I cover the New York Giants for SNY, and manage my writers covering the New York Mets at Hot Foot. You can contact me by AIM or by email. Check out my Tumblr Tees and support my "Network for Good", inspired by Rachel Sklar's Charitini.
bedava okey okey okey oyna
redReferrer Soupend
"
They don’t have to compete with it, all they have to do is purchase the information from TMZ. Newspapers don’t, but plenty of so-called mainstream news organizations do. There’s a tremendous hypocrisy involved here because, I’ve already used one simile of cocaine growers, lets use another one, this is like a grey market gentleman businessman who doesn’t dirty his hands, this would be networks, and you have your behind the scenes thugs that do the wet work.
So everybody sits around and harrumphs about the poor ethics of TMZ, they’re buying news and it’s all unethical, that’s all true but turn on CNN, turn on CBS, turn on ABC, what are we seeing? We’re seeing the same coverage, much of it derived from, if not taken directly from the same people they’re criticizing. It’s just a question of plausible deniability. It’s a distraction, I don’t think the problem lies with TMZ, I think the problem is in what we define what national news coverage should be.
"Mark Cooper, listen to his interview here.
….special thanks to Soraya and Miltnr for their suggestions and info :) Keep up the good work!
The house that Mutz built.
gary: http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html I talked about this a few months ago at the 23 minute mark of this keynote Big Omaha - Minute 23:00 Re: Twitter trademarking the word “Tweet”
Twitters stance on this is the correct one for their brand in some ways and so it’s important to understand that you as a company should have never gone into those waters in the 1st place. Your brand is your world and building someone else ( especially when platforms continue to change every 3-4-5 years) is much more of a bad play then just getting slapped with Trademark issues!
“I really hope that people understand, like here’s what drive me crazy, when I see products like Tweetie or Twitterrific I’m always like, ‘nooo don’t you know what’s going to happen?’ You know facebook’s going to open up and then you’re going to want to have the open, you know, API to facebook status but now your called Twitterrific so it’s a little niche and then…You know, just keep that in mind if you’re a serial entrepreneur and you like to do niche little businesses, keep in mind that whatever the hot thing is at the time, it’s going to be the hot thing of the time so go with maybe a little bit of a more global name that you can like bring that into. There’s just going to be new things, its always going to change.”
"As the industry nears its 100,000th post-recession layoff, dragging newspapers, magazines and television down with it, it’s become apparent that selling ad space is an unsustainable revenue model for media as a whole. It is from the chaos of this moment that the relationship between content and capital will be defined for generations to come. Either quality content and valuable journalism will prevail, or a failing ad industry will survive by cannibalizing faltering media outlets: pitting the sponsored versus the authentic in a deathmatch for attention, relevance and the almighty dollar."
Douglas Haddow (via azspot)
Jon Stewart looks at a clip where CIA analyst Michael Scheuer nonchalantly proposes the needless slaughter of Americans to further his national security plan on “Glenn Beck.”
This is the single greatest moment of prime time television of our lifetimes.
I dare any of you to top it.
What the fuck happened today? Back off Soup (though, Jeff: nice). Did you know that every time we really fuckin’ get into it (which happens quite often) we take it to the backchannel to duke it out? So: he doesn’t know shit about online advertising. Neither do I. Neither do most of us. I don’t know shit about plenty of things, many of which people are nice enough to point out in private, the REAL assholes who take it to my comments threads on Gawker (THANK YOU, ANTHONY. AND NIC. AND ALL THE ALTBROS I THOUGHT WERE MY FRIENDZ) or who use my full name in the title of their blog posts to help add something to the conversation when my name gets Googled. Anyway, unless he works in online advertising, school him in a bar or something. If he does work in online advertising? Nail’im to the fuckin’ wall. Them’s my rules.FEK, dude, Soup brought it up. And not in a bar. On his Tumblr. And directed his question to five people specifically, one of whom was me. No one was arbitrarily spouting random commentary about online advertising in his direction. If someone asks me a question over email, I respond over email. If in a bar, I respond in a bar. If on Tumblr, I respond Tumblr, because that’s where I assume (reasonably, I think) the other person wants to have the conversation. (I mean, Soup could email me!)
Also, I don’t think there was any schooling going on. He asked a question and it got answered.
It’s all good. I appreciate the concern, Foster, but I asked the question, as Elizabeth said. I posted it on tumblr because I wanted anyone who had an opinion on the matter to chime in. I was asking to be schooled.
"The money in modern media is metadata. Google makes its millions by trying to find as much information as possible about the people viewing content so that they can create targeted marketing. One of the all time best sources for that information is newspaper portals. I would bet you a Graeter’s sundae that if you talked to anyone in that industry and they would tell you that newspapers are barely scratching the surface of leveraging the amount of information that sails through their server logs every time someone clicks a link on their sites."
folkengine, comment on Tighter Copyright Law Could Save Newspapers
The article by Connie Schultz is laughable, but the comments section below it is full of great commentary, like the one above.
Connie Schultz in the Cleveland Plain Dealer
The Marburgers propose a change in federal law that would allow originators of news to exploit the commercial value of their product. Ideally, news originators’ stories would be available only on their Web sites for the first 24 hours.
