jueves, 27 de agosto de 2009


Critica Mark Glaser en una serie de tweets a Paul Farhi, del WaPo. Glaser está mosqueado por el artículo Build That Pay Wall High, donde Farhi defiende el pago por contenidos en la web, etc. Enrabiado, comenta Glaser:
It's as if "us web people out here" just want print to die, so the web can rule. Uh, right. What about blogger-journalists?
Exagera. Farhi es un campeón 2.0 que habla y discute con los lectores en Station Break más que muchos los gurús y profes del Periodismo Ciudadano & Participativo. Si hubiera seguido leyendo el debate se habría encontrado esto, con lo que está perfectamente de acuerdo:

Re: Bloggers: Why aren't bloggers more interested in helping newspapers make a go of it on-line? If we lose the big newspapers, what will they aggregate and/or comment on? I mean, CakeWrecks will probably still be in business, but anyone whose subject is current events will suffer greatly with no original material to work with.

Paul Farhi: I generally agree with you, although sadly, newspapers have cut back so much that they are providing less and less original material all the time. I can't imagine a world (or an internet) without the raw factual material that newspapers provide every day, but I guess the bloggers don't really care about any of that. They're mostly about themselves and their opinions, with little thought given to where they're getting their basic facts.


Pay wall: I've been reading the Post exclusively on-line since it became available. Prior to that, although I read the copy available at work, I'd dropped my daily subscription (too much paper to dispose of, too many hassles with delivery). I'd be willing to pay for Web access, even during periods when I don't have much time to spend on the site. But if it went dark, I'd just depend on TV. You couldn't pay me to start taking a daily paper again.

Paul Farhi: Well, 620,000 people pay us to get the paper every day. But I recognize that other people feel differently. The thing about a pay wall, though: It will drive away lots and lots of traffic. Which means we will deliver fewer readers to advertisers. Which means they will pay less for the ads that they place. I doubt that the additional subscription revenue will make up for the lost advertising revenue (which isn't all that great to begin with). A lose-lose proposition...

…y el resto de las 6.705 palabras de la discusión gira en torno a los Redskins y la próxima temporada de la NFL. Ya son ganas, Glaser.

No hay comentarios: