This Story is Archived
Fearing the Future: New York Times Goes Negative On Netscape »
Posted by: ebrage 2 years, 2 months agoChange is hard. Just ask The New York Times.
Read Full Story at blogcritics.org »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 30
-
-
gochrisgo
July 18, 2006, 4:15 p.m.Things are changing at the Times as well. Today they announced that due to increasing costs of newsprint, they will have to cut 5% of news space from the paper.
-
mschannon
July 18, 2006, 4:28 p.m.We need traditional media as much as what's happening on the web. Maybe the Times didn't do a good job with this story, but to think that the internet can provide the same kind of news coverage that traditional media--particularly newspapers--can is naive. Weird days ahead.
-
mschannon
July 18, 2006, 4:28 p.m.We need traditional media as much as what's happening on the web. Maybe the Times didn't do a good job with this story, but to think that the internet can provide the same kind of news coverage that traditional media--particularly newspapers--can is naive. Weird days ahead.
-
mschannon
July 18, 2006, 4:28 p.m.We need traditional media as much as what's happening on the web. Maybe the Times didn't do a good job with this story, but to think that the internet can provide the same kind of news coverage that traditional media--particularly newspapers--can is naive. Weird days ahead.
-
mschannon
July 18, 2006, 4:29 p.m.We need traditional media as much as what's happening on the web. Maybe the Times didn't do a good job with this story, but to think that the internet can provide the same kind of news coverage that traditional media--particularly newspapers--can is naive.
-
ebrage
July 18, 2006, 4:47 p.m.I don't think anyone disputes that traditional media still plays an instrumental role in news gathering and dissemination. However, it's interesting that they tend to not quite get the role of news media, which likely comes from a number of factors -- some self-serving if short-sighted!
-
alexrudloff
July 18, 2006, 5:04 p.m.I said the same thing on a techcrunch thread in regards to digg vs. nytimes traffic;
Without nytimes, there would be no social news. Social news has to link somewhere, after all ;) It just helps level the playing field and pits less mainstream sources against traditional outlets. Competition of both views and styles is a good thing.
-
-
siv9939
July 18, 2006, 7:21 p.m.I find it funny how it seems like those who like the new Netscape are deemed "right" while those who don't are deemed "wrong." So much for unbiased media.
-
tsteele93
July 18, 2006, 7:43 p.m.I wasn't here for the old version, but this version has serious problems to work out. It has potential, but they need to aggressively work out the bugs/problems.
-
1-2-Oscar
July 18, 2006, 9:26 p.m.Most criticism of the "New Netscape" is not motivated by "fear of the future" or by any other sort of fear, but simply by massive dissatisfaction with the product. The initial story in the NY Times focused on this dissatisfaction.
The source of this story, Blogcritics.org, is a sterling example of the reckless mixing of news with opinion. Now, Blogcritics.org criticizes the NY Times for doing the same thing.
The article says that the Times highlighted the "surprisingly angry feedback" of a FEW on-site commenters. Well, I read those comments. Hundreds of them. They were written by people who had become habitual users of a reliable service who suddenly discovered that an immature cabal had yanked away their reliable portal and turned it over to a pack of celebrity-crazed, authority-hating teens.
I have noted elsewhere that I am not part of any demographic actively sought by the "New Netscape" developers. I am all grown up, and I am educated. So there seems to be no place for me here.
-
ebrage
July 18, 2006, 9:59 p.m.Netscape's traffic is up by 17%, according to reports -- if that's massive dissatisfaction, I'd love to have it on my web property!
In any event, I applaud Netscape's bold and potentially innovative move to move to the forefront to online social media. I love the experiment of mixing hands on editors with "power of the masses" submissions and voting. It may or may not work, but the Internet rewards bold experimentation and responding to user needs.
Finally, I find your characterization of Blogcritics.org as a "sterling example of the reckless mixing of news with opinion" to be off-base." My take is that you can find wire stories or short "bloggy" paragraphs with a link, a quote, and perhaps a line or two of commentary nearly anywhere. Blogcritics.org offers much more than that: high quality writing and unique takes packaged as full-length pieces. You'll likely disagree, Oscar, but it's the perfect blend of mainstream media with the funky frontier spirit of the blogosphere.
-
1-2-Oscar
July 18, 2006, 10:30 p.m.Netscape's number of "unique users" is almost certainly way off. Under the new system, anyone who comes on the the home page and then looks at three stories counts as four "hits." That may impress some people, but some people are easily impressed. What is not showing is the tens of thousands who have left the site altogether, or the (probably larger) group who only come for their e-mail. These people are lost to Netscape forever. Potential advertisers should note that many of these people, like me, are steadily employed and have disposible income. But they'll never see ads here again.
Your loyalty to Blogcritics.org has been noted before, since you have "submitted" dozens of stories from that source--so many that it raises suspicions that you have a financial interest.
News should be to the point and accurate. It is no virtue to make news "funky." If you want "funky," go smoke something strange.
-
ebrage
July 19, 2006, 1:01 a.m.What's suspicious about submitting legitimate stories from a respected online publication? If people don't like it, they can choose not to read, vote, etc.
You seem to have a lot of inside information about how Netscape counts "hits" ... which we can imply means page views? I don't know how you can possibly know that kind of information, and what you are relaying sounds *funky* anyway!
Your definition of news/online media is certainly narrow. If you want pure news, hang out at www.reuters.com of the hundreds of sites that run wire stories.
