4 ms·

I can't see how you could come to this conclusion, but I'll play along... What do you envision the "newspaper" of 2020 will look like? HuffPo? Please. That

by Nrsolis 16y ago

I can't see how you could come to this conclusion, but I'll play along... What do you envision the "newspaper" of 2020 will look like? HuffPo? Please. That rag is 75% unadulterated opinion pieces and biased claptrap. To me, you sound like someone who is complaining that you're now going to be expecte do pay for a high-quality product that up until now you've been receiving for free. I /pay/ for the WSJ, The Economist, and Forbes on Kindle. Before that option was available to me, I paid for those subscriptions to be mailed/delivered to my home. I'm /exactly/ the kind of customer that they want, because I have money to spend and I will hand it over if I find value. I think their advertisers appreciate the difference. Compare the quality of reporting between your average local "free" newspaper and the NYTimes (or almost any other major newspaper). Personally, I applaud the folks at NYTimes. They've been dealt a tough hand and they are doing their best to stay relevant.

tomjen3 16y ago
I too am willing to pay for relevance, but not for news as they are filled with the same stories, spin, stupid opinions and not nearly enough stories that actually matter (when was the last time the nytimes destroyed a politicians who had done something illegal?) are wetted by experts (witness the current comments about the neuclear stuff in Japan where very little is actually know but everybody is writing about it) and completely free of spin. Fix those issues and I pay.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  The problem with this analysis is that those issues are everything. You're basically asking the NYT to redefine itself from the ground up. That's fine. Except why wouldn't it be easier to just start out elsewhere from scratch. "I like that restaurant, it's pretty good. All they need to change are their prices, their decor, their selections, their staff, and their chef... then they'd be great!" Also, this hits a bit too close to reality: http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/the-most-emailed-new-york-times-article-ever http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/the-most-emailed-new-york-time...
- Bobby_Tables 16y ago
  The last time NYT destroyed a politician who had done something illegal was March 10, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07prostitution.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07prostitution.ht...
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Thats the best defence of newspapers I have seen in a long time, but that is still: 2 two years ago almost certainly not the worst thing that has been done (and not even very close either)
InclinedPlane 16y ago
Let's back up a second. Why are newspapers being disrupted by the internet so severely? Well, for a while newspapers (and later local tv affiliates) were the only mass communication channels available. That put them in a unique position to serve as gatekeeper of news and information for a community, which allowed them to make money off of being a broadcast medium as well as their own original content. So newspapers were able to make money off of classified ads, rebroadcasted wire reports, comics, etc. This situation allowed newspapers to bloat up into huge organizations and make a lot of money off of little effort. The original investigative journalism within a newspaper made up a shockingly small percentage of their total efforts. The internet has made the broadcast functions of newspapers utterly obsolete, making the only economically useful function of newspapers their original reporting, which they do very poorly and also very rarely. Newspapers have a self-identification as this whole broadcast / gatekeeper enterprise, they have been having a hard time imagining they could be anything else (such as an organization that doesn't print classified ads, wire reports, or marmaduke comics). If I knew what the newspaper of 2020 was going to look like I'd be building a business around that (and I may do so regardless). I know for damned sure that the newspaper of 2020 won't be dominated by material that is unnecessarily rebroadcast, and unfortunately that includes a lot of what's in the NYT today. As for HuffPo, that's not a source of news, nor is it the future of journalism (it may not even outlast the NYT). As to "paying for a high-quality product" I dispute the notion that the NYT is anything of the sort. It's as much a rag as HuffPo, it's just a lot better at maintaining "production value". Personally I think the future of journalism will be in smaller, more focused groups who are subject matter experts first and journalists not by training per se but by practice.
- Nrsolis 16y ago
  "It's as much a rag as HuffPo, it's just a lot better at maintaining "production value"." Well then, you're in luck. The content you don't care about will not longer be free to you. Enjoy your full refund. Seriously, I can't take you seriously if you don't suggest an alternative. Print and other broadcast media were the most efficient way to reach large numbers of people. The internet changes that somewhat because you no longer have (much of) a marginal cost to differentiate your information product. The long tail works for information products as well. UNFORTUNATELY, this means that those things (classifieds, ads, coupons/inserts) aren't going to be available to subsidize the higher-cost things (investigative eporting, foreign bureaus). Craigslist and eBay did more to hurt newspapers than "bloggers" ever did. Free NYtimes content online was a way to stay in the game until they could figure out the new business model. Which they will or they wont. What I don't get is your anger over this. Why do you care? Either they'll do OK or they wont. The only difference to YOU that I can see is that you'll no longer have access to that "rag" for free. You've already stated that you dont like the articles. It's clear to me that you're not going to be taxed on them either. The rest of us who are willing to pay (because we find value) will probably do so. I'm thankful that someone else is willing to do the hard work and write this stuff up. I've got precious little time as it is and the premium I am willing to pay for smart, relevant content is some value substantially greater than zero.

