Comments on: The dysfunctional internet … or why Barry Colman isn’t stupid

By: Andrew Colman

Andrew Colman — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:43:27 +0000

Wild card – I am Barry Colman’s second cousin. We share the same Great Grandfather.
I would like to contact him re family history.
The information I have (and he might also have ) could enlighten us both.
I can supply authentice documentation as to identity etc.

By: From Broadsheet to Broadband. « Compliance Fiction

From Broadsheet to Broadband. « Compliance Fiction — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:22:44 +0000

[...] Martin Taylor has written a very interesting blog which explains that, no, Barry Coleman is not stupid, but, rather, the internet is actually broken. [...]

By: Google settlement: Why I’ve opted out

Google settlement: Why I’ve opted out — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 03:11:51 +0000

[...] I personally think this approach – selling digital copies outright to allow their long term, payment-free lending – would be a serious mistake. And I think Google has the potential to distort the devalue ebooks on a huge scale in the same way that I believe Google has distorted the advertising-driven media market. [...]

By: Judge and Jury – Fair Process Anyone? at diversity.net.nz

Judge and Jury – Fair Process Anyone? at diversity.net.nz — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:15:58 +0000

[...] have been criticised of late as being amateur and “pouring out columns of unsubstantiated “facts” and hysterical [...]

By: Google: Your books will be “in the cloud” and booksellers will still matter

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 05:07:41 +0000

[...] end too, if it’s to avoid ceding to Google the type of control of the book market that Google has managed to acquire over the advertising market that funds most other [...]

By: Bill Bennett

Bill Bennett — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:16:02 +0000

It’s a good analysis. I’m not against charging for online content. For me the problem is determining a reasonable price.

From the publisher’s point of view this would involve working out costs adding a margin, then dividing this number up between the size of the paying audience.

Much simpler said than done. Just to complicate matters, the size of the paying audience will depend on the price. And the price has to look comparable with other forms of media. In particular, it needs to look like good value when compared with buying a printed publication — I would argue the NBR’s online price for 20 percent of content is significantly more than 20 percent of the price of the print edition mailed to your house. It’s also higher than the free alternatives.

A six month print subscription to the NBR is around $230, 20 percent of that would be $46. I’d happily pay that amount, but the $150 asking price looks like gouging, even if it isn’t.

By: Juha

Juha — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:00:59 +0000

But the Russell Browns and David Farrars and whoever of this world don’t make a living out of the Internet. Make of that what you will.

I have hundreds of thousands of page views on some of my blog posts, but that doesn’t translate into big dollars for me. Yes, it could just be my inability to sell my blog, but when even the big sites say they can’t afford my modest freelance fees, I don’t think so.

Somewhere along the line we as journalists are meant to feed our families if not ourselves, and have enough financial fortitude to stand up against strong commercial interests, but so far, the Internet isn’t working for us in that respect.

Obviously, if you don’t care about strong, free media that scrutinise the powerful, then the Internet model of free, weak and easily manipulated content providers is fine. If not, well, it’s probably too late already.

Of course, the past idiocy doesn’t help. Lax libertarian lack of regulation saw to it that media empires were built up that amassed debt in stupid attempts to conquer the world through buying out the competition so now when the fat’s gone out of the business, we’re talking instant death.

By: Jessica Guerro

Jessica Guerro — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:13:59 +0000

I have to agree that its tough for newspapers and other media online having to contend with so much other content.

But something you have to remember is you adapt to the market or you no longer stay in business. Its something that many people seem to forget, but many old professions have been replaced throughout history you simply have to adapt yourself to fit the changes of society.

By: rob

rob — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:18:27 +0000

“The internet isn’t delivering the kinds of revenues that support well-resourced reporting, or long-term investigate reporting.”
You’re right, Don- there’s a little: TPM is one obvious example. But they are have a big market and a dedicated following.
And you and Mark both have a good point re: the publishing giants have done a lot of the damage to themselves. You won’t find a more passionate or eloquent statement about that than David Simon http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/journalistic_practice/wire_creator_david_simon_testi0719
(eg: When you hear a newspaper executive claiming that his industry is an essential bulwark of society and that it stands threatened by a new technology that is, as of yet, unready to shoulder the same responsibility, you may be inclined to empathize. And indeed, that much is true enough as it goes.

But when that same newspaper executive then goes on to claim that this predicament has occurred through no fault on the industry’s part, that they have merely been undone by new technologies, feel free to kick out his teeth. At that point, he’s as fraudulent as the most self-aggrandized blogger.
But his point is equally valid: a world without good, deep, motivated, well-funded professional journalism is a considerably poorer world.

By: Don Christie

Don Christie — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:46:51 +0000

The internet isn’t delivering the kinds of revenues that support well-resourced reporting, or long-term investigate reporting.

Russell – it’s is the world economy that is failing on that front, not the Internet. As I pointed out abive, just 12 months ago offline advertising was at record high levels. Web2.0 has been around for much longer than 12 months.

And as for “investigative journalism” please don’t tell me “old media” is even close to providing that. As Gordon Brown points out at TED, it is the new through technologies, not old media, that previously closed doors are being thrust open.