3 ms·

(edit -- deleting earlier comment and moving here as a reply.) This is one of the reasons we're really focusing on local first -- unless you're in a handful of

(edit -- deleting earlier comment and moving here as a reply.) This is one of the reasons we're really focusing on local first -- unless you're in a handful of American cities that still has a thriving local press corps, the question isn't really who is first, it's who is covering it at all. Beyond that, we're trying to move away from the traditional formats that somehow migrated from the print and broadcast worlds online. When you write an article, you have to have all of the information together at once; of course, that's rarely how the reporting process works. By posting it as reporters get information, and as they're comfortable reporting that information -- it not only can get to the consumer quickly, but we hope it can also eliminate some of the mystery behind why a journalist is reporting what they are reporting.

radicalbyte 5y ago
Sounds like Blendle. I hope you have better luck than they did - their business always seemed rather hopeless.
ghaff 5y ago
>the question isn't really who is first, it's who is covering it at all As you get to smaller cities and even towns, I'd argue that weekly is probably fine for frequency and allows for coverage of what is actually important. Of course, online extras could cover more urgent things. The overall economics are still an issue of course, but do people really need most local news RIGHT NOW? Of course, there was a point in my life when most of the news I consumed came from reading Time Magazine every week.
- jaredwiener 5y ago
  The urgency question is a big deal. Of course, some things theres a resounding yes -- the path of a tornado, for example, or even to know about a community board hearing about something you may feel strongly about. But then of course, theres the other stuff. Stuff that you might want to know about over the course of the week. The great part of the Internet now is that there doesn't really have to be any delineation between the two; we don't have to go to press. We can post what we need to when we need to, and of course push notifications/etc for the really urgent stuff.

radicalbyte 5y ago

Sounds like Blendle. I hope you have better luck than they did - their business always seemed rather hopeless.

ghaff 5y ago

>the question isn't really who is first, it's who is covering it at all As you get to smaller cities and even towns, I'd argue that weekly is probably fine for frequency and allows for coverage of what is actually important. Of course, online extras could cover more urgent things. The overall economics are still an issue of course, but do people really need most local news RIGHT NOW? Of course, there was a point in my life when most of the news I consumed came from reading Time Magazine every week.

jaredwiener 5y ago
The urgency question is a big deal. Of course, some things theres a resounding yes -- the path of a tornado, for example, or even to know about a community board hearing about something you may feel strongly about. But then of course, theres the other stuff. Stuff that you might want to know about over the course of the week. The great part of the Internet now is that there doesn't really have to be any delineation between the two; we don't have to go to press. We can post what we need to when we need to, and of course push notifications/etc for the really urgent stuff.