Hi Billy, On Jan 22, 2011, at 4:33 PM, [email protected] wrote: > For I disagree with Ernie ( in a gentlemanly fashion ) about the public > and ideas. My belief is that the hoi polloi do have an appetite for ideas > but that it is crucial to make good use of all the tricks of good PR / > publicity > so that ordinary folks see the relevance and can feel assured that nothing > said will be bland / milquetoast / punches-pulled / uncolorful / humorless.
I don't disagree at all. My only point is that it is impossible to educate *all* the public about *all* the issues. I certainly agree it is possible and useful to inform *more* people about *more* issues. It is necessary, but not sufficient. > A print newspaper has advantages that websites do not. We all know what these > are. > What would make Blog Source different is that it would directly compliment > computer use. It would, by design, be intended for people who make use of > computers every day, it would refer them to hot blogs, to controversies about > blogs, and list sites worth visiting. It would also advertise computers and > computer software and computer services. All in one place. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how exactly this different from the hundreds of aggregators and tech-centric news sites already in existence: News aggregator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia NewsOnFeeds.com - List of News Aggregators popurls® | the genuine news aggregator for the latest web buzz The unique (but difficult) part, I think, is that you want to have your own journalists: > Every issue proprietary stories you > cannot access from any other source. And with a subscription, an open sesame > to pay-for web sites, for example, JSTOR if some kind of deal can be struck > with that organization, and other similarly proprietary organizatons. That is *the* problem everyone is trying to figure out: how to pay full-time journalists, or at least attract dedicated volunteers. The problem is that the barriers to entry are so low, and the economics of online advertising so different than print newspapers, that it is difficult to generate substantial revenue. Physical newspapers tended to have monopoly (or at least oligopoly), which effectively let them subsidize reporting on a small percentage of the costs of printing and distribution. The best bet for something truly novel that has enough "fences" to generate non-trivial revenue is probably Murdoch's iPad news app: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/media-lab/mobile-media/114499/the-first-look-at-the-daily-rupert-murdochs-ipad-newspaper/ Rupert Murdoch's iPad digital newspaper raises many questions – but who has the answers? | Media | The Observer That is far from a sure thing, but they at least have made a serious attempt to think through a sustainable business model. -- Ernie P. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
