That video starts a full hour before the hearing so manually skip ahead if you don't want to just stare at the hearing title for an hour.
The gist of it was that the Newspapers squandered their resources in the 90s when they should have been modernizing and they were still profitable. Now the money is gone. The only solution (other than perpetual government support of course) is for them all to form a jointly managed walled garden of news (and not let Google and other aggregators in of course). They would need to amend current antitrust laws to do this... very unlikely to happen.
Not ONCE was the following pointed out:
You don't need a big-budget newsroom to regurgitate press conference materials from the Whitehouse, Pentagon, State Department, etc. In fact, those agencies, as well as local police departments, high schools, local Little Leagues, and other organizations that reporters used to cover ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN ONLINE PRESENCE!
Any newspaper that gets their coverage from Iraq off Reuters isn't really providing "Intellectual Property" for which they should make exclusive profit. Hence this notion that they should all get together and share this content among themselves, but not let it get out the the unwashed Internet publishers.
There are things that a newspaper can do that fall into the category of investigative journalism that would make each newspaper a source of unique information, but sorry, you already laid those guys off.
Finally, toward the end, someone pointed out that it was Craigslist that took gobs of revenue from the printed papers, not Google. DUH.
Information doesn't want to be free. Some people pay big money for information, if they're conditioned to do so. Some people happily pay $5000 a year for a newsletter with insider crap in it.
The newspaper business conditioned everyone to believe their product will be free, forever. And there's no turning back.
Google does play some pay-for-play games with businesses. Let’s say you own an electronics business, Sonic Electronix. When people Google the exact name of your business, "Sonic Electronix," you may be the top hit, but, above that, there will be an advertisement of one of your competitors at the top highlighted in yellow as a "Sponsored Link" —unless you pay Google for that type of advertising. It’s shitty, because it forces small- and medium-sized businesses competing for brand recognition and loyalty to buy sponsored links, lest their name+link always appear below the sponsored link.
"Information wants to be free" is a crock of shit. What doesn't want to be free? Bottom line is journalism is not a charity, it's a business. The media moguls screwed the pooch by not clamping down on the freedom of movement of their product on the internet in the early days, but that is not a reason we have to be OK with the new status quo. You get what you pay for, when you stop paying for information you stop getting quality in information. Have fun reading about 311 or American Idol or whatever, but prepare to sink even further into the ignorance hole we as a country live in.
@oneinsixbillion: the media moguls started slitting their own throats a decade before the internet -- slashing newsrooms, diluting quality and making their product increasingly irrelvant and useless; the internet just speeded things up
I will say that almost nobody, only a little print journalism but nobody at all in the Web World, pays for overseas correspondents to cover wars and famines and plagues elsewhere. In countries like China and most of the Middle East where there is A) no freedom of the press and B) a national language other than English, this is a problem.
Thanks Owen. Both Frank Rich's and Maureen Dowd's columns yesterday were utterly ridiculous. It's like when the music industry was saying that no one would make music anymore unless everyone continued to buy N'Sync and 98 Degrees albums.
We live in a world where credit is a utility. Why not search? The Times should lobby for Google to be nationalized. Then, once nationalization is achieved, it can bully our clueless government into paying for linking to content.
05/11/09
[commerce.senate.gov]
That video starts a full hour before the hearing so manually skip ahead if you don't want to just stare at the hearing title for an hour.
The gist of it was that the Newspapers squandered their resources in the 90s when they should have been modernizing and they were still profitable. Now the money is gone. The only solution (other than perpetual government support of course) is for them all to form a jointly managed walled garden of news (and not let Google and other aggregators in of course). They would need to amend current antitrust laws to do this... very unlikely to happen.
Not ONCE was the following pointed out:
You don't need a big-budget newsroom to regurgitate press conference materials from the Whitehouse, Pentagon, State Department, etc. In fact, those agencies, as well as local police departments, high schools, local Little Leagues, and other organizations that reporters used to cover ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN ONLINE PRESENCE!
Any newspaper that gets their coverage from Iraq off Reuters isn't really providing "Intellectual Property" for which they should make exclusive profit. Hence this notion that they should all get together and share this content among themselves, but not let it get out the the unwashed Internet publishers.
There are things that a newspaper can do that fall into the category of investigative journalism that would make each newspaper a source of unique information, but sorry, you already laid those guys off.
Finally, toward the end, someone pointed out that it was Craigslist that took gobs of revenue from the printed papers, not Google. DUH.
05/11/09
The newspaper business conditioned everyone to believe their product will be free, forever. And there's no turning back.
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/12/09
05/11/09
Owen, tech reporting isn't reporting. Get serious. It's trade reporting
Or the citizen journalists of the Huffington Post, whose scoops shaped the last election.
Sure, domestic news can be covered adequately given a large group of volunteers, but serious international news? That's not going to happen.
There's a reason why America is falling so far behind the world in serious knowledge about the world. Canada too, our newspapers are a pile of shit.
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09