« Another Site's Perspective... | Main | Box Office Hell - Feb 9 »
February 09, 2007
Hot Button - This Thing We Do...
Things are not equal for all newspapers either. A great reporter may be at, for instance, The Salt Lake Tribune, while the paper itself doesn't have the resources to compete on national stories with the majors. The greatest thing about the internet is that any one great story can compete, in a real way, with The New York Times, whether that story is from a Traditional Media source or an online source. Popularity does not necessarily define quality. But whatever reason there is for popularity is earned on the web.
And this seems to be very troubling for a lot of Traditional Media because the role of gatekeeper is sliding daily. There is no reason why the New York or Los Angeles Times should not be able to compete. They hire experienced, smart, skilled journalists. But the popularity we all seek - because popularity equals eyeballs equals advertising revenue equals the mortgage - is being challenged by more voices - online and off - than ever before. And the competition is not necessarily fair.
More...
Part I
Part II
Part III
Posted by poland at February 9, 2007 11:17 AM
Comments
Haven't read the whole thing yet, but what I've read is interesting. BTW, has anyone else noticed that the New York Times has been advertising itself and the Bagger's blog on places like IMDB? For them to spend the kind of money one would need to advertise on IMDB, they really must be trying to make headways into "our world." With due respect to the Bagger, I'm just not sure he's the right guy to be doing it. He's just not young or hip, no matter how hard he tries.
Posted by: EDouglas ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 9, 2007 04:05 PM
The Carpetmuncher poops on The Carpetbagger. Big time.
Posted by: The Carpetmuncher at February 9, 2007 04:29 PM
Read a bit more... really good piece. The most interesting and pertinent part for me was the bit about the internet being about who posts the news/info first rather than who posts the best and most complete information. I definitely see this a lot and I'm still smarting a bit from a story I broke that was then grabbed (uncredited) by Variety, which was then used as the source for all other web sites. True, they were able to get some more info on the story by contacting the "people" of the person in question, but that's one of the big differences still in terms of internet sites fact-checking in that we don't have the same contacts as Variety or the New York Times, not to mention the fact that most of them might not take our calls whereas you say you're "so and so from the Times" and they're right on the phone.
Posted by: EDouglas at February 9, 2007 05:05 PM
EDouglas - don't you think it's refreshing that he's not 'young and hip'? I mean, the equivalent of that sort of mindset is in the music industry has people thinking you have to have 6-pack abs in order to have a music career (rare exceptions noted) - and leads actresses to adopt plastic surgeons for everything from bazooms to fish lips.
It leads to the sort of stifling superficiality that rocks the latest headlines - and made DP's interview with Jackie Haley such a standout for its complete absence of said superficiality. (As I read somewhere, corporations aren't looking for the next Bob Dylan, they're looking for the next Britney Spears, (or words to that affect.))
DP's link in 'Another Site's Perspective' is why blogs are so important - to hear a voice separate from the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned entertainment for that matter.
Posted by: scout33 at February 9, 2007 09:27 PM
Re DP's article in general, and also when he notes "Print will remain an important part of all of their futures" - I received a link to a site that excerpts an article interviewing Sulzberger, the owner/chairman of the NYTimes Company, on the transition from print to internet. (if this has already been noted somewhere else, excuse me.)
Excerpts:
Given the constant erosion of the printed press, do you see the New York Times still being printed in five years?
"I really don't know whether we'll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don't care either," he says.
Sulzberger is focusing on how to best manage the transition from print to Internet.
"The Internet is a wonderful place to be, and we're leading there," he points out.
Sulzberger says the New York Times is on a journey that will conclude the day the company decides to stop printing the paper. That will mark the end of the transition.
"In the age of bloggers, what is the future of online newspapers and the profession in general? There are millions of bloggers out there, and if the Times forgets who and what they are, it will lose the war, and rightly so, according to Sulzberger. "We are curators, curators of news. People don't click onto the New York Times to read blogs. They want reliable news that they can trust," he says." [ouch!]
Article linked from http://newsbusters.org/node/10698
(not familiar w/ the site)
Posted by: scout33 at February 9, 2007 09:39 PM
Direct link to article:
Posted by: scout33 at February 9, 2007 10:02 PM
"don't you think it's refreshing that he's not 'young and hip'?"
Well, it's good for people like me and David, since neither of us are spring chickens compared to most of the people doing the "internet journalism " thing. :) (My editor, who's been running the site for 8 years, is 10 years younger than me.)
Posted by: EDouglas at February 10, 2007 04:34 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)