5 ms·

"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

by 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.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
The ideal is that these kernels of value (investigative journalism, for example) flourished under the subsidization of advertising. They reality is the opposite, they withered away while news media grew fat and lazy. It's easier to concentrate on reprints of family circle, regurgitated wire reports, opinion pieces, and facile human interest stories than it is to do the hard gum-shoe work of real reporting. The internet has pulled the rug out from under newspapers by taking away the value of all that fluff, because broadcasting is now effectively free and ubiquitous. That means that the only substantive value newspapers have anymore (outside of tradition, which will only maintain for so long) is in their original reporting and the quality of their opinion. Even in the off chance that there are news institutions with substantial value in these areas it's unlikely that the public is willing to pay enough for that to also support paying money for editing wire reports and redistributing beetle bailey. But newspapers are generally fundamentally incapable of redefining themselves as anything other than the bloated institutions they've been, they would rather go down with "dignity" than to change who they are. Why do I care? Because I care about the news and I hate to see it continue to be dragged down by these failing corporate behemoths. I think the future of journalism is, as I said, in much leaner institutions who put the focus on the subject and the quality of reporting first, are not burdened by the bloat of outmoded institutional conceptions of what being a "newspaper" means, and who have financial incentives which align with the incentives to produce better reporting.

by Nrsolis 16y ago

InclinedPlane 16y ago

The ideal is that these kernels of value (investigative journalism, for example) flourished under the subsidization of advertising. They reality is the opposite, they withered away while news media grew fat and lazy. It's easier to concentrate on reprints of family circle, regurgitated wire reports, opinion pieces, and facile human interest stories than it is to do the hard gum-shoe work of real reporting. The internet has pulled the rug out from under newspapers by taking away the value of all that fluff, because broadcasting is now effectively free and ubiquitous. That means that the only substantive value newspapers have anymore (outside of tradition, which will only maintain for so long) is in their original reporting and the quality of their opinion. Even in the off chance that there are news institutions with substantial value in these areas it's unlikely that the public is willing to pay enough for that to also support paying money for editing wire reports and redistributing beetle bailey. But newspapers are generally fundamentally incapable of redefining themselves as anything other than the bloated institutions they've been, they would rather go down with "dignity" than to change who they are. Why do I care? Because I care about the news and I hate to see it continue to be dragged down by these failing corporate behemoths. I think the future of journalism is, as I said, in much leaner institutions who put the focus on the subject and the quality of reporting first, are not burdened by the bloat of outmoded institutional conceptions of what being a "newspaper" means, and who have financial incentives which align with the incentives to produce better reporting.