Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

ON THE MEDIA: Dying newspapers, vanishing coverage

Amateur-run Web sites a poor alternative

By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 7, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated February 9, 2009 at 9:07 a.m.

Text size  


SPECIAL SECTION » The Rocky Mountain News is for sale. On December 4, 2008, E.W. Scripps, the owner of Colorado’s oldest newspaper, said if a buyer does not step forward it will pursue other options – including closure.

Click to read stories about the sale, and see what other news outlets have been saying about the paper since the announcement.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

CORRECTION: This column should have said that Examiner.com pays its writers. Also, the column incorrectly left the impression that writers are unvetted by Examiner.com.

'I don't care if all the farmers and ranchers go out of business. I get my food from the grocery store." A silly comment, eh? Because, of course, the grocery stores don't produce their own food; they sell food that is grown by farmers and ranchers.

Some people say, "I don't care if all the newspapers go out of business. I get my news from the Internet." But as Rocky Mountain News sports columnist Dave Krieger pointed out in a Jan. 21 column about Broncos coverage, the vast majority of news on the Internet comes from old- fashioned newspapers.

To see what kind of sports coverage we'd have without traditional newspapers (and the wire services that were created for them), I examined coverage of the Monday night National Hockey League game in Denver, in which the Colorado Avalanche beat the Calgary Flames 4-3. Rick Sadowski of the Rocky and Adrian Dater of The Denver Post each penned lengthy, well- written stories about the game.

Now hypothesize there's no Rocky (perhaps as soon as March) and no Post (perhaps around 2011). Where do you read a game report?

On the Internet, you would find The Associated Press story by Pat Graham. On newspaper Web sites, his story was greatly condensed, but the Web sites for Yahoo! Sports, MSNBC, CBS Sports, and Fox Sports published longer versions. ESPN.com linked to the Rocky story.

Scott Cruickshank, of the Calgary Herald, also wrote a good story. In a Web search, you probably would have first found it at the National Post, one of Canada's two national newspapers.

The game was summarized in very few paragraphs in NHL round-up articles on the English-language Web site for Chinese Central Television (cctv.com) and by Chris Wright for The Sun (a British tabloid).

So, consistent with Krieger's thesis, the game coverage on the major national Web sites for sports was provided by traditional newspapers and wire services. If newspapers don't exist, neither will this content.

What would be left?

To start with, there's the Avalanche's own Web site. It featured a 10-paragraph, workmanlike article by Avalanche employee Craig Stancher, summarizing the game's action. The article was fine for what it was, but did not have much analysis or perspective.

The Avalanche Web site does publish one or two articles most days, and some of the articles - such as reports on the Avs' farm team, the Lake Erie Monsters - provide detail far beyond what appears in the Denver papers.

Then there's Examiner.com. Headquartered in downtown Denver, Examiner allows paid authors to register as subject-matter experts, and to spend several hours a week producing stories on their particular topic. There are scores of Examiner editions for different cities, and a national edition.

The Denver edition has nine Examiners (that's what an individual writer is called) for local sports, including one for roller derby which, to be frank, has not been thoroughly covered by the Rocky or Post.

The "Colorado Avalanche Examiner" is Brian Thompson, who wrote a 17-paragraph article about the game with Calgary. He did a pretty good job, and his article showed in-depth knowledge of the Avalanche. For example, he noted that in the remainder of the season, the Avs must address "their ever present inability to dump the opponent's fore check."

I would say that the Rocky and Post articles were better, though. First, they supplied quotes from players and coaches. Presumably, Examiner authors could obtain press credentials, and also gather pre-game or post-game quotes. But when your writing is a part-time labor of love, rather than a full-time paying job, the time you can spend gathering facts is relatively limited.

Second, the Rocky and Post writers were better at supplying precise details. In Examiner: "The Avalanche, in arguably their most physical performance this season, matched the Flames hit for hit, shove for shove, scrum for scrum." In the Rocky: "The Avalanche played a physical game, registering 36 official hits, nine by Ian Laperriere." This was followed by two paragraphs of quotes from the Avalanche coach about Laperriere's hitting.

