3 ms·

True story. I show up 5 minutes late to a lunch/forum about the future of news here in Chicago featuring Carl Bernstein plus the editors of the Sun-Times, Trib

True story. I show up 5 minutes late to a lunch/forum about the future of news here in Chicago featuring Carl Bernstein plus the editors of the Sun-Times, Tribune and other local publications. I find a seat at a table of youngsters and find out they're all undergrads at Northwestern's journalism program, where I earned an MSJ. I introduce myself, tell them I run a news aggregator for local stuff. One turns to me. "I hate what you do. You're ruining the industry." "Wha?" Intrigued, I try to figure out what she means through a series of increasingly specific questions about what she doesn't like until finally I ask the big one: "Do you think it's wrong for a web site to link to another web site?" "Yes. Unless they've paid the site they're linking to for the right to do so." That explained everything. I'm not unsympathetic to her POV. She wants to be a reporter, and those jobs are increasingly hard to come by. She blames "the blogs" for this. I explained that there are many more opportunities out there for her to report and inform the public that didn't involve working for a newspaper. She wasn't interested. It always amazes me how reporters can be so clever and entrepreneurial in their reporting while being so darn conservative and narrow-minded in how they manage their careers.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
old-gregg 17y ago
I explained that there are many more opportunities out there for her to report and inform the public that didn't involve working for a newspaper. ... And still have enough resources (cash) to produce new, valuable information, as opposed to being a gossip outlet or just blogging about things you read elsewhere online? If there are "many more opportunities" how come they're not obvious? Are there really many of them? Can you name a single operating "newspaper replacement"? Assuming every nytimes.com in the world closes its doors tomorrow. What are you going to aggregate?
- vaksel 17y ago
  thats an unrealistic assumption, if it does happen, it'll be gradual, and he can easily switch from aggregating nytimes to some other web news source
- brandnewlow 17y ago
  The problem is looking for a "newspaper replacement." That's limiting. You could go report for a wire service covering a state capitol. You could go report for one of the many B2B web sites and publications popping up to serve industries and audiences that actually have money to spend. You could report for one of the many e-mail newsletter businesses that I know are thriving and growing. You could cover real estate news for the blog of a realtor. You could cover food news for the blog of a coalition of restaurants. But if the only job that will make you happy is covering "important stuff" at a newspaper supported by advertising and classifieds that aims at a general audience and maintains a stance of complete objectivity and impartiality, you're closing the door on many opportunities that would employ the same skillset. The reason these opportunities are not obvious is because people keep looking for something that works just like a newspaper. If it works just like a newspaper, it won't be a viable business. If the NYTimes goes under, it'll be replaced by 100 blogs of varying quality and focus. Someone will be rewarded greatly for stepping in there and aggregating them. Did you know there used to be dozens of newspapers in Chicago? Every immigrant group put out its own paper. Is it so crazy to think we might be returning to that model for a while?
  - old-gregg 17y ago
    "But if the only job that will make you happy is covering "important stuff"" That's the ONLY job we're discussing here. A journalist, you know. Every single "opportunity" you have listed isn't journalism, those are corporate PR gigs. Real estate news for a blog of a realtor? Seriously? And a hundred of those will be a worthy replacement for New York Times? Blogs aren't new. Five years ago every corporate web site had a "news" section and now it's fashionable to call it a "blog". So that's what journalism school graduates should be wasting their lives writing, and I should be reading from now on? So instead of semi-independent media we'll just have a million little press-releases Working for a "newspaper replacement" isn't limiting, it is actually quite ambitious, especially compared to the PR career you have suggested. No wonder that girl was mad at you. And don't pose as some kind of visionary and don't call someone's ambitions "limiting". Face it: you just want someone else's content to aggregate, i.e. profit from. And you seem to care very little of what that content happens to be. Lets repeat the exercise: how can a young and ambitious reporter find resources to do a high-quality reporting (i.e. not press releases) on toxic food in supermarkets, the war in Iraq, corruption in a state senate, etc? Which "real estate broker" will pay for that?
- alanthonyc 17y ago
  If "every single newspaper" closed its doors tomorrow, they would be replaced, quickly and effectively by an as yet undefined alternative. This would be the case even in a microcosmic example, such as a small town as opposed to a whole country. Necessity will breed innovation.
greyman 17y ago
I have a question: How do you link to their articles? Do you write your own anchor text, or do you just take those from the website? If you take their headline (or even portion of their article), they might feel that you do not give enough compensation back to them. Producing a headline is also a work, and good headline carry some actual content. So you just take that content and don't pay for it. You just provide a link, which cost you almost nothing. This was just to describe how they might think about you.
- brandnewlow 17y ago
  It's all UGC. If the user posts the same headline as on the original article, that's what appears. If they write their own, that's what appears. It's just like sharing links on Facebook or Twitter.
stcredzero 17y ago
Do you think it's wrong for a web site to link to another web site? Back in the late 90's, I was working for public broadcasting, and the mentality of management was that you needed permission to link to another website. They would get on the phone with the owners of the other website and ask. That is the sort of mentality you are dealing with. I suspect a disturbingly large fraction of the mainstream has this view.
- brandnewlow 17y ago
  Not surprised at all by this. My site has a lot of contributors who have little to no experience on the web, and they often ask me if it's ok to include links to other web sites in their stories or encourage me to stop linking out to other sites so much. I tell them it's ok and actually important to send folks to relevant sites, but it seems a bit counter intuitive to some.
johnnybgoode 17y ago
She's trying to climb a falling ladder. I can understand why she's upset, but I'm not very sympathetic.
anamax 17y ago
> "Do you think it's wrong for a web site to link to another web site?" > "Yes. Unless they've paid the site they're linking to for the right to do so." Did you ask her if she thinks that you should pay her before telling a friend how to get to the great article that she wrote, a way that lets her monetize said article as she sees fit? If she says yes, as her if she understands the question and whether she wants readers. If she says no, you ask her if she minds if you tell 10 strangers. A link isn't content. It's a way to get content. It doesn't affect her ability to monetize her content in any way that she feels appropriate. Newspaper folk either don't understand that or ....

