Greetings Economists,
The increase in production of information lowers the cost of specific
objects. It's not free, but pennies are not viable for paying for
information. The Malcom review mentions how Anderson refers to
scarcity is where to find 'value' for information. In general what
that means is the network or data mining aspects of a lot of
information.
In effect, the old shop of a newspaper, magazine, radio station, et
al, don't meet the demand for better community input. One can see
that in the evolution toward reality tv, and talk radio. Social
sights like for example facebook provide better connection processes
and undermine information that is isolated in some sense of the old
media product.
To summarize a huge increase in production has sent the price down of
old media. The social aspects of that product are not adequate. The
culture is moving relentlessly toward a producing information that is
more and more social networked.
The question of who pays for that is something else entirely. The
loss of old media jobs is not about 'free', it's about the rise of
internet information production. Newspaper journalist are being
squeezed by the collapse of the information work that doesn't meet
needs that social media does. Actually a lot of so-called print
journalist are already social journalists and doing ok in bad times.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
Hey, who isn't against "free" stuff. But who's going to pay to
develop all that information? The New York Times sucks in many ways,
but they spend $200 million a year gathering news that many of us
learn a lot from. Who's going to do that under your hip and cool new
model?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
