Comments on: News 2.0, actually Repackaged News 2.0

By: Publishing 2.0 » News 2.0 My Mother Can Use

Publishing 2.0 » News 2.0 My Mother Can Use — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:15:44 +0000

[...] I’ve made the point many times that the bloggerati and Web 2.0 fan club are complete outliers when it comes to media consumption habits. To illustrate this point, I conducted a little informal survey, taking aim at the latest hype over News 2.0. The survey was partly inspired by Om Malik’s quip that “News 2.0 doesn’t mean anything,” and Peter Cashmore’s observation that “we’re going to see a massive crossover between their offerings.” [...]

By: Mashable* - Pete Cashmore on Web2.0 » NowPublic - Share the News

Mashable* - Pete Cashmore on Web2.0 » NowPublic - Share the News — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:54:17 +0000

[...] NowPublic is a welcome addition to the growing list of (repackaged?) News 2.0 companies. It’s essentially the Newsvine model – ie. a hybrid of Digg-like linksharing (for external news sources) and on-site article creation. However, Newsvine’s disruptive innovation was to reprint Associated Press feeds and open them up to public discussion – something that traditional media companies don’t dare to try. This doesn’t seem to be a part of NowPublic, and I wonder if that’s a weakness or just a different approach. [...]

By: Kevin Burton

Kevin Burton — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:18:01 +0000

Hey.... Don't forget TailRank! Of course I tend to think of this as News 3.0 :)

By: Nick Murphy

Nick Murphy — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:51:58 +0000

Editor 2.0

That is what these sites are. They are about taking independently produced news (which eventually all news/opinion should be) and creating targeted publications.

By: Vaibhav - iNods

Vaibhav - iNods — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:25:42 +0000

Om, this is more of a difference of perception and definition of 2.0 in a broader audience's mind. In reality, 2.0 terminology is best understood by a broader audience as a new way of doing things.

Considering this, I think its the repackaging of the news that is being done in a new way, than creation of the content itself. Its really the repackaging where innovation is being done and will continue. This, by no means, devalues the value content itself, but its the repackging applications which are really bringing in the NEW - the 2.0. no?

By: Hashim

Hashim — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:14:19 +0000

News 1.0 relies on AP and Reuters to create their own handpicked mashups. News 2.0 is making that happen automatically.

By: Paul Montgomery

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:09:30 +0000

Chris and Om, when I'm talking about news outlets repackaging wire content, I'm thinking mostly about their Web sites. I see many MSM sites keeping much of their best original journalism print-only or screen-only, and filling the gaps in their Web site coverage with shovelled AP/Reuters feeds that would never make it to the MSM version.

Sure, it would be nice to have a different, distinctive descriptor for the new round of news aggregators. However, like the Web 2.0 meme itself, I think it's going to be far easier for non-industry types to comprehend a phrase like News 2.0 than anything else that people could come up with. If you can think of something more memorable then I'd go with that, but in the meantime we're stuck with the "2.0" suffix so we might as well run with it.

By: Chris Edwards

Chris Edwards — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:47:55 +0000

Pete,

Sorry, I didn't follow the links through. I realise now why the list looks the way it does having followed the trail.

Paul,

I think it's stretching a point to say that just because media outlets use some news agency copy (which they do pay for) to cover things for which they don't have the bandwidth that they are just aggregators.

To return to Om's original point: if they aren't reporting news directly and are "not all about original journalism", why should aggregators be News 2.0 sites? Secondary activities around news are not news. There is no shame in doing aggregation or repackaging as it is providing a service to the user, but it ain't news.

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:31:37 +0000

Old media or News 1.0 as we know it going through its own convulsions because of exactly a lot of folks like Mathew described - using generic news as fodder for the paper. that's the main reason many newspapers are in trouble.

i agree with many of the points you are making guys, but if you go back to the post i wrote: we need a new description of the aggregation phenomenon.

now paul, i am not being "old media" about it. think of me as the janus man between old and new. i still work in the old media, but i am doing new media as well. i am speaking from personal experience guys.

By: Paul Montgomery

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:30:15 +0000

Matthew Ingram has it right. All newspaper outlets repackage someone else's wire content, in part or in full. Om, if you'd linked back to the original article you would have seen that the News 2.0 sites are doing things none of the MSM news aggregator sites are doing.

News 2.0 sites are not all about original journalism. A lot of them are centred mostly on secondary activities based around the news. You might as well say the entirety of the blogosphere is useless because it contains almost no original journalism.

Don't be so "old media" about it Om.