Disqus - Latest Comments for mathewi

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

danielbachhuber — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:43:39 -0000

Two links. Let's get started :)

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:39:52 -0000

No worries, Daniel -- I think your focus on data and measurement is a
valuable one, and you are quite right that there are arguments on both sides
that are not bolstered by any data whatsoever. But how does one measure
serendipity or the lack thereof? It seems to me that the whole concept is
so abstruse and indefinable that I wouldn't even know where to start.

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

danielbachhuber — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:35:47 -0000

My apologies if my first comment was blunt. What I was trying to convey is that most of these "death of journalism/future of news" conversations have gotten the point where they're entirely based on perceptions, memories of the past, opinions, etc. It would be more constructive, in my opinion, if we had some amount of data to work with. The serendipity would be one conversation this would be useful for, as well as "newspapers are dying so journalism must be dying too." On that note, a working definition of journalism would be useful too. If you're interested in starting to collect this data, I'd be a happy collaborator.

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:25:44 -0000

No data, Daniel -- just my perceptions :-)

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:02:42 -0000

I think that's a great point, Mark. So many newspaper websites -- ours
included -- simply copy the format and structure that worked in print,
rather than taking advantage of this new medium and the way people consume
and understand content online. Hopefully we are all learning quickly :-)

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:50:47 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Steve. Don't get me wrong -- I totally agree that
there is a much broader range of serendipitous content that we get exposed
to on the Web and through social media. I rely on that and enjoy it
immensely. But I still think (maybe just nostalgiically) that there is
value in the particular blend of curation and aggregation that newspapers
provide -- not all of it, but certainly some of it.

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

mathewi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:37:52 -0000

Thanks, Raul -- I just finished reading Todd's piece, which is excellent,
and posted a link to it on Twitter. I think he is dead on target with his
overview of the five "werewolves" and what they are doing to the industry.
I particularly liked his observation about how newspapers appealed to an
"accidental public," some of whom were interested in informing themselves
about issues and some of whom just wanted to be entertained or amused. That
is one of the central dilemmas of any form of publishing, in paper or online
-- how much should you appeal to the former and how much to the latter?

Re: Be an agent of change in the newsroom

mathewi — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:58:19 -0000

Thanks, Parker -- looking forward to that presentation.

Re: Go Home Lake

Ann Douglas — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:11:05 -0000

I'll let him know. He worked hard to get almost the entire print run out of his cottage and into other people's cottages.

Re: Go Home Lake

mathewi — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:52:58 -0000

What a coincidence -- your dad's book is sitting on the table in the living room of my friend's cottage :-)

Re: meshmarketing is live

mathewi — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:22:49 -0000

Thanks, Mitch -- I'm looking forward to it too. :-)

Re: Gawker, the WaPo and the death of journalism

wmoug — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:51:11 -0000

The key thing that Gawker provided him is access to an online audience that wouldn't have read the story on WaPo. On the strength of that segment, it boosted the whole story's readership.
If this was an AP originating story, Gawker would have had to pay AP to re-publish it (even in abreviated form)- hence that's why the editor is upset about this.
A case could be made that Gawker should pay something to reprint a story that originated elsewhere. Links back are not a form of payback (although they could be monetized).
On the other hand, how different is this from Gawker re-publishing a story from Techcrunch for e.g.?

Re: A blog post from the hammock

mathewi — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:13:16 -0000

Thanks, Gina :-)

Re: Gawker, the WaPo and the death of journalism

mathewi — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:07:03 -0000

Yes, I think that's a fair point Ryan. But the same could be said of any site -- or any publication for that matter -- that specializes in commentary, analysis, satire etc.

Re: Gawker, the WaPo and the death of journalism

mathewi — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:55:17 -0000

Yes, I agree that "via" links are not sufficient -- and I agree Gawker could have done better on the attribution front.

Re: A blog post from the hammock

mathewi — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:37:34 -0000

Thanks, Rohan -- I got the cat to do the last part because my thumbs were tired :-)

Re: Crowdsourcing: Top iPhone apps

mathewi — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:26:37 -0000

Thanks.

Re: Crowdsourcing: Top iPhone apps

mathewi — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:26:22 -0000

Thanks, Jon.

Re: Crowdsourcing: Top iPhone apps

mathewi — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:07:19 -0000

Thanks, Mara. I'll take a look.

Re: Crowdsourcing: Top iPhone apps

mathewi — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:00:12 -0000

Thanks, Darren.

Re: WSJ rules on Twitter: too restrictive

DaivRawks — Fri, 15 May 2009 07:04:08 -0000

Perhaps I wasn't as direct as I should have been: WSJ's policy is stupid and based upon their greed, rather than service to their readership. Their policy, as with every policy of every other huge company, is about keeping their money and making as much more as possible.

If one has grown to big as an individual to be fulfilled at WSJ (or wherever), then one should leave them, and thus one readily becomes unaffected by their rules. If one is not yet big enough to leave said nest, one will remain impacted by the rules of their host.

- Daiv

Re: WSJ rules on Twitter: too restrictive

mathewi — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:02:05 -0000

I can see your point, Dave, but I disagree. Yes, media outlets risk creating personal brands by allowing their writers to promote themselves in this way -- and some of those brands might decide to go out on their own. But that happens all the time, just as musicians who feel they have outgrown a label often move on to a different one, or go direct.

The reality is that people tend to identify with and relate to individuals, not to corporate brands -- or rather, the value they see in corporate brands is an amalgam of their respect for or admiration of or attraction to personalities within that corporate entity.

Re: Cluetrain: Human speech, human concerns

Justin — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:54:01 -0000

I see readers as a means to an ends. The end goal for any newspaper, as it is a business, is to create a profit. It does this, by and large, with advertising dollars. Advertising dollars are generated by large readership.

Newspapers have a long, long history of not reporting on subjects that will disturb their readership which therefore scares off advertisers which therefore kills profits.

The problem I have with the argument that newspapers sell news is that it infers that newspapers are an atruistic organization who's business is to get out "the truth". It's business, like all others, is to turn a profit.

Where I do agree with you Matthew, is in regards to how important readership numbers are. Especially in regards to the new unknown model. Once someone does figure out how to make money off digital news, a large readership already in place will be paramount. (That of course is assuming someone does figure it out.. I was there for .com boom/bust and the same arguments then regarding "we'll figure out the business model later" where made then as well).

Re: Alan Rusbridger on the future of news

mathewi — Fri, 01 May 2009 08:23:53 -0000

I totally agree, Adam.

Re: Cluetrain: Human speech, human concerns

mathewi — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:16:03 -0000

I think I know what you're driving at, Justin, but I disagree. A newspaper needs advertisers, yes, but it needs readers more -- without them, advertisers would be useless. The readers are actually the advertisers customers as well, they're just piggybacking on newspapers in order to reach them.