Comparing the Boston Globe to Google is like comparing Apples to B-52 bombers. News agencies have a vested interest in being the definitive "correct answer", and linking to articles or sites that might have their audience second-guessing them is counter-productive. In a universe like TechDirt, that sort of criticism is productive, whereas in the world of "Pro Media", it is counterproductive.
Imagine, if you will, NY Times publishes an article about Google's "Monopoly" of the search engine business, linking to several studies and Alexa rankings. However, in the hustle and bustle, they made a tenfold error in the publishing (3.5% becomes 35%). Suddenly, web-savvy people are posting comments like confetti regarding what could easily be passed off as a typo or calculation error. This is something that is easily addressed and corrected in an online-only source (someone notices the error and it is corrected), however in a source that is published in many ways, around the globe (print, radio, online), it's a bit harder to "reign in" what might be as simple as missing a decimal on a calculator.
"Big Journalism" has a vested interest in always being 100% correct, so to actively link to sources that may or may not reveal a discrepancy is not in their best interest.
As an example, look at the turmoil caused by the article saying that HD DVDs had a higher saturation rate than Blu-Rays, because they neglected to factor in PS3 sales (arguably the best-selling and most-used Blu-Ray player on the market)
Quasi-Monopolies? I know the last 3 apartments I've moved into offered Comcast or nothing (which I always refused Comcast due to repeated customer service concerns). Luckily I've never lived anywhere that required Comcast for internet, or I'd be up a proverbial creek sans proverbial paddle....
This may not be true for all, but I know it is true for me...
Amazon is the ultimate "impulse-buy" store...
It started when they were offering DRM-free mp3s, and now I have to keep myself from going on Amazon for media, especially with the "new and used from $__.___ feature. Every time I hear a single song or see a clip of a movie, I find myself hovering over the "___ new and used!!!" button.
Reason #256 why I don't own a Kindle. I have enough trouble finding time to read books, nevermind trying to circumvent DRM and breaking a federal law (DMCA) just to read something I've paid decent money for. Feh - I'll just pay the extra $3.00 and have a paperback I can lend to my friends or donate once I'm done with it.
Has anyone ever actually made the argument that DRM hurts the public because something purchased with DRM can't be DONATED? I know that when I first starting sampling, I would go to the goodwill and pick up vinyl albums for $1.00 a pop. I felt a little better knowing that my $20.00 here and $10.00 there was going to a good cause. I'm sure book readers who scour the thrift stores of the country know what I'm talking about. However, you can't donate a Kindle book to charity, afaik....
Plain and simple: the people who heard this and were actively interested in this policy are MAJORLY outnumbered by those who couldn't care less. Let's face it - the internet is a large place, however once you get outside of facebook and myspace, it becomes smaller and smaller. Those of us who heard this campaign promise and paid attention are far outnumbered by those who just wanted "change".
Why would they go through all that work for those few of us who care? It's not like these laws affect us in any way, right?
Oh....wait....
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by DJ Science.
What??
Imagine, if you will, NY Times publishes an article about Google's "Monopoly" of the search engine business, linking to several studies and Alexa rankings. However, in the hustle and bustle, they made a tenfold error in the publishing (3.5% becomes 35%). Suddenly, web-savvy people are posting comments like confetti regarding what could easily be passed off as a typo or calculation error. This is something that is easily addressed and corrected in an online-only source (someone notices the error and it is corrected), however in a source that is published in many ways, around the globe (print, radio, online), it's a bit harder to "reign in" what might be as simple as missing a decimal on a calculator.
"Big Journalism" has a vested interest in always being 100% correct, so to actively link to sources that may or may not reveal a discrepancy is not in their best interest.
As an example, look at the turmoil caused by the article saying that HD DVDs had a higher saturation rate than Blu-Rays, because they neglected to factor in PS3 sales (arguably the best-selling and most-used Blu-Ray player on the market)
Monopoly?
(untitled comment)
Amazon is the ultimate "impulse-buy" store...
It started when they were offering DRM-free mp3s, and now I have to keep myself from going on Amazon for media, especially with the "new and used from $__.___ feature. Every time I hear a single song or see a clip of a movie, I find myself hovering over the "___ new and used!!!" button.
Reasons....
Has anyone ever actually made the argument that DRM hurts the public because something purchased with DRM can't be DONATED? I know that when I first starting sampling, I would go to the goodwill and pick up vinyl albums for $1.00 a pop. I felt a little better knowing that my $20.00 here and $10.00 there was going to a good cause. I'm sure book readers who scour the thrift stores of the country know what I'm talking about. However, you can't donate a Kindle book to charity, afaik....
Expectations
Why would they go through all that work for those few of us who care? It's not like these laws affect us in any way, right?
Oh....wait....
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by DJ Science.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt