DISQUS

Ian,

"What’s interesting is the language that Scott uses: “gaming the system”, “algorithms”, and so on. This is all the language of the computer, not the news room. What he’s really talking about is bias and lies - so can we call it what it is? And preventing it is not about algorithms, it’s about editorial judgement."

Look around you -- look at what's happening on the web. Newspapers no longer control the distribution of news and information. Google does. Algorithms do.

I used the language of computer not the newsroom on purpose -- because the computer is now in control. If newsrooms don't learn that language, they will become obsolete and irrelevant in a networked media world.

"But I’ve never met a publisher who wouldn’t sacrifice 10% quality for a 15% cost saving, and more than a few publishers will see the use of amateur journalists - which is what we’re talking about here - as just this kind of bargain. Heck, I’ve met more than a few publishers who’d throw their mother in as part of the deal."

Have you looked at a newspaper P&L lately? The situation is dire. Do you really think publishers could, if they were so nobly inclined, maintain staffing models the way they were in during the glory days of the newspaper business model?

Rather than impugn the integrity of every newspaper publisher, perhaps you have some constructive suggestions for how they should deal with the rapid decline of their businesses, beyond asking them to maintain things as they were in the past.

The car is heading for the cliff. And the brakes have failed. So you either turn the wheel and head in a new direction, or you complain about the break failure and sit and wait for it to go over the edge.

Oh come now, Mathew, give him some credit for this masterful work. The fact that be played the blogosphere like a fiddle is just a sideshow. This is the ultimate satire of Apple and a scathing critique of the Think Secret shutdown. My gut still hurts from laughing so hard. And the Andy Kaufman references -- Swift himself couldn't have done it better.

Mathew, I forgot to mention -- I think the phrase "knickers in a twist" has definitely jumped the shark.

Mathew,

How much do you think BusinessWeek got paid to write the article about PayPerPost so that they could use “As Seen in BusinessWeek” on their site. Was it $1,000 — or $10,000 — or $50,000?

Or perhaps Jon Fine received a personal payment — what was it Jon? Cash? A gold watch? A golfing trip?

Now of course I don’t really think BusinessWeek got paid. But the taint is everywhere.

As much as Murphy is entitled to run his business, I'm entitled to say that it's a major pain in the ass and just made the world of "media" a whole lot messier.

Pete,

I make no claim to being either the first or only to have said this: http://publishing2.com/2006/04/23/what-if-media...

I guess great minds think alike :)

More important though, your example is a great one -- the implications for the economics of 2.0 are HUGE.

Pete,

"how smart individuals are building global brands with zero marketing dollars, simply by leveraging existing social networks like MySpace, YouTube and the blogosphere itself"

Hmm, that meme sounds awfully familiar, wonder where I've heard that before?

Glad to see you running with it.

Oh, and good job both Mathew and Pete on the "egalitarian high-horse" thing -- that was quite funny :)

Mathew, I wasn't offended, just annoyed because I'm trying to shield my employer from any association with my online activities -- and any potential liability. If you read my About, I do clearly state:

"Publishing 2.0 is published by Scott Karp, who is also the Managing Director of Research and Strategy for a publisher of print and online publications."

I think my place of employment is clouding your perception of me more than it is my thinking. And yes I'm interested in exploring how Old Media can avoid extinction. But that doesn't make me anti-New Media or an Old Media apologist.

In any case, I let me state clearly that I think the future of media is up for grabs -- Old Media has its advantages and New Media has its advantages (one of the main points of my post), but I don't think it has to be a zero sum game.

I'm all for empowering people to define their own niches, but the theme I keep coming back to is that people need do need HELP. You can't just say to people -- here's the power, now go figure it out. Life is difficult and complicated, and while I don't want someone to figure it out for me and shove it down my throat, I could also use some guidance from smart people.

I think there needs to be the right balance between hierarchy and empowerment -- everything I read (including here) seems to suggest that it needs to needs to be one or the other.

But I just don't subscribe to the black and white theory of the universe. There needs to be a BALANCE.

As an aside, I find it fascinating what a lightning rod the term "smart" can be, even among smart people :)

Mathew, I had intended to put the following disclaimer on my blog, but until now it has not been necessary:

I removed the name of my employer because I was too often being cited as the company's public representative, which I'm not -- it's not a secret where I work, but it's my hope that the views expressed on Publishing 2.0 can stand or fall entirely on their own, and not as a function of my resume. Whatever risk I assume in publishing my view should not be shared by my employer, who has no association with this site. While it may be useful to know that I work in publishing, if you're inclined to agree or disagree with me, you should do so regardless of what my day job is. (I'm no a lawyer, so that's my best shot at a disclaimer.)

