Economics 101

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Economics 101

    I read the comments on one of Mike Reiss's recent blog posts, and I was shocked to see that people expect him to report for free.  While I understand that the Globe is able to sell advertising to cover costs, it obviously isn't providing enough money for them or else they wouldn't be looking to shut down the company.

    So let me put this in simpler terms:
    ---Would you rather pay for good beat writers?  Not just Mike Reiss, but Chris Gasper isn't any chump, and Amalie Benjamin does a good job on the Sox...
    ---Or would you rather have the Boston Globe not exist anymore?  Because it stands to go out of business if it doesn't find new sources of revenue.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    I didn't vote, for the simple reason that making this a pay site won't save the Globe. Nothing will. Newspapers are in their death throes and there is no crash cart. The day may come (and maybe sooner than you think) when this site is the last vestige of the Globe in any form, and I suppose that will be a sad day. But I don't really miss eight-track tapes, or toaster ovens, or rotary phones or the slide rule, or . . .

    well, you get the idea.

    The way news is disseminated isn't changing -- it has changed, and while I could see a healthy portion of the Globe's readership paying a reasonable fee for the information and entertainment available here, I can envision just as many people who would resent their "free" forum being taken away.

    Giving something away to people who will eventually come to need it, and then turning around and demanding they pay for it is a time-honored sales strategy.

    Ask any drug dealer.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mountainmonkey. Show mountainmonkey's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    Newspapers will continue to exist...they will keep the news and drop the paper...and they will need new revenue sources to do even that.... it will be a tough challenge.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from patpscyho. Show patpscyho's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    I feel very fortunate to have Mike Reiss. He is one of the best and most objective beat reporter I have read in Boston, someone who keeps his opinions to a minimum and tries to keep his facts straight (unlike Bob Cryin and Dan Shankpansy, two of the biggest opininated gasbags around here, a close third is Tony Assarotti). If something happens to Reiss here at the Globe, I see him going to a bigger sports outlet, ESPN, NBC, or NFL network, in which case he would be a big loss.


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhwynter. Show nhwynter's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    In Response to Economics 101:
    [QUOTE]I read the comments on one of Mike Reiss's recent blog posts, and I was shocked to see that people expect him to report for free.  While I understand that the Globe is able to sell advertising to cover costs, it obviously isn't providing enough money for them or else they wouldn't be looking to shut down the company. So let me put this in simpler terms: ---Would you rather pay for good beat writers?  Not just Mike Reiss, but Chris Gasper isn't any chump, and Amalie Benjamin does a good job on the Sox... ---Or would you rather have the Boston Globe not exist anymore?  Because it stands to go out of business if it doesn't find new sources of revenue.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    There is a third option that you over-looked.  That is to get rid of all the old school blow-hards like Shaugnessy, Massarotti and Cafardo from the Sports section and the Globe would easily be able to afford everyone else.  Seriously.  The Globe needs to bring in even more fresh blood.  From top to bottom..


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Harleyroadking111. Show Harleyroadking111's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    Newspapers need to make their pictures move and interact with the reader like in the Harry Potter movies. Hey it's not as dumb and far off as it sounds.



     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    The internet means that if you can get a million people to read your writing, you can make a living off of selling internet ads.  However, everybody can steal your exclusive info 2 minutes after you post it.  So, few people have been able to make a full living off of internet sports reporting.   Lots of stringers have entered the sports reporting business at subminimum wage, tho.

    Mike Reiss did the right thing in calling that Mike Vick was not in New England.  Integrity draws readers to your site.  The old guard, lacking integrity, doesn't have much of a chance.

    Newspapers simply aren't reporting sports scores as fast as the internet.  Nobody waits until tomorrow morning to find out.  The papers will have to concentrate on stories that are a bit slower on the news cycle and more in-depth, as if they were fast weekly magazines.  For example, an expert in juggling sports statistics and in spotting trends on videotape might succeed at a newspaper. 

