Showing posts with label tech crunch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tech crunch. Show all posts

Monday, May 18, 2009

more on micropayments

Will micropayments save journalism? Blogging on Techcrunch, Robin Wauters votes no.

From the post:

Publishers are in a nightmarish situation, and in large part they have themselves to blame for that. Fine with me if they want to escape from that situation by retreating behind paywalls - in fact, I encourage them to do so and die there soon so we can kiss that idea goodbye once and for all. How are paywalls bad news for news addicts? Those addicts have been spoiled to death the past few years, to the point where information overload has taken over and made the consumption of news overly tedious. I know because I’ve been one of them ever since I’ve been able to read, and this was long before I discovered the Internet. Introduce paywalls, ease the choice for news addicts, see what happens.

Information is now a commodity, so deal with it. And yes, it should be free to end users. But how will that pay for the food and housing of the people working in the publishing industry, you ask? I say it’s not our problem, and tough luck. In no way does the realization that the model doesn’t work anymore mean that the masses, lawyers, the government or any other institution should be bailing out newspapers for screwing up their chance to figure out this Internet thing in time and adapting to it. Publishers need a profit, like any other business, but that doesn’t mean they all deserve to turn one, and certainly not at the expense of better, more innovative publishing businesses that are waiting around the corner.

Most plans I've seen are pretty complicated, and don't seem to take human behavior into account. Going online to act as your own editor is time-consuming enough for news junkies. But at least you don't pay for the privilege. Factor in the whole idea of choice when you pay to play, however: do I want to pay for this piece from the Times or that one from the Post. Or maybe both. (And you know how quick little texts add up. We have a friend whose kids' cell phone bill arrived in a box. Text messages.)

Now consider the non-addicted, who generally spend no more than 20 minutes a day reading the news. Not sure how that added layer would play out. Probably not well.

If you're interested, go here to read what a few smart guys have to say about the whole concept, both pro and con. bk

Monday, April 13, 2009

on the STATUSphere

Let the entrepreneurs do it.

Brian Stolis writes on TechCrunch that maybe we should look to social media to learn how to save good journalism. Some plausible points, but I wish he wouldn't use "journalist" and "content provider" in the same graf.

He also doesn't address the issue of the paycheck: Reporting costs money, no matter where the "content" ends up. Finding a new means of distribution may make sense, but will it make enough money to pay people to get out of the building?

I do like the term "statusphere", however. And yet.

Apparently some of the cutting edge folks want out of the loop. Go here to read a piece by AP reporter Martha Irvine on social network fatigue: the growing numbers of twenty- and thirty-somethings who find that tweets, apparently, are for the birds. bk

Friday, April 10, 2009

j school bloggerel

J School enrollment is soaring these days and Sarah Lacy wants to know why the hell it is. Read her pissy post from Tech Crunch here. Be sure to read the comments and blog pimps, too.

From the post:
Journalism schools are like foot-binding. They force you into a style that a bunch of dinosaurs all agreed was acceptable a zillion years ago. So in an age of blogging, you have no voice. In fact, if I were in J-school now, I’d have my knuckles rapped for using the rhetorical “you” in those last two sentences.
Really?!

Lacy hits some good targets, but basically misses the point. J. School isn't about newspapers or how news get delivered or any particular style. Never was. It's about journalism (Journalism School: not just a clever name) Inverted pyramids, blog posts, sound slides, 90-second videos, tweets, blah and blah -- who cares? With the probable exception of literary and literate magazine writing, just about anyone can learn any of the forms in no time flat. Learning to report, however, learning what matters and why, and how to make the myriad decisions that underlie good journalism, that's a whole different story.

And whether or not you have the freedom to write the word "you" when you're on the job ... It's really not the reason to blow off j. school.

I agree that you might be able to learn just as much on the job -- if you have a good editor -- as you will in a classroom, but there's this: how are you going to get that job in the first place?

I did like the photo of Ed Asner, aka "Lou Grant". bk

p.s. (go here to see who New York Magazine considers the dinosaurs now.)