Finally, the Examiner article had some clever writing ("Arch villian [sic] Todd Bertuzzi was booed mercilessly by the Pepsi Center crowd"), but also some sports cliches ("Wins will be at a premium and the margin for error now is razor thin.")

Eliminate most of the editors, the cost of printing and delivery and don't pay writers a salary and you've certainly reduced the cost of newspaper production. In a sense, Examiner's use of unpaid writers is a massively scaled-up version of the what the Rocky and Post have been doing to local coverage with YourHub.

Surveying the reporting of one hockey game doesn't tell us how well the Examiner covers hard news. But in any case, the Examiner might represent what will replace daily newspapers in many cities.

Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 11 books. He can be reached at kopeld@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • February 7, 2009

    12:50 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    troopermsu writes:

    I for one can't stand the "volunteer" media. Mainly, I can't trust the reporting from these sources. The quality of reporting is directly proportional to the number of quotes and facts within the article. Most of the "citizen" journalists fail to make use of quotes or statistics. For the example above I could easily write the same article for examiner.com by simply watching the game on tv. We'll all be less informed if papers like the Rocky are not around.

  • February 7, 2009

    5:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JohnSWren writes:

    The fax machine brought down the Berlin Wall, it looks like the Internet is bringing down major newspapers that don't change.

    The Rocky Mountain News doesn't have to die, but it must change. Joseph Shumpeter called the process of economic adjustment to accomodate technological change creative destruction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_S...

    What if the Rocky became more like Wikipedia, with reporters being editors of the "citizen" journalists.

    I'm going to make newspapers, changing technology, and creative destruction the focus of an upcoming meeting of the new Denver Startup Forum. Join us (free) to get an announcement of the meeting. http://DenverStartupForum.ning.com

  • February 7, 2009

    7:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    TallPaul writes:

    Good analysis. It's true. We'll lose the in-depth coverage on the sports front and that's a shame.
    I canceled my Rocky Mountain News subscription after 20+ years because it became so partisan on the political front. It is unabashedly Democrat, from political to social to business (anti-business) and is intellectually insulting as it tries to feed this agenda to intelligent people. We can go elsewhere to try and get balanced views.
    I wonder if the Rocky had been more middle-of-the road and more credible, if it could have held on to more readership. It's a little bit like a country and western performer. If they stick to their strengths, they keep their audience. As soon as they reveal and promote highly partisan and infantile opinions ("I hate Bush...") where it's obvious they don't know what they're talking about, they immediately lose half their audience.
    Could moderation have saved the Rocky? Good question. But the left-wing agenda appealed more to young and "anti" people who don't buy or read newspapers.
    It's been a slow evolution, as the leftist papers die off. People slowly move to balanced, like Fox (not an Obama lapdog) and Drudge Report.

  • February 7, 2009

    7:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    davehughes writes:

    This comment/question by JohnSWren "What if the Rocky became more like Wikipedia, with reporters being editors of the "citizen" journalists" is the first sensible comment on the viable future of 'electronic journalism' that I have seen for 30 years since I was first 'online.'

    And yes, I subscribed to the first online service in the world "The Source" using a Radio Shack Model 1 and an Acoustic 300 baud modem in 1979, and I set up my eventually-famous 'Roger's Bar' electronic democracy bulletin-board on a Model 3 with TBBS software that came from a hacker in Denver in 1980. On which I was the 'Electronic Bartender' - moderator, sort of, as locals dialing up over US West lines via the first Hayes Micromodems argued, debated, local politics. Interesting enough that the Wall Street Journal physically visited it and me in Colorado Springs and did a perceptive article on this 'new' communications technology. I go back so far, long deceased (RIP) Gene Amole asked me if I would write military commentary (yes editorial opinion, not RMN edited news articles) on the first Iraq invasion, from my military expertise.

    So I have seen it all during the years in between.

    1. Yes print newspapers are dying because of the unfavorable economic balance between online communications and print distribution - largely because of the decline of costly print media advertising - long the bread and butter of print journalism.

    2. So far all those threatened publications (AND television AND radio broadcast) have tried to 'go online' in various ways. The RMN sponsored 'HUB' is one initiative with its idea of 'citizen journalism.' In fact even the main paper Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, also declining in circulation and advertising contracted with the RMN to use its (flakey) software. Now the GT is still profitable, unlike the RMN, but it sees the handwriting on the wall, so is experimenting boldly.

