• Profile logout login

#investigations#discussed

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 9:17 AM
Thu Dec 17
60 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip Your Editors:

Tipline: 646-214-8138

Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |

West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |

Contributing Editors:

Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |

Media:
Hamilton Nolan |

Politics:
Alex Pareene |

Investigations:
John Cook |

Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |

Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |

Weekends:
Foster Kamer |

Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of debatem1 debatem1
    11/25/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Stupid question: Murdoch is railing against the search engines because he thinks they're stealing from him. Ok, so, that explains why he'd delist from Google- but not why he'd list on Bing. What gives?
     Reply
    GlasgowRose promoted this comment Nick Denton approved this comment debatem1 was starred debatem1 was unstarred
    Image of GlasgowRose GlasgowRose
    11/25/09

    @debatem1: Murdoch still wants buzz & word of mouth -- and other media brands reporting on WSJ's scoops -- but wants to keep Google in its place. Bing gives him leverage to wrest a better Google deal...
     Reply
    GlasgowRose was starred GlasgowRose was unstarred
    Image of Alaska Miller Alaska Miller
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    It's like telling a city bus to stop only at Burger King instead of McDonald's and expecting everyone to pay extra for free ice cream.
     Reply
    Alaska Miller was starred Alaska Miller was unstarred
    Image of Monty Monty
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    What is more interesting than search engines paying for content is that this could ultimately save the news media business. Ignoring the concern to Joe Searchy and having to pick a search engine based on the results being listed for their favorite news, this could potentially allow newspapers to gain income and pay their journalists again. Certainly, there is a potential dark cloud with this concept, but there is a bright and shiny one as well The news media could survive based on search engines having to pay for access to content solving their diminishing revenue stream. Hard to say whether this is a short term or long term solution to that issue, but it certainly has potential and I look forward to seeing how this turns out.
     Reply
    Monty was starred Monty was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Monty: Paying journalists is a good thing and new revenue streams are vital for news organizations to pay for their current overhead. But the problem with the rosy scenario of search engines funding journalism is that the people who go to search engines looking for news are the ones who care the least about news brands. They're more likely to click on rocketnews.com or whatever it is as they are the WSJ.com. Which is exactly what infuriates newspaper owners like Murdoch. The folks who have favorite news sources are the ones who will go straight to those favorite news sources in the first place.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Monty: In this video of Calacanis' original suggestion (or at least the first place, I heard it), he spends a lot of the time proposing sort of a bidding war to get content from the largest media companies, but its success would hinge a great deal on Microsoft's willingness to use exclusivity as a selling point.

    IOW: The content companies would get a revenue stream, but as I hear him, Bing would be the primary beneficiary in the short run.
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 6:15 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Magister: Agreed. "Bing: The Only Place to Find the Wall Street Journal" would make a catchy tag line. And Microsoft probably like to lure in some other big-name brands. But I can't see them extending the same offer to smaller, lesser-known news orgs. McClatchy anyone?
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Monty Monty
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I think we are all in agreement. It is hard to know whether this agreement will ultimately be a winner for the news media or not. Will it even work for News Corp, let alone for small newspapers around the country? Why would Bing pay for content from the Eugene, Oregon Register Guard? Hard to imagine. That said, it is interesting to see this unfold - and I admit that I doubt either the rosy outlook nor the doom and gloom one will come to be. Usually truth falls somewhere in the middle, which in this case means it will not matter much.
     Reply
    Monty was starred Monty was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I don't know how far down Microsoft would like to go, but McClatchy owns a lot of big local papers. For instance in North Carolina, they own the two largest in the state, so maybe they could do some print trading and a couple of television ads saying something like "Bing: The exclusive index for the Charlotte Observer".

    Murdoch might be the one to pioneer this and he might get some quick income, but if Microsoft is willing to pay and if they're willing to negotiate something with the other players, Google could easily lose market share over the long run.
     Reply
    Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    What happens when you look for a foreign or local story? I assume the Fox O&Os will be part of the equation, as will their Australian and UK papers.

    Though the biggest difference for the average American Google user will probably be the inability to read WSJ stories without paying a subscription.
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 5:45 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of sweetpickles sweetpickles
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Yes. You'll find the same news at other sites by searching through Google. This isn't only about Murdoch walling off his sites, though. This is about Microsoft and News Corp. making a move to bring the internet closer to the cable television model. Search is going to become less about algorhythms and more about marketing dollars. Bing could become a curated search destination, built on the brands of established media companies. You might one day pay for a Bing app. to bring you its content resources. I don't think it's far fetched. The phone company and cable have been doing the same thing for decades: Providing a premium utility. You remember the White Pages, right?
     Reply
    sweetpickles was starred sweetpickles was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    I think this is really audience-specific. I work for a bank, so if I had to choose between Google + no WSJ and some other search engine that is 97% as good as Google + WSJ, I would have to choose the latter. I imagine that old people, conservatives, and many other smaller groups of people might feel the same way. Add all these pieces up, and it could sum to a non-negligible percentage of market share.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of NorwoodIsMyHero NorwoodIsMyHero
    11/24/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I work at a private bank and I completely agree. The problem is you and I and the old fogeys don't really represent a vast majority of Google's search audience.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus promoted this comment Gabriel Snyder approved this comment NorwoodIsMyHero was starred NorwoodIsMyHero was unstarred
    Image of OCEntertainment OCEntertainment
    11/24/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I would be very interested in having a conversation with the (according to the stereotypes) conservative fans of Fox News who are ok with one company strong-arming them into using their product through backroom deals, rather than by improving the quality of their products. Free market!

