No, really, say what you think

No, really, say what you think

: I find a blog by a young Canadian reacting to Rupert Murdoch’s speech:

I hate almost everything about newspapers. I don’t like the size of the paper. I don’t like the way it makes everything black. I don’t like that every page has to be jammed full of stuff. I don’t like that the pages are not full color. I don’t like that once I find something interesting, I can’t do anything with it (like send it to a friend, or blog about it with a link, etc). Please newspaper editors, hear Murdoch’s call, and bring the newspaper into the digital age!

  • Skate

    The paper bloger wants already exists, the McPaper, “USA Today”
    I really hope that people aren’t clamoring for more papers like USA Today, where the stories have a depth equal to the thickness of the paper they are printed on.
    BTW, not all newspapers rub off on your hand. The SF Chronicle uses a “low rub” ink that doesn’t dirty your hands the way many paper’s oil-based inks do.

  • C. Bennett

    The book Blink has a lot of interesting comments on the value of focus groups (they aren’t very valuable for real insights because of the way in which they are conducted) that reflect concerns that are more broadly held in marketing in general.
    That’s what makes mainstream newspaper managers such a curious group: they hire focus groups (e.g., WaPo’s recent studies) to respond to artificial questions in artificial situations orchestrated by non-newspaper focus-group companies; and they seem to habitually minimize the value of input they get from people sitting in real contexts (their homes) in real situations (communicating about news) giving heart-felt desires for how they would like their news packaged (posts, in their own words, with passion).
    When the good news is that the NYT’s circulation stayed flat and that the LAT’s circulation losses will be less aggressive next quarter, it seems like they would be jumping on this kind of feedback and highlighting it within the industry.
    As many have said — it’s a case study: a slow-motion wreck.

  • I don’t like that once I find something interesting, I can’t do anything with it. (like send it to a friend, or blog about it with a link, etc).
    This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the whole “digital revolution” in news. “News” doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and articles are not discrete entities upon which one is supposed to act. “News” is a process of information transfer, and its impact should be cumulative.
    If the author feels compelled to “do something” it shouldn’t be with “the article”, but with “the subject” — do some research on the subject and become better informed on it.
    But we’ve reached the point where “news” is just another commodity to be transfered and “traded”, rather than treated as information to be considered. The statement “I can’t do anything with it” is a pathetic example of the kind of hyper-egocentrism that is being produced by consumer culture — if “I can’t do something with it” it has no value.

  • The problem runs further than that Paul. Let’s say I wanted to learn more about an article I have just read. I have to manually type it in to a search engine and weed through a bunch of irrelevant stuff to find what I want. Blogs have it right! I can simply click a tag, for example, to find out more about the subject. Or follow the trail of trackbacks and comments.
    Perhaps that’s just me being impatient. Yet it’s important, even if I am impatient. Who would take the time to go learn more about it, if we’re so impatient? News outlets could make it much easier.
    And I disagree that news shouldn’t be traded. If I read an article, why shouldn’t I be able to easily post an excerpt and my thoughts for my friends to read?