

Why the iPad is Destroying the Future of Journalism - mattrepl
http://measuringmeasures.com/blog/2010/12/31/why-the-ipad-is-destroying-the-future-of-journalism.html

======
ihodes
I think link-bait attention grabbing titles are part of the decline of
journalism. Rather, I think they're a symptom of the disease.

The disease is the desire to profit from attention instead of value. The
symptoms are inflammatory bullshit, poorly researched tripe, and the desire to
create at much controversy as possible, instead of attempting to simply
present facts and perhaps even intelligent analysis.

Yellow journalism isn't going anywhere, and publishers seem to be discovering
that advertising (the primary way to get money when attention grabbing,
instead of value-adding) doesn't cover their expenses. It makes it even harder
to pay good journalists, especially when they're not necessarily writing those
"DID SHIT JUST HIT THE FAN?" articles (tl;dr "No, not really").

In aggregate, the people willing to pay—actually pay—for news are the people
who want news. Not bullshit.

Maybe there isn't hope for _news_ in the long-term, but I see at least some in
the possibility of an honest exchange of money for a service that I want (and
we need)—journalism. I'd rather pay to see Cirque de Soleil if I'm in the mood
for a show.

------
mikeryan
I think the term Journalism is misapplied here. Journalism (the collecting,
editing and presenting of news) is going to be fine.

Traditional _publishing_ is being shaken up but thats been heralded for some
time. The iPad is just another nail in a coffin that's 90% done.

I have picked my nit for the day, now I need more coffee.

~~~
bradfordcross
If you read carefully, you can see that I am not saying that journalism or
publishing are dead. I am saying that the attempt to grasp at the model of the
past is dead.

I don't agree that the iPad is a nail in the coffin. IMO, its impact on the
future of journalism and publishing is vastly overestimated.

~~~
jared314
Why does the title not reflect that? Marketing copy?

~~~
bradfordcross
No, a much more practical reason. I'm not so good at coming up with titles. =)

------
dasil003
Definitely some interesting thoughts here, but the author is overreaching.

> _Google/Yahoo news isn't the new model - they've been surpassed by Facebook
> already._

Including Yahoo here lends the sentence credibility because of how they have
been failing at everything they try to do for years, but this is just
projecting trends into the future with little justification. Facebook or
Twitter have not yet proven that they can harvest all their data to produce a
search engine that can rival Google. Without that they simply don't have the
form factor to dominate news.

> _The good news for media is that when they embraces the new model, I think
> they will make far more money than they ever have in the past due to the
> combination of broader distribution and better targeting leading to larger
> ad revenues._

This is incumbent on the aggregator having the right combination of UX acumen
and generous profit sharing with publishers. But even if that pans out,
"broader distribution" also means more competition for ever-thinner attention,
and also the data available on the Internet may reveal that old advertising
budgets were unjustified. If they aren't making more money, then publishers
are not going to cede control to an aggregator, they'll go down with the ship
if they have to.

Also, I don't think branded channels are going anywhere. People crave a
certain amount of diversity. If Facebook comes to dominate news, however
unlikely, there will be rebellion and many trendsetters will use something
different, _even if inferior_ , just for differences sake.

------
bambax
I read the first half of the article and couldn't find a point; I gave up.
What is this article about??!?

~~~
bradfordcross
I am sorry it takes a while to develop, but if you give it a chance you might
find something interesting.

As Pascal said, I didn't have time to write a shorter one.

~~~
solipsist
I was sure I heard that same quote before, but attributed to Mark Twain
instead of Blaise Pascal. I looked it up on Google and, while there is some
controversy, it seems as if Blaise was the first to say this.

<http://www.famousquotes.com/show/1045873/>

I know this is unrelated to the original post, but it's just another example
of what we can learn from these little insightful comments on Hacker News even
if it is not what they intended to teach. I know that whenever I say this
quote again, I will make sure to properly attribute it.

~~~
bradfordcross
I believe it was Pascal in his famous correspondence with de Fermat on
probability.

------
kenjackson
This reads more like "why the iPad will catch on as an eBook reader, but not
for other types of reading". When I read books I want to be immersed... when I
read magazines or newspapers, I actually like the ability to have a wikipedia
tab open to look up stuff, and the ability to dive deep on certain topics --
while still maintaining context of the original story.

~~~
hessenwolf
1\. Why is the ipad considered an eReader, when it is just a little computer?
I thought eReader meant using electrically-modifiable ink, not light-based
retina-burners.

2\. As a second point, my android device is a little baby computer, with a
kinda lame phone application. It's not a 'smart' phone. It's the progression
of ubiquitous computing.

3\. I don't have fucking apps on my android device. I have applications, or
programs. Just because it is on my baby computer (not smartphone), it doesn't
mean it is not just a another program.

Nit-pick done.

------
hessenwolf
To think I read the whole lot of this poorly written speculation, only to
finish with "when they embraces the new model"

------
nopal
Should this article be titled "How the iPad is Destroying the Future of
Journalism?"

------
lotusleaf1987
This article is nonsense link-bait. Just because someone paid $500 for an iPad
doesn't mean they're going to pay 500% mark-up on digital magazines that cost
the publisher effectively nothing. People aren't stupid.

The iPad isn't destroying the future of journalism, publisher's are. They're
shooting themselves in the foot.

This is a much better article:
[http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20101229/just-because-
i-s...](http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20101229/just-because-i-
spent-500-on-an-ipad-doesnt-mean-ill-pay-a-500-markup-on-a-magazine-
subscription/?mod=cnet)

