Comments on: Rupert’s pincer movement around a trapped Times

By: Wednesday reading in the online world | stevemullis[dot]net

Wednesday reading in the online world | stevemullis[dot]net — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:20:44 +0000

[...] Speaking of Murdoch, Jeff Jarvis weighs in on the matter. [...]

By: LIIDEA

LIIDEA — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:47:16 +0000

Some ideas for a Web 3.0 citizen based media network here: http://www.onelongisland.com

…may be a little far fetched, but who knows?

By: Evan Rudowski

Evan Rudowski — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:43:31 +0000

Jeff,

Interesting analysis overall . . . however I think you give too much credit to the Guardian in this equation.

As an American who has lived in the UK for 10 years now, I am skeptical of the Guardian’s ability to resonate with more than a small sliver of Americans. I consider myself to be politically left and liberal, but the British definition of liberal — embodied by the Guardian — is often far to the left of the American version. The Guardian’s take on certain subjects often makes me cringe. I don’t think the Guardian’s voice is right for the American left, except perhaps for what we Americans would consider the far left.

The Guardian is beautifully designed and well written, but it often seems strident. If the Guardian wants to be the voice of American liberalism, they will need to tone it down a bit. If they remain faithful to their true voice, they will be unlikely to be relevant to more than a small audience.

Kind regards,
Evan

By: Steve Clancy

Steve Clancy — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:29:08 +0000

One thing I don’t understand is how/why Murdoch and News Corp. is considered so dangerous in the digital marketplace. I feel like all the Fox Interactive properties are very weak - even mySpace has been essentially run into the ground under their watch. If the Times needs to evolve as digital product, won’t Murdoch need to do so as well. Or are you simply saying that Murdoch couldn’t compete with a digitally savvy Times product?

By: nanute

nanute — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:59:24 +0000

Jeff:
I think that the consolidation of print and broadcast meida may just accelerate the end of “traditional” media as we know it. As you noted on the Brian Leherer show this morning, Clear Channel is a mess, The New York Post and other conglomerate owned companies are in real trouble.

Furthermore, I would argue that what traditional outlets in print and broacast are providing is anything but jouralistic in nature. Even my once beloved NY Times has succumbed to the level of publishing stories that are no longer balanced journalistic reporting. Granted, the editorial page remains somewhat liberal, but that isn’t the same as reporting the news with journalistic integrity.

Rupert Murdock may be a good buisnessman, but I think his ideological perspective will get in the way of providing a credible information network.

By: Ron Mwangaguhunga

Ron Mwangaguhunga — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:00:54 +0000

What about the New York Times becoming “The World’s Leading Centrist Voice” under the ownership of Michael Bloomberg?

By: Dean Wermer

Dean Wermer — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:32:08 +0000

They already are America’s liberal voice.

By: John

John — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:20:39 +0000

My first thought on hearing about Murdoch’s strategy to take on the NYT by using the WSJ was that this created a great chance for the Financial Times to be the true global business paper, which to me is the direction Murdoch should take the WSJ in.

The NYT will survive a Murdoch onslaught, because in the end credibility is what matters most to an audience like the NYT readers and any paper ruled by Murdoch is suspect.

By: Harry

Harry — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:10:42 +0000

I’d get rid of Pinch, and, no, I’m not being sarcastic. He’s clearly not up to the task of running the Times, and no strategy for renewal can succeed as long as he’s at the helm.

But, you say, Pinch isn’t going anywhere.

That’s why any discussion on what the Times should or shouldn’t do is pointless.