Comments on: How will journalism survive the Internet Age? Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:42:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: Honesty Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:22:24 +0000 Can Chris Ahearn be taken seriously on anything if he used these words in this appearance:

“At Thomson Reuters, I am lucky to oversee the business of both the world’s most indispensible news agency as well as our innovative publishing arm,”

How about the journalistic sourcing for such over-blown adjectives as “indispensable” and “innovative?”

Can this be a honest journalist when he has such a big head and such a swelled opinion of his and his company’s position in the world?

Indispensable for whom or what? Innovative? Maybe for
1996, but not for today.

Take off the rose-colored glasses, Chris Ahearn, and see the scary truth about your inadequate news report with its gaping holes in coverage.

By: MarshallClark Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:43:34 +0000 Love your vision of a distributed journalism network. However, I think continued reliance on tracking authority via the link economy is a dated concept.

Our current problems stem from the fact that Google values the publication location of content over the authority of the author themselves. In the real-world we filter information though topical experts (NYT writers, trusted personal referrals, employees of top companies) and we have established systems for discovering and evaluating these authorities.

PageRank was an early attempt to replicate this RW social filtering through the medium of web links, but PageRank has hit the limits of its effectiveness and we now find ourselves in need of a new standard for social filtering on the web.

One solution I’ve been evangelizing recently is to track reputation against authors rather than URLs – a ‘PageRank for People’. Think of it as a portable reputation system for the web – a way of using the authority of content creators (instead of URLs) to collectively filter content.

Here’s a couple of write-ups for more info:

‘Social Search and Distributed Reputation Systems’ (Presented at SES Chicago 2009):

‘Docs are Old-School, We Need PageRank for People\':

‘Meme-Tracking & the Dynamics of the News Cycle”(Cornell University – PDF):

By: eli77025 Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:33:00 +0000 Reuters has the right idea. Murdoch doesn’t have a clue that the world is changing. All he can do is think within the old framework.

Maybe that’s why in addition to my paying for, now he wants to charge for my reading it as a mobile edition. Hopefully, people (and companies) will start to charge Murdoch for reporting news about them. This from a “news” organization that repeats the same story ad nauseam.

There is no shortage of news outlets and aggregators that would be happy to report news. Murdoch needs to stop gazing at his navel and look out into the world and drive looking through the windshield and not the rear view mirror

By: fjpoblam Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:45:08 +0000 With internet free access to news and journalism, I still wonder, who pays the journalist? Who pays the photographer? Who pays the Hemingway out there, gathering the skillful report, to which we all have free access? (And who pays Hemingway’s secretary, who keeps transcribed copies of Hemingway’s tattered moleskines?)

By: hadas Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:15:21 +0000 With 2800 news generators worldwide, a flexible business model, and a flair for spot-on intelligent reporting, Reuters should combine with BBC to create an unbeatable English-speaking 24-hour news network available in the U.K., U.S., and Australia (to start).

Many of us are weary of what we see as news in the U.S. today – entertainment and political-based stories with too much flash and not enough substance.

Reuters/BBC 24-hour Network News is long overdue and needs to happen.

By: ianlamont Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:53:23 +0000 To “stop wasting resources on writing the umpteenth undifferentiated story that is available elsewhere” sounds great in theory, but there are a few formidable issues to realizing that vision:

1) Audiences overlap, and the same story may have to be tailored in minor ways to appeal to different audiences, based on local issues, the “tone” or expertise of the publication, and other factors. Two stories that may appear “undifferentiated” to you actually have different angles, emphasis, or additional facts that actually make them more suitable or the audiences they are aimed at. Publications want to be differentiated in some way, and using the same outsourced copy does not help them achieve that goal.

2) There needs to be a system of trust and baseline quality in place, but also great flexibility considering the types of content providers and multitude of publications using it.

3) Making Reuters and a few other specialist players the powerbrokers will lead to news oligopolies — kind of like we had before the advent of the Internet, execept on global scale. That doesn’t sound like progress to me.

Ian Lamont
Managing Editor
The Industry Standard