3 ms·

(I submitted this story). Much as I don't like the tone of the piece, I think the point about the traditional media focusing on competing on accuracy and not sp

by frossie 18y ago

(I submitted this story). Much as I don't like the tone of the piece, I think the point about the traditional media focusing on competing on accuracy and not speed is valid. The question in my mind is, is there a large audience for slow, albeit thoughtful and accurate, journalism?

brandnewlow 18y ago
I hear a lot of people pointing to the Economist as the example of what newspapers should do. That's fine, I agree that would be a good thing. But please don't point to Newsweek. The traditional U.S. news-weekly is dying almost as quickly as metro newspapers. What's the difference between Newsweek and the Economist? Point of view and voice. That's really what this is about. The Economist has a point of view and takes sides on the issues it covers. It will always side with open markets and capitalism. That's its POV. What does Newsweek stand for? U.S. News and World Report? Time? So yes, weekly could be a good approach, but really, the problem is a lack of voice and POV. Also, I used to buy the line that while the big dailies were struggling, the weekly neighborhood papers in U.S. cities were doing ok. That's been said by a lot of people with access to good data. And yet here in Chicago the family-owned business that published 5 weekly neighborhood papers recently folded one and sold off two for a song to a husband-wife business that's turning them into newsletters. So there's some struggling going on there, too.
- smhinsey 18y ago
  i think that has less to do with their nature as weekly papers and more to do with the kinds of advertising that they carry. for example, the weekly dig in boston probably runs 75% or higher of advertisers that either wouldn't or couldn't advertise in the globe. this may also relate to the pervasiveness of the large newspaper conglomerates. it seems like there is a lot of opportunity to outserve the larger papers when it comes to local or niche customers. (edit: either i'm going crazy or you edited your post a little, so i am now replying to a rather minor point)
- frossie 18y ago
  The local paper is a serious, though different problem. I read a very touching article last week about the collapse of the local press in the UK, with old people quoted as saying there was no newspaper left to publish their obituary in. Back to monetising serious journalism in the national (or even international this day) press - I have a different view of the problem, which is I want to pay money but the sites are not asking for it. Rather than subscribe to a single paper, what I want is to make a micro-payment for an article that I read that interested me. For example that long piece on Dubai that was posted here a few days ago, or the piece on newspaper ownnership posted today - both were from newspapers that I do not regularly read or visit. I read the articles, I enjoyed them, they were long serious pieces of work and I would have pressed in an instant a button that said "If you liked this story click here to donate $0.10" in order to reward the person who paid the journalist to write the story. In fact I am many, many times more likely to give 10 cents that to click (or even notice) an advertisement on the same page. The search engine and other type of aggregators (such as HN type sites) then become a clear boon to the primary content provider because they are not diluting page views or anything like that - they are just delivering a potential paying customer straight to something they are likely to pay for. Why is nobody asking me for my money?
smhinsey 18y ago
that such an audience exists is certainly the bet that a lot of longer form journalism is making, particularly the newsmagazines. i work for one who has been struggling with its identity online since the early days of the internet and it seems like the question of whether or not to be a breaking news outlet or a more analytical outlet has been at the core of that struggle the whole time.

by frossie 18y ago

brandnewlow 18y ago

I hear a lot of people pointing to the Economist as the example of what newspapers should do. That's fine, I agree that would be a good thing. But please don't point to Newsweek. The traditional U.S. news-weekly is dying almost as quickly as metro newspapers. What's the difference between Newsweek and the Economist? Point of view and voice. That's really what this is about. The Economist has a point of view and takes sides on the issues it covers. It will always side with open markets and capitalism. That's its POV. What does Newsweek stand for? U.S. News and World Report? Time? So yes, weekly could be a good approach, but really, the problem is a lack of voice and POV. Also, I used to buy the line that while the big dailies were struggling, the weekly neighborhood papers in U.S. cities were doing ok. That's been said by a lot of people with access to good data. And yet here in Chicago the family-owned business that published 5 weekly neighborhood papers recently folded one and sold off two for a song to a husband-wife business that's turning them into newsletters. So there's some struggling going on there, too.

smhinsey 18y ago
i think that has less to do with their nature as weekly papers and more to do with the kinds of advertising that they carry. for example, the weekly dig in boston probably runs 75% or higher of advertisers that either wouldn't or couldn't advertise in the globe. this may also relate to the pervasiveness of the large newspaper conglomerates. it seems like there is a lot of opportunity to outserve the larger papers when it comes to local or niche customers. (edit: either i'm going crazy or you edited your post a little, so i am now replying to a rather minor point)
frossie 18y ago
The local paper is a serious, though different problem. I read a very touching article last week about the collapse of the local press in the UK, with old people quoted as saying there was no newspaper left to publish their obituary in. Back to monetising serious journalism in the national (or even international this day) press - I have a different view of the problem, which is I want to pay money but the sites are not asking for it. Rather than subscribe to a single paper, what I want is to make a micro-payment for an article that I read that interested me. For example that long piece on Dubai that was posted here a few days ago, or the piece on newspaper ownnership posted today - both were from newspapers that I do not regularly read or visit. I read the articles, I enjoyed them, they were long serious pieces of work and I would have pressed in an instant a button that said "If you liked this story click here to donate $0.10" in order to reward the person who paid the journalist to write the story. In fact I am many, many times more likely to give 10 cents that to click (or even notice) an advertisement on the same page. The search engine and other type of aggregators (such as HN type sites) then become a clear boon to the primary content provider because they are not diluting page views or anything like that - they are just delivering a potential paying customer straight to something they are likely to pay for. Why is nobody asking me for my money?

smhinsey 18y ago

that such an audience exists is certainly the bet that a lot of longer form journalism is making, particularly the newsmagazines. i work for one who has been struggling with its identity online since the early days of the internet and it seems like the question of whether or not to be a breaking news outlet or a more analytical outlet has been at the core of that struggle the whole time.