4 ms·

Blogs have indeed disrupted print, which is why the New York Times lost its bet in 2002. http://blog.longnow.org/02008/02/01/decision-blogs-vs-new-york-times/

by temphn 14y ago

Blogs have indeed disrupted print, which is why the New York Times lost its bet in 2002. http://blog.longnow.org/02008/02/01/decision-blogs-vs-new-york-times/ http://blog.longnow.org/02008/02/01/decision-blogs-vs-new-yo... Long Bets has arrived at a decision for Long Bet #2 between blogger Dave Winer and Martin Nisenholtz of the NY Times. At stake is US$2000.00 plus half the interest that has accrued over the last 5 years in the Farsight Fund, all of which will go to the charity of the winner’s choice. In the bet Winer asserts, “In a Google search of five keywords or phrases representing the top five news stories of 02007, weblogs will rank higher than the ‘New York Times‘ Web site”. ... The Long Bets decision on this bet is in favor of Winer’s side, weblog page ranks came out ahead of the NY Times. We will be calculating interest and sending a check on to Dave Winer’s charity of choice the World Wide Web Consortium in the next month. How could it be any other way, with hundreds of millions of people -- each with their own domain expertise -- now able to compete with journalists who often have little knowledge outside of J-school? For the topics one cares about (whether they be Linux or photography or finance), you can and will find much better reporting on specialist blogs for free, outside of the lowest-common-denominator mainstream media. And everyone has some topics they care about. Similarly, I encourage people who believe otherwise to go ahead and bet like Martin Nisenholtz of the NYT bet. Bet that Hollywood will survive unscathed in the wake of SOPA/PIPA and YC RFS9, in an era of 1 billion plus portable high quality video cams (soon depthcams), in an era where a Macbook Pro can do professional quality video editing. Bet by buying the stock of movie companies if you believe they haven't yet hit their peak, by investing in the current physical distribution model, by wagering that actors and actresses will make tens of millions in perpetuity. Bet with the confidence that only internet nerds believe Hollywood is due for a reckoning with technology. Others will bet the other way. That's the only way to really test the confidence of an industry prediction of this kind.

tptacek 14y ago
How could it be any other way, with hundreds of millions of people -- each with their own domain expertise -- now able to compete with journalists who often have little knowledge outside of J-school? Very few of those people are writing from and about Syria, or are getting 1:1 interviews with the House Majority Whip. You see this most clearly in state and city government; the demise of newspapers has eliminated practically every source of information that would give you an idea of who to vote for for State Senate.
- temphn 14y ago
  You are absolutely right here on the government point, but I think that fact cuts a different way. Without newspapers to make up people's minds for them on who to vote for, they will now need to actually read position papers and make an informed decision on their own (or else refrain from voting as is their right). Or start their own blog if they truly care. News coverage has a tremendous effect on public opinion (it can be argued that the media in 1992 was responsible for the LA riots), so decentralization of opinion means that journalists have much less power to decide which candidates are "acceptable". [Regarding Syria, they did cut off their internet connection, but I don't believe the centralized news media has done a very good job of reporting what's actually going on in the Middle East in general. I trust Google Translate Arabic + first-party sources more than Judith Miller; YMMV.]
  - tptacek 14y ago
    What position papers? What information are they going to use? You are very likely in a state senate district with very stable party identification. How do you know who to support in a primary? It costs money to get this information out to people, and blogs are not doing it very effectively. Do you really believe that but for an internet connection, Syrian bloggers would be outdoing Marie Colvin, who died to bring the story back for the Sunday Times? Based on what evidence?

by temphn 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

How could it be any other way, with hundreds of millions of people -- each with their own domain expertise -- now able to compete with journalists who often have little knowledge outside of J-school? Very few of those people are writing from and about Syria, or are getting 1:1 interviews with the House Majority Whip. You see this most clearly in state and city government; the demise of newspapers has eliminated practically every source of information that would give you an idea of who to vote for for State Senate.

temphn 14y ago
You are absolutely right here on the government point, but I think that fact cuts a different way. Without newspapers to make up people's minds for them on who to vote for, they will now need to actually read position papers and make an informed decision on their own (or else refrain from voting as is their right). Or start their own blog if they truly care. News coverage has a tremendous effect on public opinion (it can be argued that the media in 1992 was responsible for the LA riots), so decentralization of opinion means that journalists have much less power to decide which candidates are "acceptable". [Regarding Syria, they did cut off their internet connection, but I don't believe the centralized news media has done a very good job of reporting what's actually going on in the Middle East in general. I trust Google Translate Arabic + first-party sources more than Judith Miller; YMMV.]
- tptacek 14y ago
  What position papers? What information are they going to use? You are very likely in a state senate district with very stable party identification. How do you know who to support in a primary? It costs money to get this information out to people, and blogs are not doing it very effectively. Do you really believe that but for an internet connection, Syrian bloggers would be outdoing Marie Colvin, who died to bring the story back for the Sunday Times? Based on what evidence?