4 ms·

Why News Won't Work Like Murdoch Want's It To

8 points by andrewbaron 17y ago

russell 17y ago
A variation on a theme (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=992927 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=992927). This one says that the WSJ is getting it wrong because you have to subscribe to read the story because the story or equivalent is widely available. Baron is right in the global sense, but wrong in the specific. The NYT cant force you to subscribe, because, except for some of their columnists, their content is available everywhere. They even syndicate it themselves. The WSJ is actually a counter example to Baron's point. The WSJ actually makes money on their web site. People actually subscribe because of the WSJ's reputation for its business reporting. OTOH if a publication doesnt have the reputation and immediate need to know content of the WSJ, a walled garden will ensure its demise. Other publications that could (and do) survive on a subscription basis: Physician Desk Reference (even tough all its information is publicly available), Lexus, Nexus, and Bloomberg.
StrawberryFrog 17y ago
Apostrophes don't work like title's author thinks they do. Should I read them any further on the subject of, you know, writing about news?
- jacquesm 17y ago
  It doesn't stop at the apostrophes, unfortunately: "There is a great deal of information worth paying for, but for the most part, it’s hard to understand why anyone would be incentivized to pay for the news for news is as free as the freedom of speech." There seems to be some misunderstanding about the meaning of the word 'free' in those two vastly different contexts. The fact that others are reporting the same news is no reason to draw this parallel, after all that says nothing about the quality, the convenience and the timing of the reporting. Things like the google phone are much more suitable to blog style reporting than say investigating a political scandal, on-site reporting and analysis. That's where you can create real value as a newspaper, fluff articles about gadgets not so much, the barrier to entry is way too low. Especially if those articles are speculative in nature.
  - StrawberryFrog 17y ago
    * hard to understand why anyone would be incentivized * Ug. Needs a re-write in simple English. What it's trying to say probably isn't that complex, but it's very badly put.

8 points by andrewbaron 17y ago

A variation on a theme (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=992927 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=992927). This one says that the WSJ is getting it wrong because you have to subscribe to read the story because the story or equivalent is widely available. Baron is right in the global sense, but wrong in the specific. The NYT cant force you to subscribe, because, except for some of their columnists, their content is available everywhere. They even syndicate it themselves. The WSJ is actually a counter example to Baron's point. The WSJ actually makes money on their web site. People actually subscribe because of the WSJ's reputation for its business reporting. OTOH if a publication doesnt have the reputation and immediate need to know content of the WSJ, a walled garden will ensure its demise. Other publications that could (and do) survive on a subscription basis: Physician Desk Reference (even tough all its information is publicly available), Lexus, Nexus, and Bloomberg.

StrawberryFrog 17y ago

Apostrophes don't work like title's author thinks they do. Should I read them any further on the subject of, you know, writing about news?

jacquesm 17y ago
It doesn't stop at the apostrophes, unfortunately: "There is a great deal of information worth paying for, but for the most part, it’s hard to understand why anyone would be incentivized to pay for the news for news is as free as the freedom of speech." There seems to be some misunderstanding about the meaning of the word 'free' in those two vastly different contexts. The fact that others are reporting the same news is no reason to draw this parallel, after all that says nothing about the quality, the convenience and the timing of the reporting. Things like the google phone are much more suitable to blog style reporting than say investigating a political scandal, on-site reporting and analysis. That's where you can create real value as a newspaper, fluff articles about gadgets not so much, the barrier to entry is way too low. Especially if those articles are speculative in nature.
- StrawberryFrog 17y ago
  * hard to understand why anyone would be incentivized * Ug. Needs a re-write in simple English. What it's trying to say probably isn't that complex, but it's very badly put.