My personal domain which hosts a few service me and some friends use is a .cx domain which has definitely accessed techdirt using an IP with reverse pointers to the domain. I wonder if this domain was the single Christmas Island user. (Ada.cx)
One important topic that is missing from the article and the discussion is the idea of "what people want". I've long since stopped paying attention to any facet of the media. I'm a should-have-graduated-from-college-a-few-years-ago-aged lad and I absolutely maintain a home delivery subscription to the old gray lady. I also donate about 1/50 of my annual income to National Public Radio. Admittedly, as a source of pride, I'm not one of the people referred to in this article. I'm not sure if it comes down to attention span or a true disinterest in substance, but the information disseminated by most news outlets is of little or no consequence to anyone and is presented in gaudy, constant attention-grabbing pose. Information readers want their information quick, dirty and in bright flashing lights.
Where does this take us? We end up in a society that is ill-informed about most of the objectively important information. Reading Sarah Palin's twitter feed or someone's blog does not make an individual up to date or news nor does it necessarily provide accurate information. Granted many factual, likely-news websites are labeled as blogs and are just using the term because it's hip or cool, but I digress.
The article mentions trust being key, but I see little correlation between trust and readership/viewership--or maybe the sources the average person trusts is not a source I deem trustworthy.
In poor form, what I'm trying to convey is that if most people are left to their own devices they won't choose news, they'll choose information. The distinction between which is vitally important. News being hard, relevant, your-life-could-depend-on-it kind of material and information being whatever Headline News is discussing or word that Gmail had hick-ups earlier in the day.
So while the news sources that feed us news are dying, I see this not as an invalid business model, but a last stand for goodness, decency and for a truly news-informed world.
Let's face it, Mackenzie Phillips having a sexual relationship with her daddy is probably what you'd choose over the latest UN summit if you had a choice. You're the problem--not the business model. Loser
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by J Kimball.
My .cx domain
What the people want
Where does this take us? We end up in a society that is ill-informed about most of the objectively important information. Reading Sarah Palin's twitter feed or someone's blog does not make an individual up to date or news nor does it necessarily provide accurate information. Granted many factual, likely-news websites are labeled as blogs and are just using the term because it's hip or cool, but I digress.
The article mentions trust being key, but I see little correlation between trust and readership/viewership--or maybe the sources the average person trusts is not a source I deem trustworthy.
In poor form, what I'm trying to convey is that if most people are left to their own devices they won't choose news, they'll choose information. The distinction between which is vitally important. News being hard, relevant, your-life-could-depend-on-it kind of material and information being whatever Headline News is discussing or word that Gmail had hick-ups earlier in the day.
So while the news sources that feed us news are dying, I see this not as an invalid business model, but a last stand for goodness, decency and for a truly news-informed world.
Let's face it, Mackenzie Phillips having a sexual relationship with her daddy is probably what you'd choose over the latest UN summit if you had a choice. You're the problem--not the business model. Loser
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by J Kimball.
Submit a story now.