-
Mighty
July 19, 2006, 2:08 a.m.By the way, web blogs are now considered as a threat to the existence of conventional consultants and news agencies where it chops their income(if web users can access/share information for free why pay for it?). My small concern is that a listing on Netscape may cause small sites to crash because of huge traffic, this may be resolved if Netscape caches the links(at least text) on its website.
Good luck to Netscape on their interesting intiative as it is a nice ground to for freedom of speech.
-
Mighty
July 19, 2006, 2:11 a.m.Just wanted to add that resistance to change is common. However, blogs have proved their success and I think they will still be successful for a long time.
-
Fabienne
July 19, 2006, 5:23 a.m.Mighty: It's true that we may DDOS small sites, so we may do some automatic caching in the future, but for now it's not in place. Thanks for the suggestion.
1-2-Oscar: You do seem as though you are baiting for replies with "I am all grown up, and I am educated. So there seems to be no place for me here." Actually there is a place for everyone at Netscape, feel free to submit the stories you DO enjoy reading. Who knows? Maybe I share an interest in writing you love. If you adore the writing at the New Yorker (I'm an addict), submit a link to an article you enjoyed reading to Netscape and voila, you've shared a great article with others. Many fine publications now publish online. Netscape is a way to share your favorites; it was never meant to supplant mainstream media. As Alex says above, we would not survive without content.
If you are having trouble understanding how to read the articles and skip the commentary, simply click on the teal "Visit Site" button or the "via" under the title.
-
1-2-Oscar
July 19, 2006, 7:25 a.m.Fabienne,
As a long-term subscriber, I read the New Yorker regularly. It is a publication which values good writing, although the viewpoints of writers such as Adam Gopnik often seem misanthropic. ("Nil-nil is the score of life," he wrote--about as sweeping dismissal of all human activity and achievement as you can manufacture).
I have also read Huxley, and I recall that his characters lived solitary and soulless lives, interacting only with the screens in their meager flats. Is the "New Netscape" simply another step toward the world of Winston Smith?
Since Netscape is paying you, I assume that you have struggled through some of the "discussion" threads and observed the infantile yadda-yadda-yadda going back and forth. At the "New Netscape" there is no one to edit the garbage out, and apparently little inclination to do so. But acceptance of "free speech" does not mean that we must all endure the most boorish and immature.
-
1-2-Oscar
July 19, 2006, 7:32 a.m.Fabienne (continued),
Now the bloggers seem to be diligently working the "New Netscape" to build traffic into their own sites. There is evidence that a few of them are cooperating in this endeavor, but no evidence that the designer or Anchors find this activity objectionable. With an election coming this November, are you and your associates prepared to handle the heavy traffic, vituperation, and vicious personal attacks that are bound to arrive when each of two partisan camps attempts to subvert Netscape to its own purpose. You claim that this is the future of interpersonal contact--I suggest that it may be the death of direct (and civil) human discourse.
-
KeithAdv
July 19, 2006, 11:24 a.m.Fabienne--
You asked 1-2-Oscar why he(?) doesn't submit articles he enjoys reading, because there is a "place for everyone on Netscape."
Here's how I would answer the question. How in the world would submitting an article benefit me? I BUY the New Yorker because they produce articles that interest me. They get paid for making a high-quality periodical. Articles I send them MUST be better than articles other writers send them, and if they are I'll get paid for my work.
On the other hand, if I submit an article I like to Netscape, I get NOTHING for it. It contributes NOTHING to the editorial direction of Netscape, a grain of sand on a beach of bloggers promoting their own sites. I get NOTHING of value in revisiting Netscape, which lacks the focus, wit, and editorial rigor of the New Yorker.
You base your premise on the notion that I wish to join a pro-active group of people carving out an exciting Web 2.0. I can't. I'm too busy. I'll just buy the New Yorker for now.
-
ebrage
July 19, 2006, 11:27 a.m.The issues you bring up are those faced by any large site that accepts interactivity and contributions and is generally viewed as a place open to an array of ideas and beliefs (and ideologies, of course).
Dealing with "heavy traffic" is something those who work in online media would consider a "good problem"!
-
ebrage
July 19, 2006, 11:32 a.m.Keith - Many undoubtedly share your views. However, the massive popularity of Digg, Reddit, etc. shows that there are those who enjoy sharing their findings (and, in a sense, their expertise and passion) with the rest of the world. There are others who enjoy simply reading what others have submitted. These people come together to form these new forms of online communities.
My view is that there's a place for both traditional forms of editorial control (i.e. NYTimes.com, The New Yorker) and interactive online communities or experiments in social media such as Netscape.com.
-
elroyjetson
July 19, 2006, 12:13 p.m.The problem with print news is that it isn't news. It's history. Reading a history book is about as much fun as watching paint dry.
-
KeithAdv
July 19, 2006, 12:21 p.m.Ebrage--believe it or not, I agree with everything you say! I prefer USENET for the people coming together to share part, however.
And I agree there is a place for everything. The slippery part here is exactly why *Netscape* transformed from one style to the other, especially since its previous version was so highly regarded.
All of the arguments I've heard sound specious to me. Except for one. This is a cheap way to run a home page. If Jason can deliver ad-clicking traffic on the cheap, he'll look like a champ to his bosses.
In fact, it might even be OK with Jason that traffic is now declining on the new version. Sometimes a great margin is better than great volume. Time will tell.
The first 25 comments are shown. Show all 30 comments »
Got a Story?
