Politics: Worth reading: Slate’s in-depth Web-vs.-newspapers smackdown
- The Web side Web proponents feel that newspapers are a product of an era that no longer exists – the media gatekeeper as primary news source. We’re in an era where everything’s decentralized. We don’t need the big source of news anymore. Who needs the New York Times when you can get news from 50 bloggers in an RSS reader? source
- The Web side Web proponents feel that newspapers are a product of an era that no longer exists – the media gatekeeper as primary news source. We’re in an era where everything’s decentralized. We don’t need the big source of news anymore. Who needs the New York Times when you can get news from 50 bloggers in an RSS reader?
- The print side One point that newspaper proponents can make pretty easily is that much of what shows up on the blogosphere originally appeared in various news sources. And there are many benefits to that whole organizational center that a newsroom provides. And newsprint is tangible in your hands in a way that a laptop isn’t. source
- The Web side Web proponents feel that newspapers are a product of an era that no longer exists – the media gatekeeper as primary news source. We’re in an era where everything’s decentralized. We don’t need the big source of news anymore. Who needs the New York Times when you can get news from 50 bloggers in an RSS reader?
- The print side One point that newspaper proponents can make pretty easily is that much of what shows up on the blogosphere originally appeared in various news sources. And there are many benefits to that whole organizational center that a newsroom provides. And newsprint is tangible in your hands in a way that a laptop isn’t.
- What Slate did Rather than go for the Clay Shirky-style final word, they let Web news junkies and newspaper junkies say their piece (and there are many opinions, all of which are worth reading), tested them on their knowledge, then had them debate on a podcast. It’s an entertaining debate where – best of all – nothing’s settled. source
Google’s been on top of the heap for nearly a decade, and it’s a firm hold. They’ve built themselves around the idea that the Web’s organization should be simple. Their ads are well-targeted, and their services – especially search, Gmail and News – are incredibly useful. They made $4.2 billion last year alone.
Facebook, on the other hand, is building influence and currency on the Web. They’ve got critical mass, and, smartly, didn’t even focus on competing with MySpace. They want to be the new Google, and have just the right arrogant CEO to pull it off. Their hyper-focused information means they can focus on advertising for brands.
