Couldn't agree with you more. Another example of this is nuclear weapons. Sure a bunch of hippies thought they might "explode" and kill us all but now that shit is totally powering my girlfriend's Hitachi Magic Wand!
"The television, that insidious beast, that Medusa which freezes a billion people to stone every night, staring fixedly, that Siren which called and sang and promised so much and gave, after all, so little."
From the report: "What types of programs might be best suited for studio presentation? For remote presentation? Would there be enough interest in such features as feeding the seals at the Bronx Zoo to warrant the expense of setting up mobile equipment?"
Yes! Far more interest than watching Jay Leno and his "Predatory Animal Friends." #television
@MrInBetween: One of the best things from the early web was the continually refreshing webcams set up in front of everything from soda machines on campuses to aquariums, parrot cages ... the predecessors of the shibu-inu puppycam.
Back then, TV was "free" as long as you bought the equipment and watched the advertisements. Today, most TV channels and the Internet require hefty access fees in addition to equipment costs and near-constant advertising. In the future, when programming is downloaded directly to our brains, we'll probably have to pay for equipment and access, watch advertisements, and submit to obedience zaps from major corporations as well.
But it'll be worth it to keep watching "Two and a Half Men." #television
The same stuff was said about radio before that, and the movies before that. I'm sure Guttenberg had to put up with naysayers who mourned the loss of illuminated manuscripts. #television
@TheBusinessGuy: Well, until you've seen "Police Academy 3: Back in Training" in illuminated manuscript, you haven't really seen it, so I'd have to agree with the naysayers on that one.
@TheBusinessGuy: There was a big overthrow of the old order: Until the printing press, pretty much only the priests and monks had the Bible, and only they were in charge of reading it. #television
@If_I_Had_a_Poodle: Makes me rethink the virtues of movable type: It put the Bible in the hands of the radical right. Reading should be for the elites! #television
It'd be nice to see a online news paper really shake things up and not run itself like every other news blog. I mean, the hard truth is that the news will be online for free... So if the big guys hide behind pay-walls a large majority of surfers will be thrown to different websites. New big guys will pop up and become huge, if they can find a way of making money with online news. Be warned, there will be news pirates, aswell...
But I mean why does the NYT have to run like a standard site? Radically change it up, maybe more like fastflip, maybe not. But something unique, with extremely relevant ads. It could work
@brennanmceachran: I know a fellow trying this at Vancouverite.com but of course like everyone else, he's struggling with the model. He's the best investigative reporter on the west coast, though, so he DOES have an advantage. #newspapers
It was Sulzberger, who may or may not be the heroic pilot who dumped into the Hudson, who nailed the dilemma square on. Only nobody caught it. He said the Titanic was not done in by icebergs, but rather by the Wright Brothers nine years before.
He should know. He's the Captain Smith of this Titanic. #newspapers
I've felt queasy reading about all the Times layoffs because I've been completely guilty of reading everything, refused to pay for Times Select, then I get to see the fallout of reporter blood-letting practically in real-time.
If "crafty people" get news for free, then you will eventually just get crappy news. There isn't quality "free" reporting like, say, Watergate or even the recent Times Magazine on the hospital triage during Katrina.
My friends in magazine and newspapers have lost a LOT, and it is because I and so many others just want it free.
It was a huge error in judgement for newspapers to value "eyeballs" over "payment". The online ad thing doesn't pay for a huge newsroom. They might as well try pay firewalls and screw the "get the eyeballs and the ads will come and pay for most everything" failed methodology.
If you own a business, you'll take a paying, small audience over large group of freeloaders any day. #newspapers
@FormerEnglishMajor: Had a relevant discussion, which I remember because not many were. A certain author of best selling romance fiction said she had rather sell books than have them read. I asked, you have maybe thirty million books in print in several langauges; rather than six bux a throw, would you rather have thirty trillion readers for free?
@FormerEnglishMajor: Beautifully put. The trouble with newspapers--and with magazine companies like Conde--is that the old guard had blinders on and never understood how big the web would be, or that it would be a rival to print; rather, they saw it as a way to promote the print version, and the print version, in their belief, would be the version uber alles. It was short-sighted and foolish, but then that is the way of newspapers. Unfortunately, we need them, because as you, Former, and others have pointed out, bloggers are great but they don't have the resources to dig deep and investigate the big stories. That takes money.
