What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
72 Comments
- EMFK, on 05/18/2009, -4/+32Like the entertainment and auto industries in this country, the newspaper industry has been asleep at the wheel for years. It is tough to play catch up when you're way of thinking is stuck in the 50s and 60s. You can't just get by these days because your name is the NY Times or General Motors. Past reputations don't mean squat.
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -4/+22One of the funniest issues [No pun in ten did!] is that of the virtually reactionary response of a medium staff who is well LoC. I wonder if they'd change their view of this if they realized how much they're emulating the hated Right when they stodgily remain w/arms folded, holding their collective breath.
- edstate, on 05/18/2009, -10/+24Sure. Newspaper's failure to embrace the obvious fact that their model is outdated is a huge cause of this. But anyone who claims that their bias doesn't have anything to do with their troubles is either naive, or stupid.
- dougs55, on 05/18/2009, -1/+13If you assume MSM is gonna die, what happens to digg when all the diggers have to link to is each others blogs ?
/:P - cubicledrone, on 05/19/2009, -3/+12Newspapers stopped mattering the moment they replaced journalism with entertainment. Some things are supposed to be taken seriously. What is being printed in newspapers now is not news, nor is it journalism.
- 4321234, on 05/18/2009, -1/+9Soak them in water and freeze them. You can make a short-term useable boat out of the stuff.
- Blinker1315, on 05/18/2009, -2/+9I don't believe for a minute that, as the reporter maintains, that the Times is immune from a takeover until 2011. Media is moving way too fast these days, and if some venture capitalist, either friendly or hostile, offers a premium on Times stock, there will be a revolt among shareholders, virtually forcing the controlling family, the Sulzbergers, to sell. As the author, David Carr, says, he's "in the tank" for his newspaper. Can't blame him, that's where his paycheck comes from, but this is best-case scenario article.
- mrno, on 05/19/2009, -1/+8move right along...
people aren't going to pay for digital contents.
solution: make better ads that people want to view. - sanman, on 05/19/2009, -1/+8They're goners. It just hasn't sunken in yet.
They're just upset they haven't been able to finagle their own Federal Bailout, to keep themselves riding high on the taxpayer's dime.
The Gray Lady is looking dour and gray these days. That won't keep her from being carted off to a home. - nudedos, on 05/19/2009, -0/+7@bcasper1 your*
- inactive, on 05/19/2009, -1/+7Online access may be a cheap and convenient way of getting news, but there is a danger if it means the end of printed record.
When news becomes fluid (as it is becoming), we lose sense of perspective. We also lose accountability. Digital media can be altered after it gets "published". It can be forever modified, always updated to fit the current political or corporate agenda. Much of it is author-less. None of it is archived. - h8f8kes, on 05/19/2009, -4/+9The problem with the gray lady is thier credibility and bias in the editorial relm. To be fair, thier reporting is top notch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stor ...
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_ou ... - EndouOuto, on 05/19/2009, -0/+5Please, all media is biased. I won't buy any of them
- YamsterYams, on 05/18/2009, -3/+8It's not as if the MSM will die and everything will be status quo. There will be a new order, and the most entrepreneurial of the new media will have the money to hire reporters and editors. And it won't, thank God, be like The Huffington Post.
- WhoDoneIt, on 05/19/2009, -1/+6You must have a rather large ass.
- PatrickX, on 05/19/2009, -0/+4digg will just start redirecting to cracked.com :o
- WiseWeasel, on 05/19/2009, -1/+5There is no such thing as a single perspective being relevant to a society in this decentralized information marketplace. Instead, there are millions of perspectives, each with typically little value to anyone else, and some simply happen to gain traction while others vanish. The problem arises when one organization starts to believe that it has a monopoly on perspective, and that they own a particular audience that must be catered to with a perceived angle. This hubris is responsible for the demise of many large media companies, which have become ideological prisons rather than open marketplaces. The internet drastically reduces the relevance of the source, and simply allows information to compete in an open marketplace of individual preferences.
Our society's discussion was simply oversimplified in the past due to its centralized control over information distribution, to make it seem like there was some kind of narrative being followed or some unified sense of direction. The fact is that we are merely a collection of individuals, each with our own concerns and aspirations, and our society is rightly destined to fracture into a million different discussions, with hundreds of millions of different perspectives. That's a good thing for the US in particular, as the anonymous individual at large is the ultimate focus of our national priorities. That's a less good thing for highly centralized and personality-driven societies, as they will be unable to maintain any level of control over the public discussion. - Blinker1315, on 05/18/2009, -1/+5That's the problem: You're a weekend user, and that doesn't do the print edition of the Times must good.
- quirkopatra, on 05/19/2009, -0/+4"...what happens to digg when all the diggers have to link to is each others blogs ?"
Well, the PubRecord keeps winding up with diggs and it's a blog disguised as a non-profit. - Jackson0909, on 05/19/2009, -0/+4Your hypocrisy is amazing.
