> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:42 PM
> Subject: RE: [ZION] News sources
> Newspapers are a waste of time.  Outdated anachronisms. I have always
> hated those damned inconvenient bundles of flimsy pages that are so
> cumbersome to manipulate, and such a worthless liability after the first
> scanning.  And they're such a crashing bore.  Most of the material is
> paid advertising, which you then have to pay to read.  What an absurd
> arrangement.<<

The economics, whether the news is printed on paper or delivered over the
internet, is roughly the same. Advertising, in one form or another, pays for
the news.  The fee you pay for a newspaper pays only for a small fraction of
the actual costs of producing the news.  The same is true for radio,
television and internet-based news organizations.

 > Printed "news" was never really very "new" anyway.  I'm glad it is a
> dying art. <

All you're commenting on here is the medium.  The news-gathering process is
the same, whether its print or broadcast.   If they ever figure out how a
news organization can make serious money on-line [which they have not, yet,
but they will], the internet could become the primary news delivery source.

I don't think many reporters have a preference as whether their reports are
distributed over the internet, or limited to the local printed rag. What
they do care about is "audience size." A reporter in  Outback, USA is always
thrilled when his stuff makes the national wires.  The internet now allows
him to go direct, but it DOES NOT yet guarantee him a big audience.

The "Google" service you mentioned, and similars, will, in time, deliver a
audience of a predictable size which will doubtlessly include other news
organizations that may or may not pass-along each report.   But, as the case
is today, not every journalist or writer with something to say will see his
stuff picked-up by Google.  Like the AP, or UPI, Google will act as a

News gathering is a very expensive proposition, which is why so many smaller
newspapers, radio, television etc. rely so heavily on news services like the
AP, UPI, New York Times etc.  One strength of the New York Times is its vast
staff of reporters. The recent bombing in Istanbul was covered by three or
four Times reporters who were already on the ground there.  By contrast, as
good as NPR, until it can fly someone in it must rely on rewritten stories
from the AP/UPI or feeds from the BBC or freelancers who may or may not be
up to NPR standards.

> CNN is a few steps behind in quality, but always available.<

Yes, and it got considerably more reliable as a comprehensive news gathering
organization because of its merger with Time and its relatively vast team of
staff foreign correspondents and editors (and their sources) as well as its
well-established network of stringers in virtually every berg in the world.


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!

Reply via email to