Comments on: Journalism: Dying by a thousand cuts, or being reinvented?

By: Flumes News

Flumes News — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:37:49 +0000

A thought provoking piece. I am not a journalist, but I run a World News site . How so? For us at http://flumes.com it’s about providing a digital solution for dealing with the wealth of data that it is out there, and presenting in an open and democratic way by featuring what is being talked about right now, all over the world.

By: Anna Tarkov

Anna Tarkov — Thu, 10 May 2012 12:00:41 +0000

What are some examples of unethical organizations or information providers who have replaced journalists? I’ll wait.

By: Greg Satell

Greg Satell — Thu, 10 May 2012 11:43:00 +0000

Very true:-)

By: Syed Karim

Syed Karim — Thu, 10 May 2012 11:00:55 +0000

“the days of hundreds of papers providing movie listings, sports scores and restaurant recommendations are long, long gone.”

But it was the non-investigative content that subsidized the investigative work. So how does a publisher pay for a long-term investigation when the internet-only companies are doing a better job of providing those other types of information?

By: Anna Tarkov

Anna Tarkov — Thu, 10 May 2012 10:51:24 +0000

Absolutely. So why are newspapers still doing movie reviews, overpaying comlumnists, etc if their unique specialty is covering governments, etc? As people have written here and elsewhere, they should focus like lasers on the things they do best and stop doing the rest or outsource it.

By: Vijaya Prasad

Vijaya Prasad — Wed, 09 May 2012 14:48:01 +0000

Reblogged this on vijaya prasad and commented: Quite simply redefining journalism - not purpose but methods.

By: Charles Yardley

Charles Yardley — Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:04 +0000

Being reinvented by Forbes…..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lewisdvorkin/2012/02/09/inside-forbes-reinventing-personal-brand-building-by-learning-from-the-masters/

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 08 May 2012 16:50:24 +0000

I have to point out that if you asked a room full of people today if they read newspapers, few would raise their hands. Data on historical newspaper circulation show that if you asked a room of people the same question thirty years ago…few people would raise their hands. Newspapers have always been a minority product, read by no more than about 20% of the population. The NYT has never had a circulation greater than 10% of its home market, and about half of its circulation is nation wide. Why do you care if you don’t read newspapers now? You probably wouldn’t have even thirty years ago. The dynamic was the same form back then… newspapers discover and report the stories, which were then broadcast on TV and Radio…and now internet. The economics are harsher now, but the paywalls should make newspapers viable again. Before you criticize, remember, only about 1 in 5 people have been, historically, “newspaper people”. Newspapers will shrink again behind their paid websites and attract that modest size of readers who actually want their in-depth news and will spend a long time reading it. The other 80-90% of us will just read the ripped copy on Gawker or whatever.

By: Nicole Solis

Nicole Solis — Tue, 08 May 2012 16:25:18 +0000

The blue links are part of our template, but I’ve noticed that the contrast between the links and the white background varies widely on different monitors depending on my brightness/contrast settings. Try turning your brightness down and your contrast up (usually just a few clicks will do the trick), and see if that helps.

By: Joe Cox

Joe Cox — Tue, 08 May 2012 15:24:54 +0000

Yes, new content creation and presentation in the digital world are serving to replace traditional journalism consumption. What is lost, in my opinion, is the ethical approach a journalist brings to the party. If that’s out the window and people don’t care, it is at the very least a threat to the health of our democracy. Call me a dinosaur. I still care as a participant and as a consumer of news.