It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Warren Buffett Says Free News Unsustainable

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Has it? What specific online 'competition' are you thinking of? Can you name some?


The competition is the singular medium of the Internet. Local news is now world news. That paradigm will take the destruction of a two generations of people and most of their technology to undo.

How many newspapers can you read in one day? Are you going to purchase subscriptions of all the ones you have access to over the Internet? It is highly likely the majority of the populous will gravitate towards news offering the best content under a certain measure of trust.

If a news source is having hard fiscal times, it is the editor in chief that is directly responsible. Any questions about that, just review the sender of the mail stacked on their desk. Review the email the chief has tagged important. Longevity has never been about the business model.




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CodeRed3D

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Has it? What specific online 'competition' are you thinking of? Can you name some?


The competition is the singular medium of the Internet. Local news is now world news. That paradigm will take the destruction of a two generations of people and most of their technology to undo.

How many newspapers can you read in one day? Are you going to purchase subscriptions of all the ones you have access to over the Internet? It is highly likely the majority of the populous will gravitate towards news offering the best content under a certain measure of trust.

If a news source is having hard fiscal times, it is the editor in chief that is directly responsible. Any questions about that, just review the sender of the mail stacked on their desk. Review the email the chief has tagged important. Longevity has never been about the business model.



What a long-winded way of totally avoiding my question while further illustrating how little you understand the issue.

Again, if NEWS (not aggregating) organizations that want to charge for content will be squeezed out by ones that offer free info, can you site some examples of these 'free' news sites you are referring to?

I suspect you think news aggregate sites like Drudge or HuffPo are news sites. They arent. They dont generate content. They recycle it.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CodeRed3D
 


Yes, unsustainable for giant news corporations.

Which means its a great idea



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Again, if NEWS (not aggregating) organizations that want to charge for content will be squeezed out by ones that offer free info, can you site some examples of these 'free' news sites you are referring to?

I suspect you think news aggregate sites like Drudge or HuffPo are news sites. They arent. They dont generate content. They recycle it.


Their competition is all the news from other sites being pulled into that aggregator. Before aggregators most people weren't aware of the many alternatives. The best ones will remain because of their "content", not because they instituted a subscription content model. Those that take Buffet's advice "just to remain buyable" by his standards will eventually be eaten for dinner anyway.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CodeRed3D

When free news is readably available via news aggregators, the general public has better insight on telling fact from fiction. Unfortunately, when just a few companies control the majority of media output, it is all but the most liberal minds who see the fallacy.


Here's where you get it wrong. News aggregate sites dont pay writers. They dont even pay their sources. They collect actual news from actual news sites and collect it on their website, so they can get ad dollars, by directing readers AWAY from actual news sites, onto their sites.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Here's where you get it wrong. News aggregate sites dont pay writers. They dont even pay their sources. They collect actual news from actual news sites and collect it on their website, so they can get ad dollars, by directing readers AWAY from actual news sites, onto their sites.


If the news isn't worth curating, it isn't worth reading. Period.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Most news stories, alternative or not originate from wire service reporters or newspaper reporters. The it get disseminated online. If the wire services and newspapers can't pay people to go around and do the job of reporting, then there's no one to freely disseminate news from. I see his point, if the bulk of news comes from a source that most people don't get their news from, that sounds unsustainable to me.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike
Most news stories, alternative or not originate from wire service reporters or newspaper reporters. The it get disseminated online. If the wire services and newspapers can't pay people to go around and do the job of reporting, then there's no one to freely disseminate news from. I see his point, if the bulk of news comes from a source that most people don't get their news from, that sounds unsustainable to me.


I really do get that. I totally understand it.

Regardless of the new policies adopted by those following Buffet's advice, there will always be news aggregators. That's a constant you can rely on. Shutting content off from aggregation or preventing curators from citing an article from your paper is very poor advice. You want exposure. You want that relevance.

I would like to argue that the most successful news sources are the ones most cited in the aggregators. Who is going to pay for that poll, I really don't know. On the other hand, you can blame the aggregators for the loss of sales. That seems more like avoidance than accepting responsibility for the content that was provided.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jedimind
This just shows the mindset of the wealthy, controlling elite. Instead of seeing the wealth of free information online as a good thing, he calls it 'unsustainable' and of course wants to nickel and dime us. Also, note that online news sites are already getting get lots of revenue from advertising which is plastered all over news stories.

It's simple supply and demand. People are slowly moving away from the garbage that is mainstream propaganda newspapers with obvious disgusting agendas of tyranny, bigger government, and fear and moving towards blogs, forums, podcasts, radio shows, sites like ats, and drudge report which provide fair and balanced information and no fee upfront.

