11–20 of 64 posts
I have said before and I'll say again, journalists love twitter because it's a (free) portfolio site for them that hasn't (as yet) messed with their ability to interface with their fans (although they're moving that way).
So the solution for Twitter's problem is to find an idiot willing to pay $12 billion for a medium that many people consider the digital equivalent of an open sewer? An idiot who's willing to spend another few billion dollars to turn that sewer in a hallowed spring for journalism? And Larry Page is supposed to be that idiot? Good luck with that. Twitter hasn't an old media problem, Twitter's problem is that it has a g…
While I agree with the article's intent, we're missing the forest for the trees. The reason a billionaire has to do this is because it can't be done with traditional business models. Twitter is infrastructure. Rapid bursts of semi-trustworthy data for us to consume and consider, at our own peril. That Twitter has to change its core behavior providing that service in order to make revenue is the problem. The value it…
There's a bizarre focus on Larry Page buying it for whatever reason. Sounds almost like a plea. But hey, let's imagine that's possible - why do we want Google guy to run Twitter, too. What does that solve? Google has already tried and "failed" in the social area, Page buying it doesn't strike me as some kind of panacea. What this election cycle has proven to me is that the old media and rapidly more and more of the n…
From that perspective Twitter would be spectacularly unattractive to this crowd, as it lacks any kind of institutional editorial viewpoint. It's a newspaper without an op-ed page, which for this kind of buyer is not much of a newspaper.
NY Times is barely profitable. Some mainstream publications are in a similar situation, most are hemorrhaging money all over the printing floor.
Money is one thing, but what the established media are really frightened by is the loss of power they have been witnessing over the last few years.
They do not like it one bit.
"The country’s pre-eminent newspapers, including this one, have long been controlled by families who have understood that the press is not just an ordinary industry, but a civic calling."
While I agree with the article's intent, we're missing the forest for the trees. The reason a billionaire has to do this is because it can't be done with traditional business models. Twitter is infrastructure. Rapid bursts of semi-trustworthy data for us to consume and consider, at our own peril. That Twitter has to change its core behavior providing that service in order to make revenue is the problem. The value it…
I don't get these weird redefinitions of common words that don't convey the original meaning at all.
Old Media has a Twitter problem. They don't have the solution. NY Times is barely profitable. Some mainstream publications are in a similar situation, most are hemorrhaging money all over the printing floor. Money is one thing, but what the established media are really frightened by is the loss of power they have been witnessing over the last few years. They do not like it one bit. "The country’s pre-eminent newspape…
Doublespeak at its finest. Love it.
There's a bizarre focus on Larry Page buying it for whatever reason. Sounds almost like a plea. But hey, let's imagine that's possible - why do we want Google guy to run Twitter, too. What does that solve? Google has already tried and "failed" in the social area, Page buying it doesn't strike me as some kind of panacea. What this election cycle has proven to me is that the old media and rapidly more and more of the n…
When bloomberg was having problems w the times he called Arthur [Sulzberger] and asked for coffee. He made the case that they were treating him like a billionaire dilettante instead of Third term mayor. It changed the coverage moderately but also aired the issues in the newsroom so people were more conscious of it. But Arthur is a pretty big wuss so he's not going to do a lot more than that.
Hillary would have to be the one to call.
He also thinks the brown and women pundits can shame the times and others on social media. So cultivating Joan Walsh, Yglesias, Allen, perry bacon, Greg Sargent, to defend her is helpful. They can be emboldened. Fwiw - I pushed [Philippe Reines] to do this a yr ago.
There's a bizarre focus on Larry Page buying it for whatever reason. Sounds almost like a plea. But hey, let's imagine that's possible - why do we want Google guy to run Twitter, too. What does that solve? Google has already tried and "failed" in the social area, Page buying it doesn't strike me as some kind of panacea. What this election cycle has proven to me is that the old media and rapidly more and more of the n…
They also both have somewhat stagnant software innovation right now, so they could grow old slowly together. But more importantly, Apple could run Twitter at a loss as a data platform around their product.