On the Ideal Internet and Newspapers

Hey, remember when you weren't so cynical? Remember back when people thought the internet could be used for more awesome things than watching porn or cats do stuff?

This is that awesome. This guy got fired from his beat writer job and decided to keep doing it. 

He got donations from readers and used the money to cover the Nationals' spring training. Cool. Shit.

This is local 'zine type stuff. Life is for the enterprising. Although I feel for all theses guys that are getting canned and have families to support, I can't really do much about it. That kind of stuff happens to most industries eventually. It is just basic animal-kingdom type stuff. This dude didn't spend his time writing woe-is-me columns or get a crappy job to fill time (although he may have thought of that--who knows). Instead he goes out and does something. Gotta love that.

When I start to think about it, it seems like the answer to the problem plaguing the newspaper industry doesn't it? For a century now, newspapers' value has been timely, quality news and information. It has two customers: the advertisers and the readers. It attracts the readers with its content, and the advertisers with the readers. Somewhere along the line they figured out that the advertisers would pay to tell them who to attract. And thus was born bias. (Not really of course but its my blog and I can do that)

I suppose one reason why I think what this guy is doing is so awesome is because it is so pure. He wants to cover these things and the people reading want to read what he covers. He has the time and skill, they have the money. They trade. Boom. Blogness time. Its beautiful. Its capitalism.

It makes me see the inefficiencies in the paper industry more clearly. They kept trying to feed my the whole Lunchable when all I wanted was the crackers. Or the Ham. Or the dessert. See what I mean? I would guess the percentage of people who read the entire paper is small. Is it beneficial? Sure. If you did would you have the breadth of knowledge that you otherwise wouldn't? Of course. Is sticking to that idea screwing the industry? Yep.

Over the last few years, papers have tried charging differently for the product. They changed it. Made it smaller, or less colorful, with less writers, with more local, with less local, with more sports, with less sports, with local sports, with national sports, etc. The whole time there were entities that did each thing better. Sports? ESPN. Gossip? TMZ. News? The Internet. Local news? Ah. there you go. They should have (and still should) have split the thing up. There isn't as much money to be made. But its not like they are rolling in the dough right now is it?

That would be nigh impossible though. There was and is too much attachment to the old-way. It would be too weird for too many. Old people would complain. Poor people without internet would complain. So we are going to end up with an even bigger collection of conglomo-papers. We'll read the NYTimes-Dallas.

Unless ...

Some of these young journalists do something like this. There are people out there that really care stuff like local politics on the reporting side and on the reading side. Its a lot less expensive to pay for a guy to go to city-hall meetings etc. They could reasonably afford to be news-patrons. It is freaking brilliant. The best part is that there would be more reporting and less advertiser-appealing.


Having said all that, there would be problems, ranging from laziness, to outright libel. Still, its would be fun to see and I would definitely support it. Shoot, if I had any journalism skills I would turn meangreennation.com and mgnation.ning.com into that kind of thing. I don't so I won't. Also, no one really gives a crap about it.

Still, all you guys on gmg.com, would you be willing to (collectively) fork over 70-80 grand per year to support Vito as full-time MG Beat Writer?

Makes you think.


Links:

Nats Insider

ESPN story on the blogger

/via Deadspin