    For general news and commentary reporting, there's room for both newspapers and websites with absolute integrity.  Philanthropists would come out of the woodwork and hand such reporters big checks. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    Nick Cafardo why you begging for money we didn't run the paper into the ground.Most of the folks on the Boston.com live in other parts of the country so don't go trying to hammer us for money!!Or we will just switch over to the herald exclusively....
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from JulesWinfield. Show JulesWinfield's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    You guys are very fortunate to have Reiss covering your team.  His mailbag and other columns are very in-depth, and most NFL cities don't have anyone nearly as good as he is.  I suspect that if the Globe goes tango uniform you'll all be able to read him somewhere else...maybe even for free. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    We might see Mike Reiss reporting somewhere else, but if he goes national, he wouldn't be reporting regularly on the Patriots

    If it's free and there's no reward for the service provided, then you're going to get poor reporting.  The producers in the market (Mike Reiss, et al) need incentive to provide better services.  You WON'T get GOOD reporting for free in America - you'll get Joe Blowhard on his YouTube channel and Togah on his blog and that's it.  Nobody in touch with players, nobody held to professional standards, few people with the connections in the industry to get scoops past the team's P.R. stances.  Dan Shaughnessy isn't a reporter so much as he is a personality.  Same with Massoroti, and for every one of them there's a Chris Gasper, an Amalie Benjamin, and a Mike Reiss, reporters puttin' out good information.

    If you want to make a stand, stop reading Shaughnessy's articles - giving him traffic only proves that he makes you want to hear what he has to say even though you supposedly don't like him.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    In Response to Re: Economics 101:
    [QUOTE]Newspapers need to make their pictures move and interact with the reader like in the Harry Potter movies. Hey it's not as dumb and far off as it sounds.
    Posted by Harleyroadking111[/QUOTE]

    I'm hoping this was a serious commentary on thin LCD technology and not a joke, but I do see a future for technology like the Amazon Kindle in replacing paper altogether.  I also think you're right about our generation being very interactive - it's an underestimated part of sports news sites today that there be polls.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    In Response to Re: Economics 101:
    [QUOTE]I didn't vote, for the simple reason that making this a pay site won't save the Globe. Nothing will. Newspapers are in their death throes and there is no crash cart. The day may come (and maybe sooner than you think) when this site is the last vestige of the Globe in any form, and I suppose that will be a sad day. But I don't really miss eight-track tapes, or toaster ovens, or rotary phones or the slide rule, or . . . well, you get the idea. The way news is disseminated isn't changing -- it has changed, and while I could see a healthy portion of the Globe's readership paying a reasonable fee for the information and entertainment available here, I can envision just as many people who would resent their "free" forum being taken away. Giving something away to people who will eventually come to need it, and then turning around and demanding they pay for it is a time-honored sales strategy. Ask any drug dealer.
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    But are the reporting standards online going to be the same as the reporting standards to which a reporting institution is being held?  I think not - you can say almost anything online.  The other thing is it's a lot more difficult to push around the little guy trying to break a big story that the team doesn't want released than it is to push around a billion-dollar reporting institution with house counsel - a little guy reporting can be squeezed out of credentials or sued and he'd lose his house.  They won't bother with big institutions - look at the Matt Walsh story.

    Online could do wonders for small, interpersonal communities, and it has already.  But on a larger scale, we need more powerful institutions to break stories against the status quo and be powerful enough to ward of threats

    I don't agree with you - freelance Internet reporting is NOT progress; it's NOT an advancement like cell phones or MP3 players.

    It's a great price for a lesser product.  I'll pay for the Wall Street Journal, et al if it means I get better reporting.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    The Globe has always had the best Sports page in the Northeast, and one of a *very* small handful of the best in the nation.

