Hard News: A New Hope
57 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Nor that of my youth. The point was neatly illustrated today with the DomPost publishing a facsimile of the "wrap-around supplement to The Dominion to mark man's greatest achievement"
16 pages. Content. Oh my, the content. As rich as Whittakers.
Don't suppose they digitised any of this for linkability? Otherwise I might just have to buy a copy...
-
Shockingly, Freeview has a listing of what's on freeview over there.
-
The re-enactment website is still counting down to moon landing http://www.wechoosethemoon.org
-
3410,
@ Heather W.
That is cool.
Landing time: approx 08:15 am tomorrow, NZ time.
-
That vid from ABC - is that the smell of denial? At least, from Mr David Simon, of unverified fear. It's the same as the copyright argument - "Change is bad, fear change" "We're not making as much money as we did, so someone must be blamed. It's the damn bloggers!".
Well, maybe it would seem that way, if you never read his full address, which is one of the more clear-eyed, if dissillusioned assesments on the state of newspapers today. If anything he's more critical of the US newspaper industry than bloggers- particularly the way they constantly shot themselves in the foot by refusing to invest in R&D,cutting away at key rounds and continually following the short-term profit model long before the internet reared its head.
Have a read of it here. Seriously. I'd be surprised if you disagree with it, becase he's essentially making the same points as you.
It's a tangled web, but publishes essential have to figure out whether they want to produce quality online or quality in print. And if they want both, then they need different models, business and journalistically for each. I would argue that at the moment, there is a lot of good commentary online, not so much actual hard journalism- as we can see by the fact that some of the more popular "news" sites, such as the Huffington Post, are aggregators. It's not so much a news source as a source where news is stored.
But that will change. What I find strange is how a magazine like Vanity Fair can get away with releasing all of their articles for free online and still make a relatively tidy profit from magazine sales. I mean, their features aren't thumbnail sketches by any stretch. Perhaps it's all about strength in brand.
Great opening post RB- there's a lot I agree with there. There are things I want to say but I'm bound by the fact I still want to keep my current job!
-
I'm deeply interested in this paper model, versus online model, of news presentation debate, as I'm in China and 'Youtube' has been, well, let us just say, 'normal service will be resumed shortly'. I prefer the grand paper model, for several reasons.
A paper has an address, a physical location, something I can placard, protest, or visit. Doing this online is, well, inhuman! A paper, unlike most blogsites, has a staff that are accountable, and cannot hide behind poxy alter egos. Most papers are not run by Rupert Murdoch, although the vile shit is trying. (Oooh, BTW, go to youtube and search out Hugh Laurie, Stephen Fry and 'A world without Rupert Murdoch' skit, fucking brilliant) Finally, and most important, blogging is fine, but you're hardly going to set the world on fire. Infact the amount of people your dedicated sites reach is dwindling. Like the engineer who goes on learning more and more, about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing; that is blogging to me. It appears you are reaching dedicated audiences in their millions, this is not enough, unless you are Rupert Murdoch, who owns thousands of these papers, sites.
The demise of world class papers is not the rise of a new internet democracy it is the watering down of information to smaller and smaller interest groups, each adamently ignoring the sites they loath. Papers, or at least the good ones, have content that can cross this divide.
Rob. -
Is the elephant in the room that he's absolutely fucking right?
The good is a teeeeeeeny tiny minority of the vast churning oceans of shit that make up the blogosphere.
Morgan: And when the NBR is remotely comparable to the Wall Street Journal or The Economist, I'd be confident that the subscription model is going to work. Otherwise, if trad media are undergoing a crisis of viability and authority they've got nobody but themselves to blame.
Meanwhile, did anyone hear Mediawatch on Sunday? And does anyone really believe The News of the World is the only British paper that treats privacy with flat out contempt? Bet that's all bloggers' fault too...
-
Absolutely Rob- although, given my current employment, of course I would say that. There is something really egalitarian about a good newspaper, specifically because of its role as a journal of record.
Obviously there is a lot of give and take, and as Simon points out, in many cases, the newspapers in question only have themselves to blame for their current state.
I think the amusing thing is that as anyone who has studied the history of the media is that, in a weird way, we've been here before- more than 200 years ago, with the rise of journal culture.
It was fascinating doing a research essay on it for an honours English literature course, because so much of the approach is similar- not least in the fervency of the "debate" and the sheer furiousness of each of the scribes all out for something of their own.
The main difference between now and then, is that the speed of information transfer is far quicker, but those early Spectators and Tatlers really set out the new rules of engagement. And then there's Alexander Pope's the Dunciad, which delves depths that even the more unhinged kiwiblog user wouldn't countenance, albeit with much greater command of the English language.
But again, I'm probably getting myself between blogging as commentary and blogging as news-breaking.
Maybe in the future Tom Tomorrow will be the only trusted new source. We could do worse.
Just as an aside, who in good grace at TV 3 decided that Cameron Slater should be asked for comment about the NBR's plans? Did they want Jim Tully to look particularly intelligent during that segment or something? It's not as if he needs any help....
-
Btw- just to avoid confusion, I was implying that when it comes to media, Mr Jim Tully is a sage and wise individual, unlike Mr Slater, who is....well....never mind.
-
Didn't the Herald try subscriptions a while back before returning to free content?
Meanwhile, did anyone hear Mediawatch on Sunday? And does anyone really believe The News of the World is the only British paper that treats privacy with flat out contempt?
According toWensley Clarkson , who was a dirty little hack himself, it's all over the show.
-
Btw- just to avoid confusion, I was implying that when it comes to media, Mr Jim Tully is a sage and wise individual, unlike Mr Slater, who is....well....never mind.
