I’m sure he’d appreciate that title, though it would make him a homosexual. Right?
Anyway, I understand that Gene Weingarten is supposed to be funny, but is it even right to laugh when a guy tells a joke about his own industry’s obsolescence and what they’re trying to do to save their own asses?
I wouldn’t actually call him a “grumpy old codger” for preferring the mid 20th century style of newspapers better, but I would call him an idiot for thinking that such a format can succeed in the 21st century when every shred of evidence points in the opposite direction.
People of my generation don’t want to read day-old news printed on dead trees. I regularly turn down offers of free newspaper delivery from Haaretz because I have no use for yesterday’s stories at my door when I’m already reading today’s online for free, and I don’t want the hassle of throwing it in the trash all the time.
Weingarten may think that search engine optimization is goofy and dumb, but the reality is that everyone uses the world wide web to find information, primarily via search engines like Google, and some light on-page optimization to make a news article more search engine friendly only helps more people find it. In the old days, editors could make up wild and goofy headlines because their purpose was to be witty and catch the eye of someone at a news stand. That day is over – there’s such a title wave of information now that you have to give people what they’re looking for, or they won’t look at you for half a second.
No related posts.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
man, speak for yourself about not wanting to read the paper itself. i’m 21 and i love that shit, then i recycle it.
You’re 21 years old and you read yesterday’s news on newsprint? Are you afraid of the internet or something?
Genius, Juliana is a good example of why brochures will never die. That and brochures serve a purpose in formal meetings with reserved clients before you take them to the website.
and I don’t want the hassle of throwing it in the trash all the time.
That sounds a lot like my email inbox!
not afraid, i actually intern at a blog – i like both. there’s just something about reading the paper, having it in your hands. the way it’s organized. the photos on the page, the layout, turning to page A3. ah maybe i’m just a premature grumpy old codger.
What blog?
it’s called philebrity.
Ah, Philadelphia. When I was a kid, I used to love the Franklin Institute. Also, the shore. Also, water ice (half cherry, half chocolate). Haven’t been back there in years, though.
I guess 21 year olds are of the generation that can say things like, “I intern at a blog,” without irony. I actually remember when my friend had one of the very first blogs, in fall 1999 (I had a website in 1997-8 where I listed some thoughts every day, but I didn’t have software that powered it conveniently, and no one had thought up the word “blog” yet).
Why pay money directly for news? Let ads take care of that! Online journalism is only joining with TV and radio news, in killing off the newspaper.
And not a moment too soon. Good riddance, to the overpaid, self-appointed guardians of truth. From now on, journalists will be poor but more honest, since we can fact-check their sorry asses in an instant, and serve up those maggots with that supposed steak that’s really a cheap White Castle mini-burger. Sorry, Whine-garten! You lose.
In principle I don’t mind paying for news directly so as not to have my news consumption experience degraded by crass commercial advertisements. But this depends largely on the technology for micropayments that’s still being developed. If the New York Times charged one cent per page view (and most articles were on one or two pages), I’d probably end up paying them about $20/month, which is $20/month more than they get from me now.
{ 1 trackback }