    3. BUT its a mystery to me why such publications still don't yet 'get' it - that electronic journalism, COULD work, if those enterprises both paid electronic journalists AND edited their work in the traditional way - requiring second sources, careful review, fact checking, and ALL the things good editors do with good reporters, and THEN 'publish' such work online, bylined or not. Sure such 'publishing' enterprises still have to attract advertisers - but successful online advertising, as both Google and Craigslist prove, works economically.

    (Continued)

  • February 7, 2009

    7:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    davehughes writes:

    4. But I have yet to encounter, not only that simple and obvious way to insure the continuous viability of journalism, but the RMN and others - including the smart editors and publishers of the Gazette - don't even take the FIRST step online, which is true, interactive,' online MODERATING of either Blog discussion on their system like this one, OR 'citizen journalism' HUB entries. I Instead, except for silent, in the background censorship of inappropriate language or behavior of posters, I have yet to encounter pro-active 'discussion leaders' as one would find in ANY face to face 'conference' or 'meeting.'

    5. The HUB is simply newspaper-subsidized online 'editorial opinion' writing. Which is fine, but just as distinct from 'journalism' as are the editorial pages of the RMN, from the front print page articles, with signed or not opinion makers. NOT 'reporting and editing' in the classic case - which CAN be ported online. And IF it were, and the 'reputation' of the 'online' 'newspaper' grew for its accurate, edited, 'reporting' and thus attracted far more 'readers' than these blogs or hub postings do now, the number of eyeballs looking might start advertisers to pay attention, and pay the extremely reduced real cost of not only producing polished online advertising, but also the reduced cost of 'publishing' by the enterprise.

    Why the RMN or others can't grasp that simple truth above escapes me. OR if they do, why they haven't started 'training' their reporters and editors via the most obvious media - moderating blogs and hubs.

    You tell me. But JohnSWren glimpsed the possibilities. I wonder whether a single RMN reporter or editor reads what he said and 'gets it.'

  • February 7, 2009

    8 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SheikYurBooty writes:

    TallPaul - the RMN is in no way "unabashedly Democrat" [sic] - I suspect you have spent too much time drinking the far-right Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly koolaid so that you think anything to the left of them (almost everything and everyone) is "Democrat" as you note (with incorrect grammar).

  • February 7, 2009

    8:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    davehughes writes:

    Now the lack of skill by the RMN staffers (those who program these blogs and those who monitor them) are evident in what happened when I wrote the above two substantive postings.

    1. Nowhere did I see BEFORE I started composing online did I see a simple warning that this blog would only permit entries less than 3,000 'characters'. Only after I attempted to post the 4,000 characters did it warn me I couldn't.

    2. Now why should I spend my time, or the RMN expect, that I will take the time to go somewhere else to read all the rules the RMN has for anyone posting? Even in a face to face meeting, the 'moderator' wielding the gavel at, such as city council meetings during uncontrolled 'citizen discussions' the speaker is usually warned BEFORE they talk to keep their comments under 3 minutes. NOT during their comments. What a simple point? But the RMN doesn't get it.

    3. But I, knowing how clumsy and non-professional most ALL blogging is run by newspapers (don't feel bad - the NYT and Washington Post are not much better) I took the precaution of capturing my screed, copying it to a scratch pad BEFORE I tried to post (because sometimes one gets dumped without warning). Thus was able to quickly edit down my posting to under 3,000 characters, post it, then open a second one, and paste paragraphs 4 and 5.

    4. So what is my point? The RMN has yet to really train its own paid staff to learn how real people with real internet connections really communicate, converse, debate online. And the worst offenders are the RMN technical 'programmers.' Techies are the worst designers of really effective online blog or HUB coding. They don't know how PEOPLE communicate. And the editorial staff does not know enough how PROGRAMMERS work!

    5. Its NOT rocket science! But until (and it may be too late for the RMN, possibly not the CS GT) their paid staff's really start learning the online world and how to adapt that to real 'journalism' practices, many more print newspapers are going to go under. There always will be a place for journalism, editors, and profitable news organizations. I am just surprised why it is taking so long to learn it.

