|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14739
| Just wanted to commend you for linking to things the way that you are.
Newspapers are dying and when we cut and paste material from newspaper sources without linking back to that source, we aren't helping the problem at all.
In the future, everybody, please don't cut and paste entire articles from newspapers. Just take a portion and encourage people to follow the links to the actual source.
To understand why, please read this:
http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2009/02/what_if_newspapers_didnt_e...
What if newspapers didn't exist?
TJ Sullivan
Thomas Jefferson did not wish to become a wolf.
Odd as that may sound today considering all the good he did his country, Jefferson worried about the possibility, so much so that, while on a trip to Europe in 1787, one of his letters home became a kind of dissertation about the people he'd seen transformed into "wolves and sheep" along the way.
Cloaked in the garb of government, Jefferson wrote, the leaders of Europe had managed to divide their nations into two distinct classes -- "wolves and sheep" -- with the ruling class preying upon everyone else.
It was, Jefferson figured, the result of the public's inattention, an inevitability wherever government was permitted to exist absent a free press.
"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
Those words appeared in Jefferson's letter to Edward Carrington, a Virginia statesman who was serving as a delegate to the Continental Congress. In it, Jefferson went on to say that, without newspapers, he feared the American public would stop paying attention to their government. Once that happened it was only a matter of time before Jefferson, the Congress, and the whole of the American government turned into a pack of wolves preying upon sheep.
Wolves and sheep. You don't have to be a Jeffersonian scholar to comprehend what it means.
Yet, here we find ourselves more than 222 years later in the midst of a newspaper crisis that TIME magazine says has reached "meltdown proportions," meaning our transformation into wolves and sheep may soon be a foregone conclusion, and still the majority of the American public appears oblivious.
Many newspapers have closed. Buyouts and layoffs have decimated once great institutions of American journalism. And despite all that, some of the craziest last-ditch efforts you ever could have imagined are being implemented in the effort to stave off death.
- The Los Angeles Times has killed its local news section.
- The Gannett newspaper chain has put its newspaper employees on mandatory five-day furloughs.
- The Detroit New and The Detroit Free Press have ceased daily home delivery.
These aren't sane measures. Indeed, had anyone suggested such things two years ago they'd have been branded a lunatic. But as we approach panic mode, even remotely plausible ideas seem worth a shot.
TIME magazine's cover story this week, a very thought-provoking piece written by Walter Isaacson (a former TIME managing editor, and president and CEO of the Aspen Institute), suggests the solution may be to charge readers for access:
"Under a micropayment system, a newspaper might decide to charge a nickel for an article or a dime for that day's full edition or $2 for a month's worth of Web access. Some surfers would balk, but I suspect most would merrily click through if it were cheap and easy enough."
Simple enough, except that, as Isaacson points out, it's not new. Writers have been charging readers for news since paper put cave walls out of business, but, despite that, prior attempts to make readers pay in the wired world of the World Wide Web haven't gone over very well.
Which brings us right back to where we've been for years while, in the meantime, another newspaper (Denver's Rocky Mountain News) rages against the dying of the light.
No more.
It's time to do something drastic.
It's time to do more than join another Facebook pledge group, or promote a campaign like National Buy A Newspaper Day, or to purchase some overpriced t-shirts emblazoned with the message "Save a journalist, buy a newspaper."
It's time to admit that, regardless of how many readers may be clicking through newspaper content for free on the Internet, newspapers don't matter to those readers because Jefferson's concerns aren't on their radar. They've got enough to worry about. They've got jobs of their own. They've got this much time to read blog X, Y and Z, and click their way over to the paper and back, or not, or whatever, but there's no compelling reason for them to stop and think about what would happen if the newspapers providing all that news ceased to exist.
To the average reader wolves and sheep are little more than characters in a fairy tale.
It's not that Americans don't care. It's simply a matter of human nature. Until the discomfort reaches the readers -- at which point it will be too late -- there's no motivation for them to get involved in finding a solution.
Clearly newspapers can't solve this alone. They've had years. They're lost. And, at this stage, asking for directions isn't enough to put them back on track.
Now is the time for newspapers to do something proactive; time for them to demonstrate what life would be like without them.
It's time for every daily newspaper in the United States, in cooperation with the Associated Press, to shut down their free Web sites for one week.
Yes. Shut it down. Blank screen. Nothing.
Of course, news would still be reported daily in every newspaper's printed product. No editor, or reporter or publication would dare shirk their watchdog responsibilities. This isn't about stopping the presses.
