

Jeff Jarvis on the Real Reason the Media is Going After Craig Newmark - dreambird
http://thefastertimes.com/mediaandtech/2010/09/05/what-the-attacks-on-craigslists-adult-ads-are-really-about/

======
tptacek
Smokescreen. I like Newmark more than I like newspaper companies, too. And I
know craigslist could be making hundreds of millions of dollars if it weren't
for their pesky ethics.

But I don't believe for a second that this recent drama is related to
craigslist's impact on the news business. The formula here is simple: the news
media (and political candidates) likes eyeballs. Eyeballs like stories about
sex. It would be professional malpractice for CNN not to run these stories.

And why should I feel sorry for craiglist about that? They walked right into
this. Prostitution is illegal throughout almost the entire United States.
Without those ads, their service isn't one iota worse for the vast majority of
their users who aren't in contact with the sex trade. The adult services
section of craiglist is practically a political statement.

Which, fine, but if you make a political statement, you steel yourself to
handle the flak you'll get. If you make a political statement that involves
flouting the law, you get to deal with law enforcement, too.

~~~
jbooth
Don't underestimate the small-mindedness of the news media.

Why was the iPad over all of their covers? Because they think it's their
salvation. Yeah, Jobs is good at PR, and yeah, it's a reasonable cover story,
but why was it _the_ cover story?

Why is craigslist _the_ trumped up bogus sex scandal?

~~~
tptacek
Because craigslist has revolutionized _both_ licit _and_ illicit classified
ads, making them the most important advertising medium for the sex industry as
well as babysitters, day laborers, and people with washing machines to sell?

------
tumult
Is it just me, or has 'the news' gotten worse over time? I entirely stopped
following news and news media about a year ago. I'm always a little frightened
by it when I see any of it poke through in places I still visit, like HN.

~~~
tomjen3
Actually the news have just recently fallen from their very high quality
during the 60 and early 81.

Walter Cronkite actually said on tv "and that is the way it is" once he had
delivered the news, but not if he ended the news with an opinion piece.

Now compare this with William Hearst with his "Please remain. You furnish the
pictures and I will furnish the war" during the period of yellow journalism.

There aren't really any Hearsts around anymore (though their actual heirs
still run the news), and we are properly closer to Conkrite but we are more
aware of what is actually going on now than ever - that is why it looks like
the news are getting worse.

~~~
adolph
The statement may be falsely attributed to Hearst:

<http://academic2.american.edu/~wjc/wjc3/notlikely.htm>

The economic context from which the statement arose has some similarities to
today. Hearst and Pulitzer were competing to grow newspaper circulation.
Strangely, Pulitzer appears to escape the bad rap Hearst gets, probably for
funding a journalism school and prize.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish–Ameri...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish–American_War)

------
markstansbury
It's nothing more than a sensational story: product you are comfortable and
familiar with is secretly a tool of sex and human trafficking. That's almost
the perfect evening news. Of course they'll run it. People eat it up. It has
nothing to do with disruption or ad revenue or conspiracies against human
progress; aside, of course, from the tangential fact that it's a familiar
product because of those features. It's just good pop journalism. That's it.

~~~
zephyrfalcon
That's part of it, but old media like CNN and the New York Times are losing
revenue because of Craigslist (among other things); I doubt it's a coincidence
that they are targeting them.

------
knowtheory
So, Craigslist is getting mischaracterized and demonized the same way that
Google is. I'm tired of people lamenting these sorts of shenanigans. I'd like
to hear recommendations as to what we can do to mitigate the bullshit.

As people who have an understanding of tech and disruption why aren't we more
effective at defending disruptive techs against those who wish to see them
tarnished or destroyed? Shouldn't we be doing something?

~~~
riffer
The key is to make things that are so indispensable to your customers and/or
users that they will speak up to defend you when you are attacked.

In that sense, the business principle of it being better to have a few
customers who really love you versus many customers who are lukewarm is
similar to the political reality that a well-organized but small special
interest will run all over the collective good.

There is really a double benefit because part of the way incumbents defend
against disrupters is to go after their weakest point. Who is going to vocally
defend Craigslist's erotic services section? How many online media enterprises
even have a weaker point than that? It is not a coincidence.