- WiseWeasel, on 05/19/2009, -0/+4Back to the drawing board with you! A relatively tiny fragment of the population would ever consider paying for news on the internet given so many free alternatives, which means that those media companies that figure out how to make money providing free content will be at a huge advantage. Remember that most of the NYT's income comes not from subscriptions, but from advertisement, which will dry up extremely quickly once you start walling off your content to paid subscribers while all your competitors provide open access.
- rpgmakr, on 05/19/2009, -1/+5What are you talking about? The whole newspaper industry is going down.
You seem glad that this is happening to the NYTimes... Who is going to look after us when they're gone? In the full of BS american media they are as good as it gets...
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be bankrupt because it's a good newspaper, I'm just saying that you shouldn't be glad about it. - swmbuk, on 05/19/2009, -3/+7Quick question for the people that are putting down the Times' reliability, where the hell do you get this unbiased news from? I want in! But anyway like someone said above, I'd trust the Times over issues rather than bloggers. Face it, every single moment there's too much information for us to handle, therefore we select what is relevant, hence bias. So unless you want stories pulled out of a hat, and written in a factorial manor (what facts come first though? etc.), all media is going to be biased.
- lamejoketeller, on 05/19/2009, -0/+4Even if they go out of print, I'm pretty sure the website will always be there
The net can't replace original and investigative reporting unless some major changes regarding internet news take place. The Times is arguably the best thoroughly-edited original reporting source in the U.S. today. I read it online every day. - bcasper1, on 05/19/2009, -4/+8Your comment is true for most diluted papers such as The NY Daily News or The NY Post. Basically, if a paper has a celebrity ***** page then it's a joke paper. The times however is full of articles which take months to write and take up actual whole pages of the paper.
- inactive, on 05/19/2009, -2/+5I don't know what it would take to save the New York times, but IMHO it would be worth it. The New York Times has been the pinnacle of printed journalism in the world for decades, and the world would surely suffer without it.
- brandita, on 05/19/2009, -0/+3I think the Times is great and has some great pieces! Long Live the Times!
- MerrieWay, on 05/19/2009, -1/+4Jounalitstic accountability online is like raking through the trash and looking for a lost diamond ring. 'Citizen journalism' is mostly an OP Edd, at best. Very few of us use proper grammar, let alone critical thinking with accurate facts to back it up. MerrieWay may still be batting right-handed and writing as a leftie, that means I'm sticking with Arianna Huffington - promoting on-line journalism and reading The New york Times...
- Jackson0909, on 05/19/2009, -3/+6For starters, they purposely omit stories they feel may be detrimental to their ideology.
- mrno, on 05/19/2009, -0/+3One of the issue many newspapers overlooked was affiliating with Google for advertisement. I know many firms saved money by outsourcing the technology. Now, they missed out many advanced data mining technology when the newspapers were moving to the web. This is another failure of NewsCorp and child company like Myspace. They have no idea how their data looks like. If the revenue starts to fall, they will panic. Fact that many high traffic news sites didn't invested money on their data mining, they are clueless what directions to follow.
- WiseWeasel, on 05/19/2009, -0/+3Well, even using your example math, that would only be economically feasible assuming that you are able to get at least 16.7% as many readers/viewers as your free-access competitors. Every time someone has tried that approach, it has failed to make more money than free access. There are probably some media assets for which such an approach could work nicely, maybe for a publication like The Economist and such that have managed to make money without ever granting free access due to their perceived editorial value, but unfortunately for the NYT, that approach won't work for them, as they are not differentiated enough from other similar publications.
- Blinker1315, on 05/19/2009, -0/+3Are you a subscriber? Or do you buy the printed edition every day?
- mrno, on 05/19/2009, -0/+3How can you claim there will increase return per advertisement if it becomes a pay site? I say it will be an opposite. There will less data to gather. Data is more accurate if you have more information to work with. If an average reader only buys 5 to 10 articles a month and readers drop by 95%, what evidences do you have to show their data gathering is more accurate?
- WiseWeasel, on 05/19/2009, -0/+3Link to relatively thoughtful and objective content instead of the typical drivel from big media companies?
- stix213, on 05/19/2009, -11/+13I won't buy it due to its obvious bias.
- inactive, on 05/19/2009, -0/+2Post-modernism 101 aside, to say the source no longer matters is to agree with my original point.
When everyone is an expert, and everyone is a newsmaker, and everyone is a journalist, there can be no perspective gained. There is no quality, and there is no value system at play. Each value is considered equal and fair.
This is why Tom Cruise can get on the Today show and make rants about pharmaceuticals, and actually be taken seriously. Few people can identify his claims from pure *****. And fewer even care. - inkgrok, on 05/19/2009, -1/+3There is supposed to be bias in editorials!
- MaskedSlacker, on 05/19/2009, -2/+4Because NYT pretends to be a national newspaper, not a city newspaper. Same with LAT.
- datastorageguy, on 05/19/2009, -1/+3Their obvious bias has just added to their dwindling sales due to a lack of interest in the paper news medium.