    Wait, scratch that. What am I talking about? I do not want to have to wade through that conversation.
     Reply
    OCEntertainment was starred OCEntertainment was unstarred
    Image of Nick Nick
    11/24/09

    @OCEntertainment: i also work at a bank. i use Google Finance for a lot and hate the Fox Business site. if i need something Fox News related (which i do like) i go straight to them. i also use Bloomberg. i am just typing my opinion because i like the sight of my own words.
     Reply
    Nick was starred Nick was unstarred
    Image of OCEntertainment OCEntertainment
    11/24/09

    @Nick: I'm pretty sure you could include that last sentence with any comment posted in any comment thread on the internet and still be properly poking fun at the commenter/article you're responding to (as well as yourself).

    Thanks for the perspective. I'm logging off early tonight.
     Reply
    OCEntertainment was starred OCEntertainment was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    @NorwoodIsMyHero: But what % are these people (bankers, business people and old fogeys)? 10%? More? To a casual Google user, that's not much. To Google, that's 10% of their business.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    @Nick: I don't care about Fox News, and I suspect that many people don't really, other than for the entertainment value. I care about the WSJ only, out of News Corp's publications. Unfortunately, the WSJ is a very important publication in finance. Since not missing finance news is part of my livelihood, I might be forced to use Bing if News Corp drops Google.

    I disapprove of these business practices that artificially entice people to use specific search engines. However, this does not make me immune to the effects.
     Reply
    Edited by Hello Mister Walrus at 11/24/09 5:55 PM Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of NorwoodIsMyHero NorwoodIsMyHero
    11/25/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I don't think we'd completely stop using Google though. At work and in news searches, I certainly would be using Bing, but at home I'd probably still use Google by default, and only if I specifically was looking for news would I switch, which when I'm home is basically never as I get plenty of it throughout the workday.
     Reply
    NorwoodIsMyHero was starred NorwoodIsMyHero was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    And notice in that first search that while News Corp. is saying it can live without Google, it's also buying up ad keywords like "lieberman public option" to send people to WSJ.com.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I haven't read the WSJ's affiliate agreement and am too lazy to look for it now, but does it preclude people from buying keywords and coding them with their number?
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 5:54 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Magister: Good point. The ad isn't being served to me any more, so I can't see what the affiliate code was.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: The same, here. I went to look before making the suggestion, but the ads were gone (maybe they're on restricted hours) and Hamilton's post had made it onto the front page.
     Reply
    Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of manchops manchops
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    but have you tried googling:
    "Andrea Peyser + sex goddess?"

    I mean, hello?
     Reply
    manchops was starred manchops was unstarred
    Image of If_I_Had_a_Poodle If_I_Had_a_Poodle
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Perfect.

    And if they take even one step in the direction of "You can't quote our stories" they will drive themselves so far into irrelevancy ...
     Reply
    If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred If_I_Had_a_Poodle was unstarred
    Image of Helio Helio
    11/24/09

    @If_I_Had_a_Poodle: Let's hope they take that bait.
     Reply
    Helio was starred Helio was unstarred
    Image of Heneage Heneage
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Servicy.
     Reply
    Heneage was starred Heneage was unstarred
    Image of RonnSicTorossian RonnSicTorossian
    07/30/09

    In reply to Senate to Investigate Goldman Sachs For Banker Shenanigans
    No finance wizard here, but if I understand they were the only bank shorting the mortgage shit they were also hawking, so, if true, fuck you very much goldman suchs.
     Reply
    thegreatfratsby promoted this comment RonnSicTorossian was starred RonnSicTorossian was unstarred
    Image of thegreatfratsby thegreatfratsby
    07/30/09

    @RonnSicTorossian: It's called hedging. I'm no GS proponent, but it's a sound, if "unfair", market tactic based primarily on being smarter than the lowing, baa-ing hordes of traders.
     Reply
    thegreatfratsby was starred thegreatfratsby was unstarred
    Image of The Lone Scout The Lone Scout
    07/30/09

    In reply to Senate to Investigate Goldman Sachs For Banker Shenanigans
    It has to be said that, whatever responsibility GS and other financiers may have for lying, much of the general citizenry were all too happy to throw common sense to the wind and gobble up low-cost loans. I hope that today's difficulties will point us back to a few tired truisms (such as, "There's no such thing as a free lunch") and build up our skepticism for the next round.
     Reply
    The Lone Scout was starred The Lone Scout was unstarred
    Image of If_I_Had_a_Poodle If_I_Had_a_Poodle
    07/30/09

