

Decade in review: How the Internet ruined everything - edw519
http://2010.newsweek.com/essay/a-decade-of-destruction.html

======
anigbrowl
...and this kind of shallow 1 page article which tells us nothing we already
know is a prime example of why old media is failing. It's a great story idea,
since the political and economic impact of the internet have surpassed the
wildest dreams of the early 90s (ie when the web was created).

And Newsweek still has plenty of skilled writers on staff, plus enough
readership that they could have interviewed anyone they wanted for this story,
from Bill Gates or Al Gore to...well, anyone. They're read by millions of
ordinary Americans, and have decades of experience in telling complex,
multidimensional stories and making them accessible for a broad audience.
Instead, a a 500 word essay which was apparently written by Captain Obvious. I
know 'review of the year/decade/century' articles are superficial by nature,
but this reads like a sidebar in an 8th grade social studies book.

I preferred the 'decade in seven minutes' video at this page:
<http://2010.newsweek.com/essay/one-dazing-decade.html> not really my
preferred media style, but at least it has a high signal to noise ratio.

~~~
jimbokun
Isn't this written by the real life Fake Steve? Which shows the irony that
someone with a successful voice on the web comes across as Captain Obvious
when tied to the "main stream media" column format.

Wouldn't this piece be much more interesting in the Fake Steve voice? Or maybe
it says something that "Fake Steve" would never discuss something this boring
in the first place.

~~~
anigbrowl
Now you mention it, it would have been a _lot_ more interesting if it had been
'How I helped to ruin everything (else)' by (fake) Steve Jobs.

------
teeja
Well-written survey of the damage.

Newspapers: tradition-bound. In about 1985 I wrote an article about shopping
for a home computer. The local newspaper editor refused it with the comment
"Aren't those kind of a niche product?" Their formula had worked a long, long
time; they were asleep. Funny though: their newsrooms were full of boxen when
the 'net took off. Obviously a piece of wire between the newsroom and me made
the presses obsolete.

TV was used to deciding what was good enough for us. And they added more and
more advertising until a two-hour movie became a four-hour movie, so chopped
up that it was impossible to enjoy. So once the net starts hitting them, do
they compete by producing _better_ shows? Nah, they go for the cheesy easy.
Good riddance.

Bangs leaves out the telcos ... who've also done everything they could to
stall the inevitable. Google buying Gizmo5 is another symptom that their
money-grubbing, metro-WiFi-blocking, stonewalling asses are getting nearer the
lawnmower. Long live fiber, long live the net!

------
kylemathews
Newsweek's audience isn't people on Hacker News. Shallow to us doesn't mean
it's shallow to them. I thought the tone / depth was appropriate.

------
HelenL14
It works to show the underlying thread in the downfall of 'the old business
model', but it would be nice to have a forward-looking extension of the
article. Okay, we know that internet changed the game - great. But now that
it's becoming the new norm, what are the watchouts...what's next?

There's an interesting article that attempts to touch on the "what next" on
the HBR blog that talks about the digital economy's weakness/flaw written by
Umair Haque:
[http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/11/facebooks_sca...](http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/11/facebooks_scam_ads_and_the_loo.html)

------
fiaz
Blaming the internet for the downfall of print media is like blaming low
pressure for the evaporation of water.

------
dstorrs
Basically, this is a retread of articles I saw in 1996, with all the verbs
changed from future to past perfect.