And now, because you and I and others have had a free ride, the old media doesn't have the money to do what needs to be done. Foreign bureaus are closing, local staffs are cut, and major cities are threatened with not having a newspaper at all, let alone more than one so there can be different voices. If there is a no money to do what needs to be done journalistically, and no experienced people left to do it, the bad guys win. And that means the rest of lose. #newspapers
@Kimrod: Well, in fairness, when the question is "What if we're irrelevant in 5 years?" the answer is never "Fold up and go home." It's usually "Pay off lobbyists and dig in with the lawyers." That's why music still comes out on CD, the postal service doesn't fire anybody despite a 2.8 billion dollar hole, and Chrysler is still allowed to produce terrible automobiles. Can't wait for the blog link lawsuits that have been brewing for years! #toomanygoddamnpeopleonthisplaney...
@Tremonius: Precisely, with their center-of-the-universe attitude they may have been able in the past...to convince readers of that...but they are dying on the vine like used car salesman. I feel no loyalty to them.
Newspapers have fought this for several decades, but have failed to invent an action plan to sustain survivability in a fast-changing, world. I guess you could throw magazines in there, too. Conde Nast, Forbes, etc., are puking all over themselves.
As the taste for news diversified, so did people's tastes. NYT is stodgy; stuck in an old-money, old-tradition journalism mode, not at all hip to youngsters or young adults who are seeking new modes of communication like blogging, podcasts, texting, etc. (can't wait to see where it goes in 10-20 years or so).
Or, they just tune out to every day affairs and quite frankly, don't care about any thing else. It stuns me how little they know of current affairs. #newspapers
@Kimrod: I kept wondering why it was the local newspaper in this area which voted for the withered old clone McGoo at the 19% rate had half of its op-ed pages filled with wingnuts and neocons. It occurred to me that, while the area is overwhelmingly progressive, the readership of newspapers is largely comprised of the one demographic in which McGoo did well: the olds. #newspapers
@Kimrod: I'm curious as to the source of the extra-special disdain for the publishing industry. Last time I checked, my friends who were getting by making music are all struggling now because of people wanting everything online and free (or they are forced to tour nonstop as that is their only source of revenue); my filmmaker friends are likewise having a tough time because of the digital/"we want free stuff" revolution.
I get that Gawker is home of snark or whatever but seriously all the cheering around here every time a bunch of writers and editors get fired is fucking gross. I spent last year covering the election--now almost everyone I worked with is out of a job. A friend who is a war reporter hasn't been able to get anyone to send him on a story in six months. We aren't "puking all over ourselves." We're looking for work, as our our editors, some of whom (gasp) were decent people who worked for Conde Nast.
Change is hard for any industry--in fact I'd be hard-pressed to think of any who handle it well. Certainly Detroit didn't deal with the rise of foreign production well. Television screwed itself with an over-reliance on reality programming.
I'm sure that had one of these sage commenting analysts been involved, none of these meltdowns would have occurred. #newspapers
"I get that Gawker is home of snark or whatever but seriously all the cheering around here every time a bunch of writers and editors get fired is fucking gross."
-I agree. I don't wish for anyone to lose their job, never have. I am one of those surplused victims. I don't feel compelled to support the NYT just to keep the doors open. I love the paper, but don't live there and can't relate to a majority of the content.
"We aren't "puking all over ourselves."
-Referencing the cuts in staff across the board, not showing extra special disdain for publishing. It's sad, period. It's sick that it is happening, I never dreamed of this. You took my statement the wrong way.
"I'm sure that had one of these sage commenting analysts been involved, none of these meltdowns would have occurred."
-That's just a cheap shot at the posters and the open discussion. You know nothing about us anymore that we do about you. How do you know we aren't working behind the scenes to employ those affected?