So thank you, Mathew, for unnecessarily dragging the Atlantic into this. You of all people should have understood and respected the liabilities involved. Your failing to do so has lead me to lose a lot of respect for you. What's to be gained, really, in beating people with a stick -- even Dave Winer? You can debate without getting personal.

And it's a shame, because it did little to help you in completely misconstruing what I said (but I can always depend on you for that).

You are a master of selective reading and quoting, so let me add in a key piece of what I wrote that doesn't conveniently fit with your rant:

"Or if that’s too “highbrow� and “elitist,� I’d say that USA Today’s audience can probably generate more value through participation than the random users of some Web 2.0 apps. This is more true as you get more niche — I’d trust BusinessWeek readers on business and Vogue readers on fashion. And I’d trust the readers of New Media brands, including blogs, that have established a clearly defined audience by providing them with clearly defined value."

My point, which you entirely missed, was about having a clearly DEFINED audience, which Digg and Reddit do not have. It's about knowing who your audience is and how to create value for them. Each of the individual headlines on Digg or Reddit may be very interesting and worthwhile, but TOGETHER they have no coherence, and THAT'S what I was making fun of.

I also said "To be clear, I’m not saying that the people who RUN the New York Times, USA Today, BusinessWeek, Vogue or any Old Media brands are smarter — my critique points to a failing of BOTH Old Media and New Media."

So although it doesn't suit the purposes of your superficial rants to acknowledge it, I think Old Media is plenty wrong (although perhaps not as wrong as you are) and I have no reason to defend it.

So please, get off your egalitarian high-horse -- before someone knocks you off with a stick.

Seth, you are the person I hear most often on the subject of not being heard, which makes you something of a paradox.

That said, I suggest thinking this in terms of media. According to Wikipedia, Media (the plural of medium) is a truncation of the term media of communication. If you're not communicating with anyone, it's not media. So if you don't have an audience, it's not media. Which means if you're blogging because you want to create media, then having an audience DOES matter.

The interesting question is how big an audience do you need?

Rather than "old-media defender" I prefer "ghost of media past"

Mathew, if this is such a "ridiculous" issue, then why are you posting about it? And why did Danny Sullivan post a 6-point "apology" for Google on my site?

It would indeed be inflammatory to suggest that Google is "totally corrupt" -- clearly, it's not, and I didn't say that -- I was "wondering," not declaring. Yes, Google doesn't have "total" power over search, but they do have total power over all the traffic they do control.

When I say that Google appears to be behaving in an Orwellian fashion, it is judgment about their tone, not about fairness, morality, or legality -- at least not yet.

I can only hope you are right in your separating Google's actions from "something really meaningful."

Orwell's lesson (I'm thinking here of Animal Farm, not 1984) is that the slippery slope doesn't begin with "a boot stamping on a human face." Each step in the descent can be written off as benign.

If you can sleep well on this, then sweet dreams. But it's still keeping me awake at night.

Thanks, Stuart, you took the words right out of my mouth -- much of the discussion around my post is quibbling over terms, because "gatekeeper" offends blogger's libertarian sensibilities.

But it's more than that -- forgive me for saying so, but the counterarguments I've heard, including Mathew's (with all due respect), are completely illogical. Unless the system of online content has devolved into a state of complete entropy, there are gatekeepers by definition. It makes no sense to say that because it's possible for some bloggers to make it through the gate easier than you might think, that proves there are no gatekeepers.

Mathew, you may have made it through the gate, but what about the other 20 million blogs that Technorati has tracked? That's 20 MILLION. They're not all getting attention -- why? Gatekeepers. You may have made it onto tech.memeorandum, but 99.9% of blogs never will. That's a gatekeeper by definition.

I'm not suggesting that the nature of media gatekeeping isn't rapidly changing. My question is what end state are we heading for, and is it a good thing?

If we're going to be clear-minded about the evolution of new media, we need to call a spade a spade.

Mathew, sorry about the skin problem. My point here is not so much about easy of use, but that these Web 2.0 media applications don't solve real problems with media. I don't think the problem is not enough choices -- we've got those by the boatload. The problem is overload, and I'm sorry, but Digg just makes that problem worse. I just went to Digg and found:

- New way to lose weight: stay in the dark!
- Police Computers Clash With Dunkin' Donuts System
- Iceland the First Country to Try Abandoning Gasoline

Now there's a killer app. I mean really, you can't seriously argue that this is useful. Cool, fun, sure. But is this really the best way to spend my limited media time?

Flickr and eBay are successful not based on ease of use, but because they give people an easier way to do something that was hard to do. How does reading Digg solve my information overload problem?

I'm not trying to push to the other extreme -- the Globe and Mail is a great example of middle ground -- I see news I can use presented in a user-friendly way, with the opportunity to comment if the spirit moves me.

Can't promise I won't get under your skin again, but I do enjoy the conversation (I'm geeky that way).