Comments on: Yes, online media brands do matter http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/25/yes-online-media-brands-do-matter/ Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: rewq2010 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/25/yes-online-media-brands-do-matter/#comment-12884 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:51:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=914#comment-12884 It’s even more interesting that new brands, like the Huff Post, can become entrenched in a relatively short period of time. I hope they repeat the study in 10 years and see what brand names are salient
http://sawater.ucoz.net/

]]>
By: SkyTurtle http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/25/yes-online-media-brands-do-matter/#comment-1094 Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:42:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=914#comment-1094 It is interesting to see the results of the rankings readers gave these stories in the survey above. It would be even more interesting to see those results cross-tabulated to see how different demographic groups submitted rankings.

The rise of the Internet created this incredibly speedy pathway by which information makes its way to us. Still, the trusted mastheads of the world of journalism carry an implied approbation of the articles they pass. A stamp of approval not offered by the “no-name” media sites that pride themselves on speed and sensationalism. When I read a story by a trusted news agency I am much more confident in its integrity. Not so with the others.

In much the same way that a book from a known publishing house has passed the rigors of editorial review while one from a vanity publisher is merely paid-to-press, the trusted news sources continue to act as a stamp of legitimacy for their journalism.

]]>
By: JoshuaJ http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/25/yes-online-media-brands-do-matter/#comment-1093 Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:25:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=914#comment-1093 In China, a rose by other name smells not worse but better.When someone post some “news” online and want people to read, they simply titled “reuters:” or “new york times:” they can do it easily cause no law specified such things as illegal. Plus when people worship the kind of thing like free market and democracy, every piece of rubbish linked somehow to that name smells like rose. That’s why I banished all Chinese and American (who mainly serve their own interest) media from my sight and keep only reuters and economist.

]]>
By: amateurediteur http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/25/yes-online-media-brands-do-matter/#comment-1091 Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:05:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=914#comment-1091 It’s even more interesting that new brands, like the Huff Post, can become entrenched in a relatively short period of time. I hope they repeat the study in 10 years and see what brand names are salient.

]]>
By: Kansas57 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/25/yes-online-media-brands-do-matter/#comment-1090 Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:16:24 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=914#comment-1090 I don’t actually think Shakespeare was wrong. He was talking about the intrinsic nature of both roses and Romeo. Your article does not convince me a rose by any other name would not smell as sweet. Perhaps if both the Economist and the Huffington Post sold roses, I would prefer to buy from one over the other. But that still does not mean a rose would smell less sweet if it were called a gerkin.

]]>