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        

« Jeff Jarvis, Bill Keller and World Domination | Main | Guest Post: Is Google's AutoLink Patent Pending -- By Microsoft? »

February 20, 2005


Howard Owens

We recently added comments at the bottom of our stories, and while I know this has been done elsewhere before, the exercise has been most revealing ... some fascinating discussion threads have started and in some cases, stories have been better told by the combination of our reporting and the comments. We've been encouraging reporters to respond to any comments where they can help clarify, expand or respond to a point.

Also, we'll be doing the letters to the editor as a blog, as well.

Furthermore, we've started a blog where our AME for new media discusses what we're working on for the next day's paper and we encourage reader feedback.

Alex Krupp

Only one thing separates the NY Times from a tabloid: the former you can talk about with friends, the latter you can't.

Why do you think the all time classic first date is dinner and a movie? It's because you go to the movie, and then you have something to talk about during dinner even if you have nothing else in common. Being able to talk about the movie is what gives it value, even though the events in the movie are (usually) fictional.

Being able to talk about something is what makes it real, and talking about something adds value to it. The New York Times has this great asset, and by not allowing users to comment on and talk about the articles on their site they are only half capitalizing on what they have.

Because they are asleep at the wheel, sites like slashdot and fark are making money on what should be a huge cash cow for the Times. Of course the reason the Times can't allow users to comment is because there is no accountability, i.e. anyone can post anything so there could potentially be some liability issues. However this problem will be solved within the next couple of years...

Someone in the last thread said the Times may have finally jumped on the Clue Train, to me it looks more like they got run over by it.

This post shows that the Times thinks we are all against them, but they don't get it; we are all rooting for them to succeed! The Times has the potential here to be the biggest company in the history of big companies, and it makes me ill to know that they can't see what I and a lot of other people can. Give me an hour and I could fix this company myself, but of course none of us are going to get the chance and they will probably continue to flounder their way into obscurity.


I've actually got an example of the kind of thing Okrent mentions on my site regarding their decision to kill the Bush "bulge" story.

The comments to this entry are closed.