, I see what you mean. I'm not sure the Fairness Doctrine is a model for how to improve the quality of journalism in the future. During that same time period print newspapers were enormously profitable and were also doing good work.