And while Jim Tully might be a "sage and wise individual", perhaps some lits time to develop a new rentaquote. OK, that might come off a tad bitchy but is Jim Tully always the most pertinent and well-informed person on media issues? Really?
-
Oh, shit. "Perhaps its time for lazy hacks on deadline to develop a few new rentaquotes."
-
Don't suppose they digitised any of this for linkability?
Not that I can see at Stuff/Dom-Post. So I will do my good deed for the day (to quote I/S) and offer to source the supplement for those PASers who email me - see the nice little envelope beside my comment on the website.
But here where there is online content I learn that nine year old Fleur from Clifton Terrace is a journalist in 2009:
Wellington journalist Fleur Templeton, from the class of 1969 at Clifton Terrace Primary, which featured in The Dominion's coverage, said the excitement was tempered by down-to-earth concerns.
Nine at the time, she remembers pictures of starving Biafran children in the newspapers.
"That made a huge impression and the cost [of the Apollo programme - about US$25 billion] seemed astronomical."
Classmate Sean Kelly Ellis, now an Auckland lawyer, watched the first Moon walk on a TV in a shop window on Lambton Quay. "I thought by now, I'd be living like George Jetson [from the 1960s space age cartoon series]."
-
"I thought by now, I'd be living like George Jetson [from the 1960s space age cartoon series]."
Oh right, *that* George Jetson. I was getting confused there. Thanks for the clarification, DomPost.
-
@Craig- Fair enough. I was commenting more on the fact that TV 3 had to use Cameron Bloody Slater. Other than all the other stuff about him that's well documented, he doesn't even give good quote- which is why lazy hacks go to the commentators in the first place.
-
Great David Simon piece Matthew- thanks for linking to that. He has said it before, but the passion is still there.
It's interesting that Simon is just as adamant as Murdoch that content cannot be free (however much it might, sigh, 'want' to be- just as my left testicle wants to be an astronaut. Dreams are free. Information does not dream.)
I don't think there'd be much those two would agree on. Both, from different directions, perspectives and values, know the newspaper business deeply and broadly. That's a 'pincer-movement' with bite.
So what might people be willing to pay for great local coverage- and, say, something of an aggregator's role (which the papers have been doing forever- what else is AP/Reuters?)-?
It would take a LOT of people paying a lowish- but not unrealistic- sum like $100 a year, to get a viable service running, even assuming (which is not safe) advertising might do better than doubling that.
And it'd be competing immediately with all the big outlets which are currently free. -
And when the NBR is remotely comparable to the Wall Street Journal or The Economist, I'd be confident that the subscription model is going to work. Otherwise, if trad media are undergoing a crisis of viability and authority they've got nobody but themselves to blame.
Oh I don't mean to say I think it's going to work, Craig.
Just that he's right that most bloggers are shrieking morons, who don't even notice that they haven't got two facts to rub together, 'cos they're so proud of their huge piles of useless opinion and unfounded speculation.
That's all. :)
-
Just that he's right that most bloggers are shrieking morons, who don't even notice that they haven't got two facts to rub together, 'cos they're so proud of their huge piles of useless opinion and unfounded speculation.
That's all. :)
And when I'm not the only person who is wondering why the financial media were, to put it politely, asleep at the wheel while the global economy was doing an excellent impersonation of the Exxon Valdez I think outlets like NBR should clean up their own house, before bitching about the dirty slut bloggers over the fence.
-
APs and Reuters do in this new world?
I believe that Reuters makes nearly all its revenue from finance professionals paying thousands a month for their market news/data service. The media wire, though a visible public face, is a bit of a sideline, commercially.
-
Proud to be cheap and nasty...
We do however take our guests and business partners around the corner for some great espresso at the Dellows cafe on Jervois Rd. That's our meeting room and corporate dining room. Very cheap.
And I ride my bike to work rather than drive the Rolls or jump in a corporate jet.
I'd love to challenge Barry to a bike race up Parnell Rise...
cheers and thanks again Russell. Nice to catch up with you and the Media7 team yesterday. Looking forward to the show on Thursday night.
-
I'd love to challenge Barry to a bike race up Parnell Rise...
@Bernard: If you do, make sure it's live blogged :)
-
Way back someone said this.
Off topic: I cannot see the video in the post, its just a square with the pic icon, running the latest IE (v8). Any ideas?
A brief search reveals a host of problems with IE with regards to content handling. The only way that the established media can survive is if they can supply something akin to a newspaper on the web. Something that is "better" than the biased opinion pieces than many blogs are.
However. 14.9% of people still use IE6 which just cant deliver any kind of rich web experience. Even in its latest incarnation IE8 does not impress, Read Write Web has this to say,Overall, IE8 is not a bad browser, and most mainstream users who are still using IE7 will feel right at home. The problem for Microsoft, however, is that a lot of users have already moved to other browsers like Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome, and IE8 doesn't really offer these users anything new or innovative.
Fortunately almost 60% now use something other than IE so now developers can get on with creating better ways to use the web without being hobbled by a dumb browser.
-
Anyone who is anywhere near a mac gave up on IE several years ago. Latest update we got was July 2003 - 5.2.3.
Which I suspect was a good thing really.
-
My old boss at IDG, Martin Taylor, makes the case that Barry Colman isn't as stupid as his critics say.
It's a good read.
-
Martin Taylor does not seem to understand that selling "access" is what has fundamentally changed. Old media's position as privileged gatekeeper is not coming back any time soon, though I note Taylor would like to "regulate" for that - which I guess puts him somewhere near the s92 US lackeys trying to prop up their previous lucrative positions.
Maybe suggest he read a bit of Clay Shirky and then get back to us. Actually, someone buy Colman a copy of the book.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.