Linked by David Adams on Sun 11th Jul 2010 18:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 433201
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-19
The reason for the dispair of the media companies at the moment is that nobody has figured out how to make advertising pay on the web; and they also haven't figured out how to make users pay.
Most users will never pay for anything on the net. Every time companies have tried pay-per-view, they've instantly lost memberships. Just ask Facebook.
In short; the system is strong enough to sheild itself from the threat outlined in the article
This is both good and bad. On the one hand it's great that the internet will remain mostly free.
On the other hand, very large media companies who have huge staff, and who spend bulk dollars on quality investigative journalism will go to the wall. This is unfortunate, and will mean lots of lost jobs, as well as a shortage of quality reporting, particularly those involving foreign correspondents.
But that's life, and new leaner companies will emerge to take their place. I imagine these new companies will not be tied down to the old tired practices of the behemoths they replace.
I would also like to think these companies (likely community based) will be less prone to the crazy political bias that you find with so many big media companies today (Take a bow: Fox News).