by Nrsolis 16y ago

tomjen3 16y ago

I too am willing to pay for relevance, but not for news as they are filled with the same stories, spin, stupid opinions and not nearly enough stories that actually matter (when was the last time the nytimes destroyed a politicians who had done something illegal?) are wetted by experts (witness the current comments about the neuclear stuff in Japan where very little is actually know but everybody is writing about it) and completely free of spin. Fix those issues and I pay.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
The problem with this analysis is that those issues are everything. You're basically asking the NYT to redefine itself from the ground up. That's fine. Except why wouldn't it be easier to just start out elsewhere from scratch. "I like that restaurant, it's pretty good. All they need to change are their prices, their decor, their selections, their staff, and their chef... then they'd be great!" Also, this hits a bit too close to reality: http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/the-most-emailed-new-york-times-article-ever http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/the-most-emailed-new-york-time...
Bobby_Tables 16y ago
The last time NYT destroyed a politician who had done something illegal was March 10, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07prostitution.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07prostitution.ht...
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Thats the best defence of newspapers I have seen in a long time, but that is still: 2 two years ago almost certainly not the worst thing that has been done (and not even very close either)

InclinedPlane 16y ago

Let's back up a second. Why are newspapers being disrupted by the internet so severely? Well, for a while newspapers (and later local tv affiliates) were the only mass communication channels available. That put them in a unique position to serve as gatekeeper of news and information for a community, which allowed them to make money off of being a broadcast medium as well as their own original content. So newspapers were able to make money off of classified ads, rebroadcasted wire reports, comics, etc. This situation allowed newspapers to bloat up into huge organizations and make a lot of money off of little effort. The original investigative journalism within a newspaper made up a shockingly small percentage of their total efforts. The internet has made the broadcast functions of newspapers utterly obsolete, making the only economically useful function of newspapers their original reporting, which they do very poorly and also very rarely. Newspapers have a self-identification as this whole broadcast / gatekeeper enterprise, they have been having a hard time imagining they could be anything else (such as an organization that doesn't print classified ads, wire reports, or marmaduke comics). If I knew what the newspaper of 2020 was going to look like I'd be building a business around that (and I may do so regardless). I know for damned sure that the newspaper of 2020 won't be dominated by material that is unnecessarily rebroadcast, and unfortunately that includes a lot of what's in the NYT today. As for HuffPo, that's not a source of news, nor is it the future of journalism (it may not even outlast the NYT). As to "paying for a high-quality product" I dispute the notion that the NYT is anything of the sort. It's as much a rag as HuffPo, it's just a lot better at maintaining "production value". Personally I think the future of journalism will be in smaller, more focused groups who are subject matter experts first and journalists not by training per se but by practice.

Nrsolis 16y ago
"It's as much a rag as HuffPo, it's just a lot better at maintaining "production value"." Well then, you're in luck. The content you don't care about will not longer be free to you. Enjoy your full refund. Seriously, I can't take you seriously if you don't suggest an alternative. Print and other broadcast media were the most efficient way to reach large numbers of people. The internet changes that somewhat because you no longer have (much of) a marginal cost to differentiate your information product. The long tail works for information products as well. UNFORTUNATELY, this means that those things (classifieds, ads, coupons/inserts) aren't going to be available to subsidize the higher-cost things (investigative eporting, foreign bureaus). Craigslist and eBay did more to hurt newspapers than "bloggers" ever did. Free NYtimes content online was a way to stay in the game until they could figure out the new business model. Which they will or they wont. What I don't get is your anger over this. Why do you care? Either they'll do OK or they wont. The only difference to YOU that I can see is that you'll no longer have access to that "rag" for free. You've already stated that you dont like the articles. It's clear to me that you're not going to be taxed on them either. The rest of us who are willing to pay (because we find value) will probably do so. I'm thankful that someone else is willing to do the hard work and write this stuff up. I've got precious little time as it is and the premium I am willing to pay for smart, relevant content is some value substantially greater than zero.