@tmcal
You can't be serious. Even liberals admit the NYT has a liberal bias. For one, they killed a story linking the Obama campaign to Acorn. You know, the group that is under investigation for voter fraud in 14 states?
The people who claim the NYT has no left wing bias have obviously never met or spoken to someone of an opposing political view point. They probably frequent establishments where everyone thinks the same and they probably read and watch news from the same media outlets. This is why you are so surprised. - quirkopatra, on 05/19/2009, -6/+8An example of the New York Times not being very good? Well, they killed a story on the Obama/Acorn connection and improprieties before the election because they thought it might be a "game changer". They have admitted this.
The New York Times has a liberal bias and yes, conservatives can see it. We do not wish the government to bail them out.
They did NOT report a story because they were in the can for Obama and didn't want the information to tarnish him. That is not journalism, that is crap.
They should not try to pretend that they are anything other than a forum for liberal news. Apparently not even the liberals want to pay. - PatrickX, on 05/19/2009, -1/+2"the virtually reactionary response of a medium staff who is well LoC"
Was this supposed to mean something in English? - chedonline, on 05/19/2009, -1/+2Ha, I just saw that episode.
- edstate, on 05/20/2009, -0/+1That's a legitimate theory... but as MS said, they purport to be not only a National paper, but a Global one... their OpEd bias is terrible, and it often bleeds into their reporting; which, aside from that, is robust.
- yellowsnowcone, on 05/19/2009, -0/+1I know I am going to be going against the grain here, but there is not enough evidence to suggest that throwing up a paywall will blow a whole in advertising revenue.
The argument here is that a paywall restricts traffic and reach and thus ad revenue. But CPMs rates are higher, much much higher, for pay sites because they know a lot about their customers. The average CPM on the web is $5. It can be as high as $30 for a pay site. I would argue that if the NYT can get 1 million paying subscribers, those subscribers would be very valuable to advertisers who will be willing to pay more than $5 per CPM. - sanman, on 05/19/2009, -1/+2There are plenty of people and outlets on the internet who are capable of discussing issues and bringing them to light. You act like only your elite Gods at the NYT can do this. I've read many a story at the NYT that has willfully slandered or slanted an issue, based on the prejudices of the NYT elitists in their Ivory Tower. I for one am glad that the Ivory Tower is crumbling -- under its own weight mind you. To hear you tell it, it's as if someone was conspiring to bring down a successful outfit. They're not successful, and the numbers show this. It's no different than GM, or Chrysler, or Bear-Stearns.
- WiseWeasel, on 05/19/2009, -1/+2It's always been about what information resonates with you personally, and we're now finding that organizing information sources into newspapers and TV stations is really not the most relevant and efficient way to connect with your readers and viewers, especially given the rise of socially driven alternatives on the internet. There are simply too few newspapers and TV stations for one to ever hope to be entirely relevant to any single person, and now that we're getting news aggregation sites that are able to target people much more directly, the old centralized sources of information are losing all their attractiveness as a packaged product. While I might enjoy reading a few articles a week from the NYT, I might find the premise of one or two others highly objectionable, and most of the rest utterly irrelevant to me. I don't know what form journalism will commonly take a decade from now, but I do know it won't succeed if they continue to bundle themselves to the point that they've lost relevance to everyone.
- WiseWeasel, on 05/19/2009, -1/+2How can you be on Digg and not realize that it's the social filter that finds the information valuable to you among the sea of crap? This site is far from being the final word on the subject, as great progress is still to be made, particularly in the field of targeted recommendation, but surely you can catch a glimpse of what the future of news discovery will bring. Just because newspapers have lost their value in their current form doesn't mean that the news itself is any less valuable to people.
- stix213, on 05/19/2009, -0/+1Sorry to tell you, but opinion/comment articles are still part of the paper that I would be buying, so they still count as part of why I'm not buying it.
And here is an article from today's NY Times online. You'll notice the entire article is an attack on the lawyers who made legal opinions about the limits of interrogation techniques under Bush. You'll also notice that only left wing activists were interviewed for this article, and no one with a conflicting opinion (other than one of the accused lawyers) is even mentioned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/us/19detain.html ...
I'm not trying to defend these lawyers... I'm just pointing out that an unbiased report on the matter would include opinions beyond ONLY far left activists. - ByteMeAHole, on 05/19/2009, -1/+2I stopped getting a paper long ago for several reasons:
The first was the waste of paper (only about 3 articles worth reading in a 20+ page paper) - this was and remains the primary reason - they convinced me that they are a waste of resources that I can live without...
The second was the cost, and the time required to try to find any real news in those 20+ pages of non-sense - it usually went straight into the recycle bin.
The third was I wanted factual investigation, like there used to be, not a rehash of what's on TV, or some Bozo's opinion...
Like any industry presently in trouble - they are out of touch, and poorly managed, they are dying and nothing can save something who's time is past. Look at slide-rules - when the calculator was affordable, it died quickly. - SirCharge, on 05/19/2009, -2/+2I'm tired of seeing articles about the certain downfall of the NYT. Tell me when they're gone.
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is