I believe that question can be applied to literally every argument you make.

Note that ads on YouTube aren’t the only relevant factor. Google is widely believed to use behavioral information collected on each service to improve its behavior everywhere. That’s important because Youtube gets enough traffic that it could improve advert selection elsewhere by >1-2%. What’s that worth? (Again, what’s the basis for your opinion.)

Looking at things from their point of view, I don’t see what benefit they’d get from saying that Youtube isn’t as profitable as they’d like. (No, proving you wrong isn’t important to them.)

Google plays most things close to the vest. Why do you think that Youtube would be an exception?

http://gigaom.com/2009/06/16/youtube-infrastructure-costs-vastly-overestimated-report/

Does Manitoba really believe that the NYT folks weren’t arguing that bloggers do bad things at least in part because of their mode of operation? Does he really believe that the NYT folks weren’t arguing “we’re better because we work this other way”?

If Manitoba has a beef with the idea that “process” journalism is unacceptable, he gets to take it up with the NYT folks. I’m sure that the arguments in the article that I cited can be improved.

For some reason, Manitoba finds that article inadequate. Perhaps he’ll tell us one that has even more information. Surely he won’t argue that we should just link to the statements and not the discussion.

Sorry, I misread – we are actually in agreement.

you misconstrued my comment. Jarvis was suggesting that the Times could move a step away from batch and towards your model of RT journalism by following the standards and practices of 24-hour cable news. I was arguing that your criteria for a successful RT news organization were much more radical than CNN’s standards. It seems, reading your own comments, that I did understand you properly. You say: “RT tactics are at times used by brands like CNN when there is a hurricane or a school shooting, but there are still understandable verification steps that go on behind their ‘magic journalism box’.”

By the way, I did not mention CNN in order to defend its Iran coverage…and I mentioned CNN’s timeliness not its timelessness.

CNN deals with big developing international stories but their strategy is still rooted in batch processing insofar as they’re hesitant about dropping stories. This is the reason that @cnnbrk has only tweeted 4 times over the weekend despite having a constant stream of information about Iran.

I’m not sure if you read my post or not but this is not about Old vs. New so much it is about what works in two distinct mediums.

If you could get a reputable community that actively participates in this journalistic process, you could brand it. Branding it is perhaps the easiest step, the hardest being original information. Plus, the media’s reputation that it does not at all deserve has not truly been torn down yet. If it were attacked in an intelligent manner, people would look to a new source. Of course, this would have a greater meaning for society than just changing the newspapers they read.

It might be accurate to say that this was a trial balloon. Establishment journalism’s defenders have been looking for an effective way to argue that the latest kind of new journalism is bad.

At first glance, process vs product might look good on the theory that who could possibly argue for going public with something that might be wrong.

The speed with which that idea unravelled tells us something….