But the Web? People can do without news on the Web for a week. They won't like it. They'll complain about it. But, that's exactly what has to happen before they can be expected to care.
Pulling the plug gets their attention.
So, here's the proposal: At the stroke of midnight on Independence Day, Saturday July 4, all daily newspapers ought to switch off their Web sites until Friday, July 10.
Call it "A Week Without a Virtual Newspaper." Call it crazy. Call it costly. Call it whatever you want, but it's no more drastic a measure than asking people to work for free.
A move like this puts the crisis where it ought to be, front and center at the top of every newscast. It makes it impossible for anyone to deny where the majority of news content comes from, and why it matters. For without virtual newspapers, what would Drudge report? What would Huffington post? What would Google News and Yahoo News and all those cut-and-paste blogs that get so much of their material from newspapers have to offer if newspapers went away?
Not that there's anything wrong with public affairs blogs, aggregate news sites, or any other online entity that makes use of newspaper reports. The point of pulling the plug for one week isn't to harm them, but to emphasize the origin of all that news content, and why everyone should care about protecting that source.
Pulling the plug is perhaps the only way to make people outside of journalism sit up and take notice that this isn't about jobs in journalism, but American Democracy.
It's about wolves and sheep. Wolves and sheep. |
|
|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14739
| Oh, also, when you read something somebody has linked, go ahead and follow the link, just to give the newspaper the hit. A journalist somewhere will appreciate it and, ultimately, so will everybody. |
|
|
| Agreed. |
|
|
All-Star
Posts: 4937
| LightTheHalo - 2/16/2009 8:59 AM
In the future, everybody, please don't cut and paste entire articles from newspapers. Just take a portion and encourage people to follow the links to the actual source.
But it's ok to cut and paste an entire article from a blog like you just did? Hmmm... |
|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14271
| I hate to bring you into the 21st Century in such an unavoidable rush but the world is not as it was in Jefferson's time. The printed word was the only medium for transmitting news back then. There were no phones, radios, televisions or the WWW. Newspapers, if you're a green freak, are a horribly waste full medium for spreading information. The usage of bulk paper products, inks, energy for publication and transportation along with the waste residue of un recycled papers, makes this one of larger eco footprints out there. Their demise should have tree huggers everywhere singing and dancing in the streets. I am going to miss taking a break from work and computer screens just to sit down to a lunch in some small cafe and spread out the paper. However I can see the reasoning why it is now one foot in the grave. It does not reach the audience anymore, it has been replaced by a more instant, diverse and accessible media. It's time has passed. 
|
|
|
All-Star
Posts: 2744
Location: Eugene, OR/Artesia, CA | You're probably right Blarg, but the Internet operations of these media outlets would probably be able to support only a small portion of the workforce and the news produced would be way down. I don't know the solution but with the unreliability of measuring ads on the web, figuring out some tiered charging system like LTH posted could work. |
|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14271
| Nobody rides Stingray bikes with banana seats anymore either. |
|
|
All-Star
Posts: 1701
| LTH, as an editor worried that he is about to be laid off from a newspaper, I appreciate your thread. |
|
|
| Blarg - 2/16/2009 10:17 AM
I hate to bring you into the 21st Century in such an unavoidable rush but the world is not as it was in Jefferson's time. The printed word was the only medium for transmitting news back then. There were no phones, radios, televisions or the WWW. Newspapers, if you're a green freak, are a horribly waste full medium for spreading information. The usage of bulk paper products, inks, energy for publication and transportation along with the waste residue of un recycled papers, makes this one of larger eco footprints out there. Their demise should have tree huggers everywhere singing and dancing in the streets. I am going to miss taking a break from work and computer screens just to sit down to a lunch in some small cafe and spread out the paper. However I can see the reasoning why it is now one foot in the grave. It does not reach the audience anymore, it has been replaced by a more instant, diverse and accessible media. It's time has passed.
Blarg, as much as I disagree with you on most points, I can't help but disagree with you on this one too.
The newspaper medium may be dying, but I as a writer am outraged if I find something I've written without a byline or a credit or a link. And it has happened.
All LTH is saying is that with the transition to digital a medium, newspaper's websites are becoming increasingly more important to their bottom line. This is where they advertise, and this is why you should link to their sites when posting their proprietary material. It is illegal to repost without sourcing, even from a blog.
SO... just copy and paste the link. Please. |
|
|
Big League Angels
Posts: 1015
| Thank you for posting this.
