My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

May 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

« Bubble, Bubble, Bubble, Bubble... | Main | Telecom Companies Versus Communities »

April 15, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834207e7e53ef00d834593bb269e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Economics of News (Not Newspapers):

» More on news in the online world from Bleeding Edge
We suggest you'll learn a good deal more from journalists committed to the practice of news gathering, than from Rupert Murdoch, who's merely committed to the practice of power - and very good at it.... [Read More]

» Economics of News from J-Log: Journalism News, Media Views
Dan Gillmor: Economics of News (Not Newspapers) - Gillmor has a great roundup of the Changing Economics of News conference at Berkeley. Some good thoughts on advertising, content (hard news variety) and circulation. [Read More]

Comments

Jack Krupansky

You note that Brad DeLong asks: "Why is Bloomberg (which hired the Washington Post's excellent Federal Reserve reporter) more interested in covering the Fed correctly than the Post?" I think I actually know that answer to that one: the audience of Bloomberg (Wall Street professionals) has a more intense interest in the minutae of Fed tea-leaf reading than the overall Post readership. Sure, there are plenty of Post readers who valued his commentary and ruminations on all things Fed, but the hard-core demand for that expertise is clearly a Bloomberg kind of thing.

"Bond traders" hang literally on every single word uttered by "The Fed". Sure, lots of us depend on interest rates and would like to know where rates are going over the next while, but die-hard bond traders are laser-focused on each and every Fed utterance.

Incidently, take a look at the former Post columnist's comments on bubbles in his latest Bloomberg column.

The Post is simply a business like other businesses and has to judge the extent to which reader interest and demand for the services of advertisers will benefit from this or that columnist or reporter. Sometimes "cost-cutting" is an actual issue for companies, including "Big Media". And sometimes a company simply doesn't have the opportunity for career growth that their employees seek. That can be true even for the biggest and wealthiest companies.

-- Jack Krupansky

Paul Conley

I used to work at Bloomberg News, so I may have a little insight.
First, as Jack points out, the Bloomberg audience of money managers, high-net-worth folks, etc., is more interested in Fed policy than your average person.
Second, Bloomberg News has an advantage that the Washington Post and other news outlets do not. The news division is nothing more than a value-add to the core services of Bloomberg L.P. -- data and messaging. Users don't pay for news. In fact, users don't have the option to NOT get the news. All Bloomberg services are included and sold at a single price point. Bloomberg customers pay thousands of dollars every year for their terminals whether they want news or not. (By contrast, Reuters and Dow Jones sell varying levels of their services with multiple options.)
In short, Bloomberg News has an operating budget that dwarfs its rivals, while having no need to generate revenue to cover its costs. Data and messaging are valuable enough that Bloomberg customers pay more than enough to subsidize the news department.

Joe I.

Dan hope your grassroots journalism ideas flurish-

Well lets hope the "NEW" news sources are better than the lying sacks of sh** at the NY Times. This will blow up on the web. After the Blair fiasco here is another former NYTimes writer who did a piece for the Globe and was busted for complete fabrication....I read this article originally on a RSS feed and was upset by it. Now who knows. Perhaps the seal hunt is humane. Now I am going to cancel my NYTimes subscription due to what is not an isolated incident but looks like a culture in the NYTimes of lying and making things up....SHAME!!

Lets hope the "national" newspaper of the future is more credible!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/15/national/a160551D63.DTL

Dan Gillmor

Joe, to a major degree the business relies on trust. The Globe got conned, it seems. That doesn't mean the Globe is corrupt, or that the Times has a culture like the one you allege (and I believe it plainly does not have that culture).

The comments to this entry are closed.