There's an article today at abc.com that looks at recent trends around net-based pay-for services and the smattering of paywalls from News Corp to the NYT that are up or threatening to be put up, and speculating that this could be the beginning of a trend. Of course, a YouTube video rental site and a few large publishers putting up paywalls will make zero difference to the "free internet" on their own. But if they're successful, it could spark emulation. But could this be a trend that could snowball enough to change the nature of the net?
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-12-26
Not true, first on the scene will be the disaster tourist that live near it, texting, mailing and twittering away.
For example there was a forest fire near me in the Netherlands, I could see a huge smoke cloud out of my window (a actually started that last woird capital w..:S )
I looked at all the dutch news websites but there was nothing there, I looked at twitter and there everybody knew where the fire was, people went there and took pictures. A long time later there started coming articles in on the news sites, but it only contained information they garthered from Twitter and all the pictures where submitted by there audiences.
The old rules have changed, now journalist get ther einformation from the people instead of the other way around.
That's why today's "journalist" are spending most of there time Twittering. Lois & Clark are dying or death.
Edited 2010-07-12 12:18 UTC
Member since:2006-04-22
For example there was a forest fire near me in the Netherlands, I could see a huge smoke cloud out of my window (a actually started that last woird capital w..:S )
I looked at all the dutch news websites but there was nothing there, I looked at twitter and there everybody knew where the fire was, people went there and took pictures. A long time later there started coming articles in on the news sites, but it only contained information they garthered from Twitter and all the pictures where submitted by there audiences.
The old rules have changed, now journalist get ther einformation from the people instead of the other way around.
That's why today's "journalist" are spending most of there time Twittering. Lois & Clark are dying or death.
Ok, so please tell me how many bloggers were embedded with the U.S. 3rd ID on the march to Baghdad (I seem to remember CNN was there), and how many sat on their asses in their bath robes watching it all on CNN? How many bloggers were in the Green Zone during the rise of the insurgency? How many left the safety of the Green Zone to really cover the story (Look up Michael Ware please)? Has a single blogger ever faced death or serious injury reporting? No, tripping over the cat on the way to the fridge does not count.
The idea that you can equate what some fat losers write on the safety of their computers tucked away in the basement with people who are actually professionals is an insult, especially all those that have lost their lives bringing you this information. The same info that fatboy re-posts on his blog.
But never mind, I guess I should just ignore the professionals, those that have been educated and spent time building up sources in favor of some anonymous shmuck who will give me lots of opinionated bullshit over any substance. So what your telling me now is that we should simply accept that some high school drop out who spends his days idling away on Twitter is what you want to rely on for information? And what in-depth analysis do you expect out of this?
You can have your Twitter, Facebook, and all that iReporting crap. I will take my NY Times over that in a heartbeat, and know full well at the end of the day I will be the wiser one for it. So good luck, we truly are living in a god damn decadent generation that wishes to just fucking embrace ignorance.
Member since:2005-11-22
No you are wrong. People could always interpret situations within the boundary of their own knowledge, and people are also very subjective mostly on the things they do not know or do not understand fully. Therefore, I prefer news media for information regarding such happenings much more than tweets or blogs of non technical people.
Member since:
2006-04-22
Or else they'll start pirating content, just like they pirate movies, music, and apps now. Then you'll see the publishing/news industries trying to control copy/paste in order to combat 'content piracy'.
The real question is, do we still need the news media? I mean, if there's a huge earthquake in California (or whatever), it's going to be all over the internet in a very short time. "
It will be all over the internet, because actual news organizations are there on the scene reporting it. Sorry but you have this the other way around. It is the media leeches, the bloggers and such that could simply disappear without notice.