I actually owe much of my recent political education to the commenters of articles online. They usually provide much more insight and truth than the actual article does. With any mainstream online paper, there's almost a guarantee that the author of an article has some sort of agenda that they're pedaling but people are catching on to the way that they 'make' the news instead of 'reporting' the news.

People are free to charge what they want for a service or product, but I just suspect that there's more to the story here in terms of control of information, consolidation of control of so many papers by so few, etc
edit on 24-5-2012 by Jedimind because: add missing word


I think Buffet is just having a senior moment.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by CodeRed3D
 


Here's my take on it.

Before the internet became the money making machine it is now, News print was sustainable and free news on the internet was not a threat to their bottom line.

Now, I think he has a point (if one is talking from a monetary only standpoint) that the printed news IS unsustainable...used to be on trains, buses, in stopped cars, people were reading newspapers....with the exception of the elderly you see no one or very little engaged in this way. They are all on their smart device du jour.

With that out of the way, do I think ALL news should be free? Abso-Friggin-Lutely! It sure should.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Maxmars


I am not among those who believe that there is no difference between making a living and making a killing. No one "needs" work for free... and no one "needs" to become obscenely wealthy. Compensation implies balance. It is the present imbalance that makes for the loss of sustainability.


What is the present imbalance you speak of, specifically?

Which specific aspects of a news room should be forced to curtail their compensation? Who in the online news world or publication world should be taking the hit, in your opinion?


Not meaning to be argumentative, I will answer. But I make no apology for the verbiage I will use, as the explanation you request will not be compressed into a soundbite.


The imbalance to which I refer is present in a manner that makes it evident if one considers:

Commerce is the aim of today's elite. Commerce, and the exploitation of revenue streams is highly profitable, and incidentally, very politically relevant to a commerce-dominated political doctrine (making it akin to self-serving).

The trend of amassing media vehicles into conglomerates of revenue generating streams has commercial value; but is contrary to the institutions' mandate. "News" is NOT entertainment. News is supposed to be exactly what the word implies 'new facts the public should know.' It is subjective only in the gray area between what the public should know, and what they have a "right" to know.

Unlike some of our fellow members, I do not believe the domain of the Press is to disseminate truth. I believe it's mandate is to disseminate facts. Facts, are non-negotiable, self-evident and logically separate from editorialization. Although facts can be mischaracterized, misrepresented, and purposefully corrupted... reporting "the facts" with PR (or propaganda) techniques makes the act immediately remediable (or irrelevant) if the audience is well-enough informed and empowered to recognize the act.

The imbalance comes from the power of the 'kingpins' of what they call "News" to influence and control content, delivery, and editorial discipline. (The evidence of this is in the 'owners' insistence that today's "news" is an "entertainment product" as opposed to a source of valid information intended to inform and empower our citizens.) This development was facilitated by those in the regulatory and oversight business because it was politically attractive to have allies that control information flow.

Meanwhile the discipline of journalism became overshadowed by the expedient political agendas that 'sole owners' could exert over the institution. All the while serving their commercial aims as the primary drive behind any development within the institution - purists would call it corruption, idealist recognize it as a consequence of greed. I feel it is a simple imbalance of forcing the institution to perform a function for which it was not intended.

-----------------------------------

Who should "take the hit?" There is no real reason anyone should have to .... just as there is no valid reason anyone should necessarily "get rich" in the news business. As customary, we can see that institutions run by businessmen for profit eventually decline in direct value to the society of which they are part... e.g. hospitals, security forces, and others, including the Press.

The phenomenon of people congregating in a place like this to scrutinize the information which is disseminated to us is further evidence of the defect present in this "unsustainable" model which relies on proprietary control of information as a commodity.

If I had to "decide" who should take the hit by removing the "make a killing" versus "make a living" imbalance, it would likely start with the power - "board" members and "corporate leadership" which takes the simple task of disseminating news and converts into opinion influence and extraneous business and political opportunity development. It appears that those super-citizens cannot (or do not want to) avoid the hazard of "using" the institution for purposes other than to inform.

If, by some magic, there were no press, the people would create one out of necessity. If the press is a social necessity, it is wrong to allow it to be monopolized, and made into a tool for those who override the principles of journalism, in favor of the principles of commerce.

Of course, you will disagree. But that is your prerogative. Thanks for hearing me out. If I have flaws in my reasoning I hope you will engage me again ... perhaps together, we can craft a new vision of how to reconcile the evident problem this schism creates.

edit on 25-5-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


when has the press EVER fit the model you describe it drifting from?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
news print is sustainable, it has been for over 200 years.

but add greed to the mix, and then it makes sense to deliver heavily ad spammed web versions of their paper, with little sustenance, content and overhead.



I don't get ads on my kindle version of newspapers... Not sure what rock you live under



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join