    I hope they keep it that way. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Harleyroadking111. Show Harleyroadking111's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    In Response to Re: Economics 101:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Economics 101 : I'm hoping this was a serious commentary on thin LCD technology and not a joke, but I do see a future for technology like the Amazon Kindle in replacing paper altogether.  I also think you're right about our generation being very interactive - it's an underestimated part of sports news sites today that there be polls.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    Nick, I am serious "Serious Black" OK I was joking right then...but I see newspapers evolving to incorporate the kindle technology that would be (lack of a better word) awesome. The industry needs to something to "keep up" day old news is no news at all. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    In Response to Re: Economics 101:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Economics 101 : Nick, I am serious "Serious Black" OK I was joking right then...but I see newspapers evolving to incorporate the kindle technology that would be (lack of a better word) awesome. The industry needs to something to "keep up" day old news is no news at all. 
    Posted by Harleyroadking111[/QUOTE]

    HRK,

    I have a Kindle (The Kindle 2) and it is great. 34 newspapers, including the Globe and Times, are already available for daily download. A subscription downloads it overnight and you can read it over breakfast.

    But I don't see the Kindle as an evolving tech because it utilizes a rigid display. The evolution for newspapers will be the advent of the flexible screens (LG and Epson already have prototypes.) These are based on the e-Ink material. The Epson monitor supposedly has the highest resolution of a monitor ever and is more akin to reading ink on paper than reading from a monitor.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    Good reporting (Reiss, Gaspar etc.) will not disappear. With dedicated blogging, I expect it to increase even if the Globe leaves the scene. There are few contributors on this page who could write professionally.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    As far as that goes, there are few professionals who actually can (or at least do) write professionally. It isn't just technology that is killing newspapers as a form, and it isn't just newspapers that technology is killing: it's journalism itself. With a seemingly endless arrary of media outlets, the genesis of blogging and the demise of anything that a trained journalist would recognize as editing, there is such a plethora (Si', El Guapo . . .  you have a plethora) of mis-, dis- and non-information available at the click of a mouse or a remote control that the word "news" should be taken entirely out of the equation.

    The constant barrage of poor structure and grammar, misspellings, inaccurate identification, unnamed sources and opinion masquerading as information goes beyond troubling. It's downright dangerous to a public that wants its infotainment NOW!, and doesn't really care where it comes from.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from JulesWinfield. Show JulesWinfield's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    You hit the nail on the head, Prairie.  Journalism is in a sad state.  There is a serious backlash against traditional print and network media underway.  With so much blogged "opinion" out there, the public can't find an impartial media that has so long been touted in this country.  A serious turning point came in the last Presidential election, when NBC, CNN, and other previously mainstream media sided with Obama and the Democrats in shameless fashion.  Sadly, Fox News, admittedly a clear right-of-center network, appeared to me the most impartial national media we had at the last election.  Which is to say, there was zero impartial media.  I seriously hope that the traditional media rededicates itself to impartiality.  However, given how the great rock star Obama is still pandered to, I don't see that happening.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Harleyroadking111. Show Harleyroadking111's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    In Response to Re: Economics 101:
    [QUOTE]As far as that goes, there are few professionals who actually can (or at least do ) write professionally. It isn't just technology that is killing newspapers as a form, and it isn't just newspapers that technology is killing: it's journalism itself. With a seemingly endless arrary of media outlets, the genesis of blogging and the demise of anything that a trained journalist would recognize as editing, there is such a plethora (Si', El Guapo . . .  you have a plethora) of mis-, dis- and non-information available at the click of a mouse or a remote control that the word "news" should be taken entirely out of the equation. The constant barrage of poor structure and grammar, misspellings, inaccurate identification, unnamed sources and opinion masquerading as information goes beyond troubling. It's downright dangerous to a public that wants its infotainment NOW! , and doesn't really care where it comes from.
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]


    So,what you're saying is Killa most likely wouldn't get a job as sports reporterLaughing

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    Actually, in this envrionment, he most assuredly could.

    If he wasn't murdered by zombies first.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Harleyroadking111. Show Harleyroadking111's posts

    Re: Economics 101

    That's what meant to say.....darn ruined my own funnyFrown
     

Share