5 ms·

This is right. It's not Facebook that ate the media's lunch, it was craigslist, ebay, and any marketplace that allows free listings. They've been trying to ma

This is right. It's not Facebook that ate the media's lunch, it was craigslist, ebay, and any marketplace that allows free listings. They've been trying to make up that revenue ever since. Subscriptions were always a pittance. That's not to say Facebook didn't make things worse. They make everything worse; They even ruined wishing friends happy birthday. But the news vs the internet is a much older story than middle-aged social media platforms. The news companies had their opportunity to win this, but they moved far too late.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Subscriptions were always a pittance. It's not that they were a pittance, it's that they were eaten by the cost of printing and distribution. But the internet doesn't have that. The problem was the chronology of how this happened. Newspapers had paid print subscribers and advertisers and were profitable. Then the advertisers were eaten by eBay and Craigslist, so they went into the red. But their paid subscribers were still print subscribers, so they still had all the costs of printing and distribution. So they responded by laying off reporters. Then they had no content worth subscribing to, so the subscribers went away. At that point they're just worthless clickbait mills chasing online ad money. But the model of paying to subscribe to high quality content which is then distributed over the internet so that money goes to the reporters instead of the distribution costs, that works fine. The real "problem" with it is that it works fine without a newspaper company. The reason you had a hundred reporters working together in the same building was so they could share a printing press. Without that need, you end up with individuals doing reporting on substack. Which works, but not for the shareholders of the New York Times.
- freediver 5y ago
  I mostly agree with your assessment apart from this part: > Without that need, you end up with individuals doing reporting on substack. Content that is produced on substack is opinion, not news. It is produced from a comfort of a chair, not from a war zone or a hurricane zone. Nothing wrong with that (if opinion is what you are after), but you actually need to have a news organization to produce news coverage. A single person can not do it in a professional and repeatable way.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > A single person can not do it in a professional and repeatable way. Putting aside whether this is even true, there is no requirement for a substack to always be exactly one individual, or for that individual to be unable to hire a third party proof reader or fact checker. That still doesn't require a billion dollar media corporation. There is also no requirement for it to be opinion rather than factual reporting. Most of what existing large media companies produce is not factual reporting.
    - freediver 5y ago
      You just defined a news company.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        Yet that thing is not a publicly traded multi-billion dollar media corporation.
        freediver 5y ago
        Hm I think we have a misunderstanding. Who said that a news company has to be publicly traded multi-billion dollar media corporation? My local newspaper is a news company. It can not effectively be replaced by someone on substack, let alone a news company with aspirations of more than local news coverage. Substack is OK for opinion, not news. That was my whole argument.
        PeterisP 5y ago
        Why exactly can't your local news company be replaced by "someone on substack"? If the individual reporters who currently work for that company would quit and host the same reporting on substack (either as a team or individually), what would be the major difference to the user?
        5y ago
FridayoLeary 5y ago
>They make everything worse I would go further. Facebook are just filling in a need and by doing so, making it worse. They never created anything. Calling the problem 'Facebook' won't help in the broader sense, i think that ultimately it's a distraction but people are happy with it because it allows them to outsource their problems rather then acknowledge them.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> Subscriptions were always a pittance. It's not that they were a pittance, it's that they were eaten by the cost of printing and distribution. But the internet doesn't have that. The problem was the chronology of how this happened. Newspapers had paid print subscribers and advertisers and were profitable. Then the advertisers were eaten by eBay and Craigslist, so they went into the red. But their paid subscribers were still print subscribers, so they still had all the costs of printing and distribution. So they responded by laying off reporters. Then they had no content worth subscribing to, so the subscribers went away. At that point they're just worthless clickbait mills chasing online ad money. But the model of paying to subscribe to high quality content which is then distributed over the internet so that money goes to the reporters instead of the distribution costs, that works fine. The real "problem" with it is that it works fine without a newspaper company. The reason you had a hundred reporters working together in the same building was so they could share a printing press. Without that need, you end up with individuals doing reporting on substack. Which works, but not for the shareholders of the New York Times.

freediver 5y ago
I mostly agree with your assessment apart from this part: > Without that need, you end up with individuals doing reporting on substack. Content that is produced on substack is opinion, not news. It is produced from a comfort of a chair, not from a war zone or a hurricane zone. Nothing wrong with that (if opinion is what you are after), but you actually need to have a news organization to produce news coverage. A single person can not do it in a professional and repeatable way.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > A single person can not do it in a professional and repeatable way. Putting aside whether this is even true, there is no requirement for a substack to always be exactly one individual, or for that individual to be unable to hire a third party proof reader or fact checker. That still doesn't require a billion dollar media corporation. There is also no requirement for it to be opinion rather than factual reporting. Most of what existing large media companies produce is not factual reporting.
  - freediver 5y ago
    You just defined a news company.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      Yet that thing is not a publicly traded multi-billion dollar media corporation.
      - freediver 5y ago
        Hm I think we have a misunderstanding. Who said that a news company has to be publicly traded multi-billion dollar media corporation? My local newspaper is a news company. It can not effectively be replaced by someone on substack, let alone a news company with aspirations of more than local news coverage. Substack is OK for opinion, not news. That was my whole argument.
        PeterisP 5y ago
        Why exactly can't your local news company be replaced by "someone on substack"? If the individual reporters who currently work for that company would quit and host the same reporting on substack (either as a team or individually), what would be the major difference to the user?
        5y ago

FridayoLeary 5y ago

>They make everything worse I would go further. Facebook are just filling in a need and by doing so, making it worse. They never created anything. Calling the problem 'Facebook' won't help in the broader sense, i think that ultimately it's a distraction but people are happy with it because it allows them to outsource their problems rather then acknowledge them.