While I've always posted the links on every article that I've put on here (to give credit to the author and source), I have copied the entire article into the screen. From now on, I will not so as to give the paper and the author the hit.
While I agree with Blarg that the printed newspapers will become more or less obsolete, I do think that there is quite a joy in slowly reading a paper copy of a newspaper and that some sections should still be in print. How else will men have bathroom reading materials without newspapers?
I would like to see some aspects of newspapers continue and, and, if giving them the links will help, I will do so. |
|
|
All-Star
Posts: 3385
Location: Las Vegas | What does wicked say? |
|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6208
Location: My Own Private Idaho | Blarg - 2/16/2009 10:17 AM I hate to bring you into the 21st Century in such an unavoidable rush but the world is not as it was in Jefferson's time. The printed word was the only medium for transmitting news back then. There were no phones, radios, televisions or the WWW. Newspapers, if you're a green freak, are a horribly waste full medium for spreading information. The usage of bulk paper products, inks, energy for publication and transportation along with the waste residue of un recycled papers, makes this one of larger eco footprints out there. Their demise should have tree huggers everywhere singing and dancing in the streets. I am going to miss taking a break from work and computer screens just to sit down to a lunch in some small cafe and spread out the paper. However I can see the reasoning why it is now one foot in the grave. It does not reach the audience anymore, it has been replaced by a more instant, diverse and accessible media. It's time has passed.
Blarg you are so right, such a huge waste of paper. I got a call from the LA Times the other day asking me to buy the newspaper. My answer was I read the newspaper online. He said even the Sunday paper. I told him yes because it's a huge waste of paper. |
|
|
Orem Owlz
Posts: 220
Location: Lake Forest (17 miles from Angel Stadium) | First off, newspaper material is copyrighted. So technically you can't reprint without permission.
Second, websites get high ranking on Google based on links. So when you include links you aren't just obeying the law, you are helping angelswin. |
|
|
Location: San Francisco | Vernster52 - 2/16/2009 11:47 AM
What does wicked say?
print is dead. |
|
|
Rancho Cucamonga Quakes
Posts: 436
| Blarg - 2/16/2009 10:17 AM
I hate to bring you into the 21st Century in such an unavoidable rush but the world is not as it was in Jefferson's time. The printed word was the only medium for transmitting news back then. There were no phones, radios, televisions or the WWW. Newspapers, if you're a green freak, are a horribly waste full medium for spreading information. The usage of bulk paper products, inks, energy for publication and transportation along with the waste residue of un recycled papers, makes this one of larger eco footprints out there. Their demise should have tree huggers everywhere singing and dancing in the streets. I am going to miss taking a break from work and computer screens just to sit down to a lunch in some small cafe and spread out the paper. However I can see the reasoning why it is now one foot in the grave. It does not reach the audience anymore, it has been replaced by a more instant, diverse and accessible media. It's time has passed.
This was about linking articles, not printed newspaper copy. Obviously the industry is changing towards online content and clicking on their links is important. Particularly if it is a blog you want to see survive. |
|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6208
Location: My Own Private Idaho | mrwicked - 2/16/2009 12:08 PM Vernster52 - 2/16/2009 11:47 AM What does wicked say? print is dead. 
|
|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6159
Location: Perth, Western Australia | Word it up, LTH. I couldn't stand it when I was in print, and you would look at an internet forum and see all these people reading your article, without your bosses or anyone knowing they were. It would get so frustrating. At least I don't have that problem in radio! |
|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14739
| Blarg, this has nothing to do with printed pages. It has to do with the fact "news" Websites like the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post (there are hundreds of them) get all of their news from newspapers -- and yet the newspapers themselves aren't seeing a dime of the profits.
Nobody here is advocating a return to the glory days of printed newspapers being delivered to every driveway. That ship has sailed. What we do desperately need to see, however, is proper credit being given to the sources of this material -- and in a fashion that will directly influence positively that source's bottom line.
As for my posting the entire article from the blog, I am an associate of TJ Sullivan and am working with him on this campaign (I designed a logo.) I felt it was more important to reach the highest amount of readers, which is accomplished by posting the entire thing. |
|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14271
| I have no problem with the accreditation aspect but much of what you posted had to do with the importance of the press, it's illusrtious history and newspapers folding because of the lack of interest in either subscription or p.o.p. sales. That was the only part that I was referring to. Crediting an author and only posting a partial snippet along with a link is the ethical thing to do. Good luck finding people that will follow those rules rather than take shortcuts.
