[View the story “@jxpaton’s Twitter lecture to newspapers” on Storify]
Two years ago, Marc Andreesen was sneered at by newspaper executives for his advice to newspaper executives on Charlie Rose:
CHARLIE ROSE: So to play offense for a newspaper for you means what?
MARC ANDREESSEN: Oh, you’ve got to kill the print edition.
CHARLIE ROSE: Just — leave it, stop the presses tomorrow.
MARC ANDREESSEN: You have to kill it.
CHARLIE ROSE: Stop the presses tomorrow.
MARC ANDREESSEN: You have to kill it.
CHARLIE ROSE: Stop the presses tomorrow.
Hey everybody! Problem solved!
If it’s as obvious as you and Paton seem to believe, then why is there so much consternation among journalists (generally very smart people)? It can’t be as simple as you say.
Indeed your attempts to advise ann arbor newspaper seems to have been a significant failure.
Sorry, but you’re not credible, and by association your CUNY friends aren’t that believable either.
I agree. (Or, as the kids say, +1000.)
Rather than simply re-Tweeting the same old advice, why not ask why this advice doesn’t seem to be working in Ann Arbor? Aren’t you a journalist, as well as a consultant? Shouldn’t you be asking these questions? Or at least addressing them when someone else asks?
We’d all love to hear how Bloomberg, the FT, and the WSJ have succeeded doing the exact opposite of this. For that matter, we’re still waiting to hear your views on Ann Arbor. As are the journalists who got laid off on your recommendation.
You have made your same point over and over, whoever you are. I’ve told you again and again that I have no current knowledge of Ann Arbor past more than a year ago. I have nothing more to say. Nothing to see here folks. Move on.
Only one question: Do you think their model works?
>>>I have no current knowledge of Ann Arbor past more than a year ago. I have nothing more to say.
So you can question Carr and Gladwell but no one can question you? Is that #JarvisLogic?
Because they’re protecting their turf.
Paton isn’t stopping the presses. He’s outsourcing them.
yes, but the central problem is that media is becoming devitalized.
This ALWAYS happens when a small group beings to produce product in a narrow range which suits thier objectives of control.
The more they keep key important news material aways from thier subjects the more board and detached thier readership becomes.
An unhealthy elite like any parasite will kill any host in time.
A dead Albanian king, ZOG controls and is killing media.
There ARE very Vital channels of news and information. But you can bet they will be kept very far away from the public as much as media
owners and “observers” can manage to do so.
It is important to separate out the paper vs digital question from the quality and origin of content issue. I read the New York Times everyday. I read it in digital form, but the form is irrelevant (except that it is not easy to get a current copy of the NYT in Dunedin NZ); it is the quality of the content that I enjoy, not the form it comes in. I would probably still read it if it was chiselled into a rock each day!
The facts are simple: warehouses filled with expensive old equipment that needs to be maintained coupled with an army of journalists in expensive skyscrapers versus a few journalists and curators in a small room publishing digital conversations. The readership of the latter is fast outgrowing the former. The overheads are too high and unjustifiable for old media.
But what if you remake all media with a structure (you think) is fitting to the new technology and social form age….the new structure will STILL be processing the smal devitalized material.
Why? because king ZOG wants to remain in control.
And its the maintence of control, not deliverance of information which is the objective of media today.
To think anything ese is rain puddle deep thinking….
Why can’t print and digital co-exist? At some point youth is going to rebel against their digitallly addicted parents, and print media-books-reading-comphrehnsion-thinking may make a comeback.
“All my stupid parents do is sit around with their dumb gadgets and electronics”
I encourage any of you interested (for or against) to view John’s speech to see the context of his statements.
Stop talking about Tom Brady’s hair, and foot, and car accident…
It’s about content as well as delivery. The stories of the past and present are being told with incomplete data: use the digital mechanism for data acquisition, data refinement and placing the data in the proper context. Media needs more outside expertise with less tiresome inside “opinionating” and “conflictinating”.
Journalism has been failing in its mission for a long time now. How many “thought-leaders” does it take to screw up the news?
@ Jeff Jarvis,
Wouldn’t you agree that traditional media is already heavily reliant on digital? (and has been for about 20 years) I mean you make it sound like they’re using typewriters or something. Everybody is on computers. There’s indesign, quark, photoshop, illustrator, cms, xml, metadata, databases, digital workflows, etc. Printing a newspaper and putting it on a truck is just a minor technicality.
I have yet to hear a valid criticism from you other than stating the obvious.
The best move for hte newspaper business would be for the rapid demise of the Times. All the other papers that pretend that the business as usual at the Times can also work for them will finally be pressed to the experiements that will re-invent the news business.
“stop listening to print people and put the digital people in charge – of everything”
this is the kind of comment that shows people who work in news how clueless the digerati are. because the issue is not about print versus electronic, it is about reporting versus aggregating.
the huffington post, talking points memo, drudge, etc., would all be toast were it not for the output of organizations that report, edit, and publish the news. for years an all-electric service, the associated press, has served as an efficient distribution medium for news. so what that it’s electric? the ap gets most of its news from member newspapers, which support large staffs to report and edit news. this does not mean that there is anything special about the ap for being digital; what is special is the source of its news.
newspapers are clearly in trouble, not because of their own business model ut because of the changing model of global capitalism. just as clearly, newspapers will have to change the way they do business to survive. but putting everything in the hands of people who think that the distribution medium matters more than the actual structure of a news-gathering organization would be suicidal for any paper. these people know nothing about news, they specialize in business and consider that stuff between the ads to be something inconsequential they call “content.”
as long as they think of the news as “content,” they will never understand the business.
How is “Times people must put the case again, in emotional terms of entitlement: Readers *want* to pay. Readers *should* pay. Times content *deserves* payment. People who question the strategy are demonized. ”
Different from “Jeff Jarvis must put the case again, in emotional terms of entitlement: Readers of Jeff’s WWGD book *want* to pay. Readers of Jeff’s WWGD book *should* pay. Jeff’s content *deserves* payment. People who question the strategy are demonized.”
Why not practice your mantra and release this book and your upcoming book in digital format for free and just ask for payment from those who find it of value or use ads for payment? Why publish it on paper and sell it in a book store (onine or otherwise) – that’s so old Media! That’s what Google would do.
Pingback: Hard economic lessons for news « BuzzMachine()
Pingback: Hard economic lessons for news | pubOS - Cloud | Content | Technology()
Pingback: Woodward & Bernstein Talk 21st Century Investigative Journalism, AP Strikes a Temporary Labor Truce, and Jeff Jarvis Talks Tough on News - Ebyline's Content Hub()
Buy my new book and get clickable footnotes and links.
Buy my new Kindle Single on Amazon.
Now out in paperback!