There is precedent for this change, David Marburger says. In 1918, the Associated Press sued International News Service for essentially the same problem now posed to newspapers by Web aggregators. INS was copying or rewriting AP stories and transmitting them by telegraph and telephone to papers in western U.S. time zones.
The Supreme Court ruled that INS engaged in unfair competition that ultimately would drive AP out of business. It enjoined INS from reproducing the AP stories, but only for a brief period while AP’s dispatches had commercial value.
Good luck with all that.
…but right now, everything out of Iran is devastating.
There are reports of brutal rapes and beatings:
Afshin, a shopkeeper from south-west Iran, alleges that one of his friends was beaten and repeatedly raped after being arrested at an opposition rally after last month’s disputed election. He gave this account to Esfandiar Poorgiv, a journalist and academic. (via Guardian)
One of my favorite Iranian journalists/filmmakers, Maziar Bahari, who has been detained in Iran since June 21 without charges or access to a lawyer, has confessed to participating in a Western media sabotage effort, as reported by an Iranian state news agency. That only translates to Bahari being subjected to extreme torture, and they will most likely make an example of him by execution.
He was recently seen on Fareed Zakaria GPS, and talked to Daily Show’s Jason Jones.
NEWSWEEK strongly disputes that charge, and defends Bahari’s work: “Maziar Bahari is a veteran journalist whose long career, both in print and in documentary filmmaking, has been accurate, even-handed, and widely respected.”
NEWSWEEK again calls for his immediate release.
"This seems to me to rather precisely miss the point. The problem besetting newspapers is not that there are hordes of bloggers giving it away for free. Bloggers are, to be sure, great competition for the op-ed section. But the op-ed section is not a money maker, as the New York Times so painfully discovered with Times Select. As I wrote at the time, the Times confused what people were emailing each other with what they would be willing to pay for. If those things were the same, poems about Jesus and pictures of kittens wearing hats would have replaced gambling and porn as the internet’s most profitable content."
Old Media Blues - Megan McArdle
Guys like Jarvis etc. should be embarassed that they can’t write anything so clear and sharp.
(via josephweisenthal)
Clearly Megan doesn’t read very good blogs.
I’d pay to read MetsBlog.com before I’d pay to read Mets.com
"Journalism is not being brought low by excess supply of content; it’s being steadily eroded by insufficient demand for advertising pages. For most of history, most publications lost money, or at best broke even, on their subscription base, which just about paid for the cost of printing and distributing the papers. Advertising was what paid the bills. To be sure, some of that advertising is migrating to blogs and similar new media. But most of it is simply being siphoned out of journalism altogether. Craigslist ate the classified ads. eHarmony stole the personals. Google took those tiny ads for weird products. And Macy’s can email its own damn customers to announce a sale."
I get 5% of my sports news from ESPN and 95% of it from sports blogs. Why? Because bloggers do a better job at gathering the information I want and providing a point of view that I find more compelling and interesting. You know what else they tend to do? They avoid bashing me over the head with huge ads that I don’t care about, but get this, I buy things from them I would never consider buying from big, commercial, ad-supported websites. So how do these blogs make money? They work out deals directly with vendors for products specifically targeted to the niches they deal in for products they actually use and are enthusiastic users of.
These highly targeted niche blogs have some very specific qualities a majority of big, commercial, ad-supported websites do not have.
1. The trust and respect of their readers who value their opinion.
2. Subtlety.
3. Highly integrated and targeted ads.
Ad networks are horrendously bad at delivering ads that are likely to be relevant to readers, as they span multiple sites of various niches.
Do you really think Gawker is moving the needle for Tito’s Homemade Vodka? On the other hand, if I was the Gary Vaynerchuk of vodka, and I wound up really enjoying Tito’s vodka, I could work out a deal where I get a cut of every bottle of Tito’s I can sell. I’m far more likely to buy Vodka based on Gary’s endorsement than Gawker’s banner ad.
What kind of products make sense for Gawker to sell? I’d imagine bad television programs like those on Bravo and MTV seem like a good fit. For all the crap Gawker got for True Blood, it’s a program that seems to fit their demographic. I just think Gawker does a terrible job at integrating those products into their editorial. Skinning the site with a product doesn’t give me a compelling reason to use it. It is good for branding, and if that is the only goal, it succeeds. If they’re aiming for clicks and conversions, I can’t imagine it does.
Here’s an interesting idea. Get the television programs to provide Gawker with exclusive previews of shows supported by advertising in the video that cannot be fast forwarded through, ala Hulu. Gawker keeps the ad revenue in the video, and the television network gets free advertising for their program. Sites like Hulu have the best chance of succeeding because they solve the problem that DVR’s caused for traditional television viewing, which allowed viewers to skip the commercials. You can’t skip the commercials on Hulu, and nearly everyone is willing to sit through them. I can’t think of better ad models on the web than Hulu.
I know the other argument already, it’s not your job to sell your advertiser’s product, and you’re right. I just think you can get a premium for promoting products in a more creative, personal way. The old models of advertising on the web are still decent for branding but they’re missing huge opportunities to try more creative and likely more lucrative methods.
