3 ms·
"the aggregator or blogger earned enough money to survive (since what he did is not that expensive), while the news outlet who did the reporting didn't earn eno
by zhyder 17y ago
"the aggregator or blogger earned enough money to survive (since what he did is not that expensive), while the news outlet who did the reporting didn't earn enough to operate."
Great point! This is why I'm worried about a future without NYTimes and other traditional news outlets. The most dangerous possibility is that there won't be any economic incentive left to do the original investigative reporting. But maybe we don't need any economic incentive anyway, and we'll get plenty of free news from the twitter-ers, casual bloggers, cellphone video uploaders and other common folk.
- brandnewlow 17y agoI think new ways to fund investigative reporting will arise, and that they'll be just as problematic, ephemeral, and controversial as the current ones. Obvious example: How deeply can an investigative reporter at NBC really probe into the affairs of General Electric, the company that owns it? Similarly, if a bunch of local realtors got together and hired an investigative reporter to cover real estate, people would howl and moan about conflict of interest...but that person would probably dig up some great stories, just not stories about the companies funding him/her.