Edited by Blarg 2/16/2009 3:18 PM
|
|
|
| And some websites require subscriptions, cutting and pasting is easier. Really what is more important the story itself, or who wrote it, or where you read it? This is just another case of the media trying to prove their worth over the actual story.
Personally, I care more about finding out Gary Matthews demanding a trade, rather than who broke the story. |
|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 24224
Location: Anaheim/Moreno Valley | I completely understand what you are saying, LTH, and would like to apologize right now for not knowing when it was first asked and following suit. I was away from the board during that time but I will comply to the wishes from now on. Of course, this leads me to my 2nd apology for me being unable to post the link where it opens for the readers on the initial click. I have no idea what I'm doing wrong (I am cut/pasting it) but will continue to try and find out which way is best. 
|
|
|
| JonnyF - 2/16/2009 5:06 PM
And some websites require subscriptions, cutting and pasting is easier. Really what is more important the story itself, or who wrote it, or where you read it? This is just another case of the media trying to prove their worth over the actual story.
Personally, I care more about finding out Gary Matthews demanding a trade, rather than who broke the story.
What is more important? Seriously? Why do you think those websites have subscriptions? So the people writing and publishing the news on the web, instead of in print, get paid to do so. In print, or on TV, ad's run the game. Ad supported writing is all thats left for non-fiction, and even fiction is starting to disappear. Clicking on the link allows those advertisers to promote their products, and keeps the internet free. Stealing content from another website, without the link means that all of our favorite websites will start charging -- for all of their content and will unleash their legal teams on sites like this one, who steal content. And they'll shut them down. Buh-bye Angelswin.com
I can't blame them either. If one of my articles appeared on espn.com, without my byline or permission, I'd sure as hell sue the living daylights out of them. If one of my scripts were made into a movie without me, I'd sue the hell out of everyone involved. The internet, as great as it is, has made all of this possible. Not just possible, but easily done. And it needs to stop.
Who breaks the story isn't the issue, as most legitimate sites will credit the person breaking the story. And not all of us are Ken Rosenthal or Buster Olney or Peter Gammons, or a big name. Most of us writers are doing it because we love it, not because we're paid. We do it for credit. If I don't get credit, never the mind payment for my work, I won't write. I doubt you'd think that you should do whatever it is you do for a living for free, just because it's easier. It's easier for me for the dry cleaners to not charge me, or the restaurant I go to to give me my food for free too...
I just can't believe your ignorance here. As a writer I take great offense to your statement.
Sometimes easier is not better dude. What a joke.
|
|
|
| First you say you do it because you love it, but then you say do it for credit??? What is more important? what you love or getting credit?
Then you want other people to not charge you for services rendered. Meaning what? You want to charge people to read what you write? If you do it to get paid that's different. But you already said you don't do it to get paid. What are you trying to say (cause I really dont know. And I'm trying to figure it out) :(
And nobody said easier is better. But easier is easier. If I have to jump through one hoop to get my stated desire instead of jumping through three to get the same place, of course I (or anybody else) am going to go the easy way. Doesn't make it right, but it's the world we live in. btw- I am soooo not looking to argue, just doesn't make sense for the average person to care about who gets a hit to whatever site to read a story about a game. :) |
|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14739
| When your only source for "news" is the television "journalists," JonnyF, you'll regret taking such shortcuts. |
|
|
All-Star
Posts: 4851
| LightTheHalo - 2/16/2009 2:13 PM
Blarg, this has nothing to do with printed pages. It has to do with the fact "news" Websites like the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post (there are hundreds of them) get all of their news from newspapers -- and yet the newspapers themselves aren't seeing a dime of the profits.
Well, DR and HP seem to be doing well. Why not the newspapers? Because the newspapers did not want to adapt to the changing media landscape and shot themselves in the foot, and that is a shame because TV journalism is unwatchable after ten minutes. All that crap is run by entertainment execs, not news people, who get larger bonuses and promotion after promotion every quarter the profits increase instead of understanding that news - actual hard news - is a public service and their broadcast abilities came with that social responsibility. Enter the 24-hour news cycle and OJ or some missing white girl dominating the news channels.
The failure of newspapers to adapt reeks of arrogance similar to that of the music business. The larger, fatter and greater the sense of self importance, the less willing entities are to accept the fact that they need to find a new way to monetize their product, leaving the door wide open for competitors with smarter business plans.
|
|
ineedanap and the importance of linking to newspapers