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

old-gregg 17y ago

I explained that there are many more opportunities out there for her to report and inform the public that didn't involve working for a newspaper. ... And still have enough resources (cash) to produce new, valuable information, as opposed to being a gossip outlet or just blogging about things you read elsewhere online? If there are "many more opportunities" how come they're not obvious? Are there really many of them? Can you name a single operating "newspaper replacement"? Assuming every nytimes.com in the world closes its doors tomorrow. What are you going to aggregate?

vaksel 17y ago
thats an unrealistic assumption, if it does happen, it'll be gradual, and he can easily switch from aggregating nytimes to some other web news source
brandnewlow 17y ago
The problem is looking for a "newspaper replacement." That's limiting. You could go report for a wire service covering a state capitol. You could go report for one of the many B2B web sites and publications popping up to serve industries and audiences that actually have money to spend. You could report for one of the many e-mail newsletter businesses that I know are thriving and growing. You could cover real estate news for the blog of a realtor. You could cover food news for the blog of a coalition of restaurants. But if the only job that will make you happy is covering "important stuff" at a newspaper supported by advertising and classifieds that aims at a general audience and maintains a stance of complete objectivity and impartiality, you're closing the door on many opportunities that would employ the same skillset. The reason these opportunities are not obvious is because people keep looking for something that works just like a newspaper. If it works just like a newspaper, it won't be a viable business. If the NYTimes goes under, it'll be replaced by 100 blogs of varying quality and focus. Someone will be rewarded greatly for stepping in there and aggregating them. Did you know there used to be dozens of newspapers in Chicago? Every immigrant group put out its own paper. Is it so crazy to think we might be returning to that model for a while?
- old-gregg 17y ago
  "But if the only job that will make you happy is covering "important stuff"" That's the ONLY job we're discussing here. A journalist, you know. Every single "opportunity" you have listed isn't journalism, those are corporate PR gigs. Real estate news for a blog of a realtor? Seriously? And a hundred of those will be a worthy replacement for New York Times? Blogs aren't new. Five years ago every corporate web site had a "news" section and now it's fashionable to call it a "blog". So that's what journalism school graduates should be wasting their lives writing, and I should be reading from now on? So instead of semi-independent media we'll just have a million little press-releases Working for a "newspaper replacement" isn't limiting, it is actually quite ambitious, especially compared to the PR career you have suggested. No wonder that girl was mad at you. And don't pose as some kind of visionary and don't call someone's ambitions "limiting". Face it: you just want someone else's content to aggregate, i.e. profit from. And you seem to care very little of what that content happens to be. Lets repeat the exercise: how can a young and ambitious reporter find resources to do a high-quality reporting (i.e. not press releases) on toxic food in supermarkets, the war in Iraq, corruption in a state senate, etc? Which "real estate broker" will pay for that?
alanthonyc 17y ago
If "every single newspaper" closed its doors tomorrow, they would be replaced, quickly and effectively by an as yet undefined alternative. This would be the case even in a microcosmic example, such as a small town as opposed to a whole country. Necessity will breed innovation.

greyman 17y ago

I have a question: How do you link to their articles? Do you write your own anchor text, or do you just take those from the website? If you take their headline (or even portion of their article), they might feel that you do not give enough compensation back to them. Producing a headline is also a work, and good headline carry some actual content. So you just take that content and don't pay for it. You just provide a link, which cost you almost nothing. This was just to describe how they might think about you.

brandnewlow 17y ago
It's all UGC. If the user posts the same headline as on the original article, that's what appears. If they write their own, that's what appears. It's just like sharing links on Facebook or Twitter.

stcredzero 17y ago

Do you think it's wrong for a web site to link to another web site? Back in the late 90's, I was working for public broadcasting, and the mentality of management was that you needed permission to link to another website. They would get on the phone with the owners of the other website and ask. That is the sort of mentality you are dealing with. I suspect a disturbingly large fraction of the mainstream has this view.

brandnewlow 17y ago
Not surprised at all by this. My site has a lot of contributors who have little to no experience on the web, and they often ask me if it's ok to include links to other web sites in their stories or encourage me to stop linking out to other sites so much. I tell them it's ok and actually important to send folks to relevant sites, but it seems a bit counter intuitive to some.

johnnybgoode 17y ago

She's trying to climb a falling ladder. I can understand why she's upset, but I'm not very sympathetic.

anamax 17y ago

> "Do you think it's wrong for a web site to link to another web site?" > "Yes. Unless they've paid the site they're linking to for the right to do so." Did you ask her if she thinks that you should pay her before telling a friend how to get to the great article that she wrote, a way that lets her monetize said article as she sees fit? If she says yes, as her if she understands the question and whether she wants readers. If she says no, you ask her if she minds if you tell 10 strangers. A link isn't content. It's a way to get content. It doesn't affect her ability to monetize her content in any way that she feels appropriate. Newspaper folk either don't understand that or ....