3 ms·

But the solution is simpler, and the consumer's definitely not paying. I mean, everyone's a stringer now, right? Sites run on ads and buy content from stringers

by thunk 17y ago

But the solution is simpler, and the consumer's definitely not paying. I mean, everyone's a stringer now, right? Sites run on ads and buy content from stringers through an auction market that takes a cut of each transaction. You are that auction site. Competitive bidding for genres of content; reputation indices to incentivise quality journalism -- most of the details have been worked out already in other contexts. I mean, it's so brain-dead it must've been tried already, right? What am I missing?

euroclydon 17y ago
I see a few things holding it back right now and once they are dealt with, online journalism can move on. 1) The big content providers have much of the established talent sewn up in contracts. 2) There is no single go-to place for content, like there is for music (itunes). 3) The current newspapers and magazines still think of themselves as content distributors rather than content providers. If you are a developer or advertiser, sure you can rig up advert auctions and RSS feeds, but the average user, just wants to read an interesting piece and needs a central place to go look for it. A new paradigm would involve content-makers who are organizations and freelancers. We will always need organizations to front money for expensive journalism, and to provide some journalists who need the security, with a steady paycheck. In the future, if journalists work for someone, it will be a virtual newspaper with no delivery network of their own, and which only exists as a brand.
thunk 17y ago
I think this would actually produce higher quality and better paid journalism than the current system. Since there's no formal approval process required to enter the market, good journalists who were previously stymied by old-style institutional filtration will have their day. And since journalism under this system is essentially free-agency, the possibility of bidding wars for pieces by (forgive me) "rockstar" journalists is highly probable, and provides a powerful incentive to do groundbreaking work. A journalist who's scored a comfy gig under the current system has no such incentive.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- brandnewlow 17y ago
  How the heck do you get access to closely guarded sources when you write for "j-auction.com"?
  - thunk 17y ago
    Hrm. Well, you don't write for the auction site any more than eBay sellers work for eBay. You're your own brand, and win or lose source-cred on your own merits. And it's called "stringerbell.com" :)
    - brandnewlow 17y ago
      I hear you. And that's how it will be for more and more folks, no matter what happens. Example, Megan Cotrell is a Chicago-based reporter who covers housing issues. She was with one news org (ChiTownDailyNews.org) for a while and now blogs for the Tribune company. Maybe in a year or so she'll be somewhere else. Wherever she goes, however, she takes her sources and contacts with her. So yes, she can pretty much get what she needs no matter who she's writing for. but getting to that point is a lot harder without a brand backing you up.

by thunk 17y ago

euroclydon 17y ago

I see a few things holding it back right now and once they are dealt with, online journalism can move on. 1) The big content providers have much of the established talent sewn up in contracts. 2) There is no single go-to place for content, like there is for music (itunes). 3) The current newspapers and magazines still think of themselves as content distributors rather than content providers. If you are a developer or advertiser, sure you can rig up advert auctions and RSS feeds, but the average user, just wants to read an interesting piece and needs a central place to go look for it. A new paradigm would involve content-makers who are organizations and freelancers. We will always need organizations to front money for expensive journalism, and to provide some journalists who need the security, with a steady paycheck. In the future, if journalists work for someone, it will be a virtual newspaper with no delivery network of their own, and which only exists as a brand.

thunk 17y ago

I think this would actually produce higher quality and better paid journalism than the current system. Since there's no formal approval process required to enter the market, good journalists who were previously stymied by old-style institutional filtration will have their day. And since journalism under this system is essentially free-agency, the possibility of bidding wars for pieces by (forgive me) "rockstar" journalists is highly probable, and provides a powerful incentive to do groundbreaking work. A journalist who's scored a comfy gig under the current system has no such incentive.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
brandnewlow 17y ago
How the heck do you get access to closely guarded sources when you write for "j-auction.com"?
- thunk 17y ago
  Hrm. Well, you don't write for the auction site any more than eBay sellers work for eBay. You're your own brand, and win or lose source-cred on your own merits. And it's called "stringerbell.com" :)
  - brandnewlow 17y ago
    I hear you. And that's how it will be for more and more folks, no matter what happens. Example, Megan Cotrell is a Chicago-based reporter who covers housing issues. She was with one news org (ChiTownDailyNews.org) for a while and now blogs for the Tribune company. Maybe in a year or so she'll be somewhere else. Wherever she goes, however, she takes her sources and contacts with her. So yes, she can pretty much get what she needs no matter who she's writing for. but getting to that point is a lot harder without a brand backing you up.