    @The Lone Scout: and that goes for the company owned by the wife of thomas friedman, which is now brokey brokey brokey after losing billions
     Reply
    If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred If_I_Had_a_Poodle was unstarred
    Image of gawkimo gawkimo
    07/30/09

    @The Lone Scout: There's another truism, this one by HL Mencken. The thing about nobody ever going broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public? If we know people are stupid and live beyond their means and take up debt they can't pay back, then really the only solution is to, you know, maybe, uh. . . rules. . . that . . . prevent . . . companies . . . from . . . exploiting . . . stupidity.
     Reply
    gawkimo was starred gawkimo was unstarred
    Image of The Lone Scout The Lone Scout
    07/30/09

    @gawkimo: Mencken also commented, "Capitalism undoubtedly has certain boils and blotches upon it, but has it as many as government? Has it as many as marriage? Has it as many as religion? I doubt it. It is the only basic institution of modern man that shows any genuine health and vigor." And I would rather that we all learn to protect ourselves than allow the Gummint to decide what we need protecting from.
     Reply
    Edited by The Lone Scout at 07/30/09 1:43 PM The Lone Scout was starred The Lone Scout was unstarred
    Image of gawkimo gawkimo
    07/30/09

    @The Lone Scout: The problem is, of course, being mad that GS got away with what it did is in no way a condemnation of capitalism -- it's a condemnation of CRONY capitalism. CRONY, being the operand. And I don't think Mencken would have thought much of Goldman Sachs running the Treasury Department and letting its competitor go under before sending federal dollars to the rescue of some other enormous banks. Because you and I both know that giving taxpayer money to huge investment banks is not capitalism. (PS: Goldman Sachs paid back $10 billion. It got an additional $13 billion from AIG. So let's nip that one in the bud right now.)
     Reply
    Edited by gawkimo at 07/30/09 2:36 PM gawkimo was starred gawkimo was unstarred
    Image of Nesbiteme Nesbiteme
    07/30/09

    In reply to Senate to Investigate Goldman Sachs For Banker Shenanigans
    There are no doubt a plethora of internal memos within these firms, written by the quants who built the models in question, that refer to the parameter and performance limitations that could be expected when using these models. Likely, the executives disregarded these limitations or pretended to understand what they were but really had no clue. This is where the congressional investigation should focus. Given the fact though that most Senators don’t even know what a VIP mortgage is even though they got one it is unlikely that they or their just out of college aids will look in that direction.
     Reply
    The Lone Scout promoted this comment Nesbiteme was starred Nesbiteme was unstarred
    Image of Mohamed Ndiaye-Kingué Mohamed Ndiaye-Kingué
    07/30/09

    In reply to Senate to Investigate Goldman Sachs For Banker Shenanigans
    What about those" High frequency trading programs" that Goldman Sachs uses and help them making billions.Basically,it's a multidimentional uncontrolled V-back System where you can get flows that are occuring between any number of stocks that can cause the system to flow anywhere between 0 and Ø..The main issue is that they dont know « how bad » this model could be .
     Reply
    The Lone Scout promoted this comment Mohamed Ndiaye-Kingué was starred Mohamed Ndiaye-Kingué was unstarred
    Image of thegreatfratsby thegreatfratsby
    07/30/09

    @Mohamed Ndiaye-Kingué: Now THAT is a good point. high-frequency trading is probably the third-dumbest idea on the street right now, which we'll all realize when a replicating algorithm goes berserk and trashes IBM or Dow or something.
     Reply
    thegreatfratsby was starred thegreatfratsby was unstarred
    Image of Dally Dally
    07/30/09

    In reply to Senate to Investigate Goldman Sachs For Banker Shenanigans
    From what I've heard about investment banks, the subject line on 95% of internal emails will contain the word 'bonus', eg how big is X's bonus, when am I getting my bonus, why my bonus is ludicrously inadequate considering the business I've generated compared to X, etc ad infinitum. And some lucky Senator's intern is probably going to get to read them all.
     Reply
    The Lone Scout promoted this comment Dally was starred Dally was unstarred
    Image of nowimpissed nowimpissed
    07/30/09

    @Dally: I've reviewed more banker emails than I'd care to admit and you are way off. They're 95% porn.
     Reply
    nowimpissed was starred nowimpissed was unstarred
    Image of thegreatfratsby thegreatfratsby
    07/30/09

    @Dally: No, no. No one's crass enough to put that into an email. That's what you TALK about; your emails look more like "intrn pls prnt/bind 30dcks 2nite come in tmmrw (sundy) by 10 thx. Sent from my AT&T Blackberry"
     Reply
    thegreatfratsby was starred thegreatfratsby was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.