------
joshu
You can verify these numbers ($13b drop in classified revenue from the top) at
naa.org...

------
tedunangst
Bah. What kind of article did Jarvis expect the Times to write when Craigslist
refuses to give a statement or any explanation? Yes, Virginia, when a website
suddenly makes a change and uses a hot-button word like "Censored" and then
refuses to discuss it, that is a ploy.

------
masklinn
> Yes, prostitution is illegal. It long has been

Uh? Is it? Is prostitution actually illegal in the US or just streetwalking,
or brothels, stuff like that? "Networks"?

~~~
blahedo
According to Superfreakonomics, prostitution was mostly legal in the US until
the early 20th century---its prohibition was part of the same movement that
brought us Prohibition and women's suffrage.

~~~
knowtheory
uh... in what manner are the women's rights movement connected to the tea
totallers and other moralists?

(that's not a rhetorical question, i have never heard of any such connection,
but i am certainly willing to admit that i am not an expert in that period of
history)

~~~
_delirium
They're not necessarily required to be connected, but as a historical matter
there's some overlap, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
One strain is a certain kind of social progressivism, which sought to clean up
social ills: abolish slavery, abolish drunkenness, achieve equality, improve
literacy, etc. So a bunch of the early suffragettes were also active in the
temperance and abolitionist movements, among other things. From a different
angle, there was also a perceived connection with domestic violence (since
most alcoholics were men). Prohibitionism isn't really mainstream anymore, and
abolitionism has thankfully become irrelevant thanks to its total victory, but
some vestiges of that coalition remain in the anti-porn feminists (though
that's very controversial even among feminists; there are probably at least as
many "sex-positive feminists", esp. among younger women).

~~~
knowtheory
Sure, the 1st, 2nd and purported 3rd wave feminists all have different takes
on gender roles and society.

But given what i know about the 1st wave feminists and the suffragettes, i'm
surprised to hear tell that there was involvement that would be worth
mentioning (in the sense of the entire movement) any more than you could claim
that all republicans are pro-life, or that all democrats are pro-business.

~~~
_delirium
Well, it wasn't _everyone_ , but it was a large enough segment of the movement
to be worth mentioning, I think, including many of the prominent leaders:
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapman Catt, Frances
Willard, etc. Many organizations overlapped, as well; for example, the Women's
Christian Temperance Union was heavily involved in suffrage organizing after
Willard became its president.

~~~
knowtheory
Cool, the more you know!

Thanks :)

------
credo
Apologists for Craig's list haven't been able to answer questions regarding
sex trafficking on Craig's list and seem to think that their best defense is
in attacking everyone who raises questions.

The part about everyone hating Newmark and his work because "He doesn’t do it
to get rich" and because he is a disruptor who kills classified ad revenues is
amusing.

All the recent hoopla is over a CNN interview and afaik little or none of
CNN's ad revenues are threatened by Craig's List. My understanding is that
Newmark has made tens of millions of dollars and it is absurd to suggest that
journalists would go easier on him if he made even more money to qualify as
"rich" in the writer's dictionary.

 _[edit] Interesting to see my comment downvoted to zero and a response saying
that "The same people that own the TV news own the newspapers".

Can anyone tell us which newspaper is owned by CNN or the people who own CNN ?
_

_[edit 2] The downvoting trend is amusing. A short while ago, my comment was
at 4, now it is at -1. I see one more response and this one says that Time
Warner owns magazines.

Right, so Time Warner owns some magazines, but NO NEWSPAPERS, Craig's List has
hurt newspaper ad revenues , Newmark has only earned 10s of millions of
dollars and isn't "rich" by the writer's standards ....and because of all
this, a whole lot of downvoters seem to believe that CNN shouldn't ask any
questions about Craig's List sex trafficking This is funny _

~~~
tumult
The same people that own the TV news own the newspapers.

~~~
dagw
Which newspapers do Turner Broadcasting own?

~~~
tumult
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Inc>.

Another subsidiary of Time Warner. Though, you're right. Those are mostly
periodicals and not newspapers specifically. My mistake.

