Comments on: Points to Forbes http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/ by Jeff Jarvis Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:49:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: ShelbySpeaks http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348997 ShelbySpeaks Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:08:19 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348997 It'll be great to continue to see the fresh faces that come out of the independent audience. I think it'd be great to see something like an independent reporter, relaying their perspective on the war and such. Is this sort of thing out there- links anyone? Im curious. <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/?s=bl&promo_code=3317-1" rel="nofollow">-NewsMax</a> It’ll be great to continue to see the fresh faces that come out of the independent audience. I think it’d be great to see something like an independent reporter, relaying their perspective on the war and such. Is this sort of thing out there- links anyone? Im curious. -NewsMax

]]> By: paul http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348827 paul Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:13:42 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348827 So where is the Forbes Org Chart? So where is the Forbes Org Chart?

]]> By: Paw http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348820 Paw Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:26:02 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348820 As is typical in these conversations, Hurley neglects to discuss a fundamental aspect of the brave new world - how will the creators of all this content be compensated for their efforts? Hurley is a thief. He steals copyrighted material, compensates himself for its use and tries to tell his victims it's good for them. He lauds the efforts of "independent writers and actors, musicians and producers creating compelling content on par with the studios, networks and labels". He just doesn't want to pay them. How long can this situation last? It takes time and effort to create compelling content, even in your own home. And how many of his so-called homegrown stars ever find their way to a payday after Youtube? Heard much from Lonelygirl15 lately? As far as Murdoch is concerned, he's not really in the news business, in the sense of news gathering. His version of news (TV news specifically, which is the most lucrative by far) basically consists of talking heads yelling at each other. There's no real news gathering at Fox News Channel at all. While it's certainly an innovative business model, it can hardly be called news. As far as entertainment is concerned, Fox Broadcasting, like all other traditional networks, continues to live in the old Hollywood system, hamstrung by the guilds and their own fear of operating outside that system. Same with the movie studio. He's not really thinking out of the box here - talking the talk but not necessarily walking the walk. As is typical in these conversations, Hurley neglects to discuss a fundamental aspect of the brave new world - how will the creators of all this content be compensated for their efforts?

Hurley is a thief. He steals copyrighted material, compensates himself for its use and tries to tell his victims it’s good for them. He lauds the efforts of “independent writers and actors, musicians and producers creating compelling content on par with the studios, networks and labels”. He just doesn’t want to pay them. How long can this situation last? It takes time and effort to create compelling content, even in your own home. And how many of his so-called homegrown stars ever find their way to a payday after Youtube? Heard much from Lonelygirl15 lately?

As far as Murdoch is concerned, he’s not really in the news business, in the sense of news gathering. His version of news (TV news specifically, which is the most lucrative by far) basically consists of talking heads yelling at each other. There’s no real news gathering at Fox News Channel at all. While it’s certainly an innovative business model, it can hardly be called news. As far as entertainment is concerned, Fox Broadcasting, like all other traditional networks, continues to live in the old Hollywood system, hamstrung by the guilds and their own fear of operating outside that system. Same with the movie studio. He’s not really thinking out of the box here - talking the talk but not necessarily walking the walk.

]]> By: Patrizia Broghammer http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348815 Patrizia Broghammer Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:57:05 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348815 Never like now news has become entertainment. And the good entertainment, the one people like, is that which involves themselves. Either as writer or just commenters. Once we had the NEWS, where somebody wrote, possibly in good English, what was happening or had happened or what he thought right to say. Now "Fundamental trust in your users is the only way to have a successful relationship with them." Translated in common words: let the people talk, because that is what they like, that is why they read, that is what creates sales. Better or worse? As in everything there is something better and there is something worse. But one thing is for sure: there is something more and that more is that News is not anymore a monologue, but it is getting more and more a dialogue, which is very good... Never like now news has become entertainment.
And the good entertainment, the one people like, is that which involves themselves.
Either as writer or just commenters.

Once we had the NEWS, where somebody wrote, possibly in good English, what was happening or had happened or what he thought right to say.
Now “Fundamental trust in your users is the only way to have a successful relationship with them.”
Translated in common words: let the people talk, because that is what they like, that is why they read, that is what creates sales.
Better or worse?
As in everything there is something better and there is something worse.
But one thing is for sure: there is something more and that more is that News is not anymore a monologue, but it is getting more and more a dialogue, which is very good…

]]> By: Chris Newman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348792 Chris Newman Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:57:17 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348792 With the ever changing technology, the power is definitely in the hands of the people. With the rise of YouTube and other outlets, people have a wealth of news at their fingertips. The "so called old media" has evolved, but they could have never foreseen the rise of YouTube and blogs. The org-chart wiki on the Forbes website gives the users the power to control the content. With breaking news, users are providing many media outlets the content they wouldn't normally have. With the ever changing technology, the power is definitely in the hands of the people. With the rise of YouTube and other outlets, people have a wealth of news at their fingertips. The “so called old media” has evolved, but they could have never foreseen the rise of YouTube and blogs. The org-chart wiki on the Forbes website gives the users the power to control the content. With breaking news, users are providing many media outlets the content they wouldn’t normally have.

]]> By: Sean http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348764 Sean Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:37:52 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348764 That's interesting - I thought the issue was a complete waste of time, and in fact, tossed it after the first "article". The reason I subscribe to Forbes or to any business magazine is to for insightful reporting & analysis, not self-congratulatory articles by CEO's. It felt like a bad blog compilation, but larded with so many ad pages and special ad sections that I thought I was reading Vanity Fair. Of course, Fortune launched the Fortune 500 issue this week, which also appears to have almost no reporting or analysis, but is full of long charts that are really more suitable for a website than a magazine. Did the business magazines finally figure out that it is cheaper to eliminate talented staff and just publish charts? It's a sad day when blog posts are providing more analysis and business coverage than the key magazines. That’s interesting - I thought the issue was a complete waste of time, and in fact, tossed it after the first “article”. The reason I subscribe to Forbes or to any business magazine is to for insightful reporting & analysis, not self-congratulatory articles by CEO’s. It felt like a bad blog compilation, but larded with so many ad pages and special ad sections that I thought I was reading Vanity Fair.

Of course, Fortune launched the Fortune 500 issue this week, which also appears to have almost no reporting or analysis, but is full of long charts that are really more suitable for a website than a magazine.

Did the business magazines finally figure out that it is cheaper to eliminate talented staff and just publish charts? It’s a sad day when blog posts are providing more analysis and business coverage than the key magazines.

]]> By: Tansley - addendum http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348762 Tansley - addendum Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:30:05 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348762 For Jake: HEAR HEAR!!! For Jake: HEAR HEAR!!!

]]> By: Jake http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348702 Jake Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:46:45 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/23/points-to-forbes/#comment-348702 Shouldn't the title of this post be called, "Rupert Murdoch caught telling truth?" Shouldn’t the title of this post be called, “Rupert Murdoch caught telling truth?”

]]>