11/15/09
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Man, that kills me every time. #peopletalkingonbananas
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/13/09
[www.nytimes.com]
People need to just embrace everything new, all of the time. Bunch of grumpy grandpas. #television
11/13/09
And jetpacks? #television
11/13/09
--Ray Bradbury #television
11/13/09
Yes! Far more interest than watching Jay Leno and his "Predatory Animal Friends." #television
11/13/09
Fishcam: [fishcam.com] -- this claims to be one of the oldest continuous ones #television
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
But it'll be worth it to keep watching "Two and a Half Men." #television
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
Or did you mean Gutenberg?
/pedantry #television
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/14/09
Please don't hurt me, honey. #television
11/02/09
But I mean why does the NYT have to run like a standard site? Radically change it up, maybe more like fastflip, maybe not. But something unique, with extremely relevant ads. It could work
11/03/09
11/02/09
He should know. He's the Captain Smith of this Titanic. #newspapers
11/02/09
If "crafty people" get news for free, then you will eventually just get crappy news. There isn't quality "free" reporting like, say, Watergate or even the recent Times Magazine on the hospital triage during Katrina.
My friends in magazine and newspapers have lost a LOT, and it is because I and so many others just want it free.
It was a huge error in judgement for newspapers to value "eyeballs" over "payment". The online ad thing doesn't pay for a huge newsroom. They might as well try pay firewalls and screw the "get the eyeballs and the ads will come and pay for most everything" failed methodology.
If you own a business, you'll take a paying, small audience over large group of freeloaders any day. #newspapers
11/02/09
Her reply was quite clever, but you know writers.
"No." #newspapers
11/02/09
And now, because you and I and others have had a free ride, the old media doesn't have the money to do what needs to be done. Foreign bureaus are closing, local staffs are cut, and major cities are threatened with not having a newspaper at all, let alone more than one so there can be different voices. If there is a no money to do what needs to be done journalistically, and no experienced people left to do it, the bad guys win. And that means the rest of lose. #newspapers
11/02/09
With the options available to news readers/viewers, I'd say, don't let the door smack you in the ass on your way out.
It isn't important enough for me when I have a bazillion other outlets for news that doesn't cost me a dime.
I suffer from news-overload most days, especially the day that damn ballon went aloft. #newspapers
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
Newspapers have fought this for several decades, but have failed to invent an action plan to sustain survivability in a fast-changing, world. I guess you could throw magazines in there, too. Conde Nast, Forbes, etc., are puking all over themselves.
As the taste for news diversified, so did people's tastes. NYT is stodgy; stuck in an old-money, old-tradition journalism mode, not at all hip to youngsters or young adults who are seeking new modes of communication like blogging, podcasts, texting, etc. (can't wait to see where it goes in 10-20 years or so).
Or, they just tune out to every day affairs and quite frankly, don't care about any thing else. It stuns me how little they know of current affairs. #newspapers
11/02/09
11/02/09
I get that Gawker is home of snark or whatever but seriously all the cheering around here every time a bunch of writers and editors get fired is fucking gross. I spent last year covering the election--now almost everyone I worked with is out of a job. A friend who is a war reporter hasn't been able to get anyone to send him on a story in six months. We aren't "puking all over ourselves." We're looking for work, as our our editors, some of whom (gasp) were decent people who worked for Conde Nast.
Change is hard for any industry--in fact I'd be hard-pressed to think of any who handle it well. Certainly Detroit didn't deal with the rise of foreign production well. Television screwed itself with an over-reliance on reality programming.
I'm sure that had one of these sage commenting analysts been involved, none of these meltdowns would have occurred. #newspapers
11/02/09
"I get that Gawker is home of snark or whatever but seriously all the cheering around here every time a bunch of writers and editors get fired is fucking gross."
-I agree. I don't wish for anyone to lose their job, never have. I am one of those surplused victims. I don't feel compelled to support the NYT just to keep the doors open. I love the paper, but don't live there and can't relate to a majority of the content.
"We aren't "puking all over ourselves."
-Referencing the cuts in staff across the board, not showing extra special disdain for publishing. It's sad, period. It's sick that it is happening, I never dreamed of this. You took my statement the wrong way.
"I'm sure that had one of these sage commenting analysts been involved, none of these meltdowns would have occurred."
-That's just a cheap shot at the posters and the open discussion. You know nothing about us anymore that we do about you. How do you know we aren't working behind the scenes to employ those affected?
Extra-special disdain noted. #newspapers