  • February 7, 2009

    9:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    davehughes outlined my feelings best. I have longer & better Internet ( and DARPANET ) credentials than he has. Remember FIDONET & UUNET? I was on both. I specialized in making COMPUTERS talk to each other. Human beings are another story...>8->....

    I also have " professional " credentials in the art of DEBATE. ( college training in communication and formal debate & it runs in the family ).

    Our site, www.trollvalhalla.com has NO restrictions on content and I fully support the idea that Main $tream Media have properly moderated fora that allows proper debate of the issues.

    Our site is ENTERTAINMENT. We have fun poking fun at the NEWS, arguing amongst ourselves and just VENTING sometimes. We have a SYMBIOTIC relationship with M$M.

    What M$M needs is to adhere to the goals that created M$M in the first place: INFORM PEOPLE OF THE FACTS OF AN EVENT.

    That is where PROFESSIONAL REPORTING should be.

    THAT IS WHAT THE READER WANTS TO SEE!!!

    This is what was implied when I recommended that you check out the competition. Our site is GROWING...and a cross section of society are running it and are members....( yah, we have some pro Internet guys there )...

  • February 7, 2009

    9:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    intothelens writes:

    As a former print and broadcast journalist for 20+ years, I can tell you with confidence the field has been greatly "cheapened" by our society's appetite for tabloid gossip and acceptance of citizen journalists. You can't expect editors sitting behind a keyboard to lay the groundwork for a story (facts, supporting facts, quotes, double-checks, covering both sides, etc.) that starts at ground level -- the reporter. I removed myself from the TV news photography field because viewers accepted the shaky, hand-held, shoot-while-running video from a cell phone. The well-crafted, artfully composed and visually inspiring stories from award-winning professionals haven't made a difference in the ratings. News operations haven't maintained a strong stance, either, in the dignity and honor of the profession, instead choosing to chase ratings/readers with "info-tainment." But, arguably, that's what pays the bills. Feed the masses what they want for your greatest gain, never mind the intellectual numbing and dumbing down of the content. Watchers and readers, this is what your numbers have shown you want. When the mistakes start happening, you start getting pissed off about sentence structure, major errors get aired, etc., lack of support for the true journalism profession has to largely shoulder the blame.
    And TallPaul -- if you consider Fox and Drudge to be balanced, you're unbelievably misguided. These venues are to conservatives what MSNBC and the Huffington Post are to liberals. That there are vehicles like these openly promoting agendas and admitting their biases, and still dressing themselves as legimate, honest, fair, truth-seeking news operations, is a travesty. It is an insult to the real journalists, and further muddies the waters for the viewers.
    Now, more than ever, a media consumer has to ask themselves, "Can I really trust this source?" The educated answer is too often, "no." But worse, the question is too often never asked.

  • February 7, 2009

    9:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JohnSWren writes:

    Intothelens, you raise some interesting points.

    But what do you think about Wikipedia? It's my understanding that it has more entries that Encyclopedia and is more accurate, even on technical subjects.

    Why wouldn't that approach work with newspapers?

    Take the Avs game Dave talks about in this column. What if all the various articles were wrapped together by the citizen journalists and the pro at the paper? If it works for an encyclopedia, why not for at least one daily online newspaper in each major market?

  • February 7, 2009

    10:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    The problem with Wikipedia is it's assets: The ability to let ANYONE edit the articles!
    I know; I am one of it's citizen editors. I have had to correct the entries on the Cray related articles because some had FACTUAL errors. I should know; I WAS PHYSICALLY PRESENT WHEN THOSE FACTS WERE CREATED!!
    Wiki WAS a good idea. Unfortunately, some people have used Wiki articles to promote THEIR agenda by omitting FACTS that don't support their slant on an issue.
    You are starting to see disclaimers on Wiki because of this problem.
    Main $tream Media is falling victim to that same problem. Editors MUST root out slanted JOURNALISM and return to REPORTING THE FACTS.
    I am forced to look for other sources to verify Wiki articles these days. It was not the case in earlier times. Sigh.

  • February 7, 2009

    10:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rcop writes:

    The grocery store/farm analogy was a good one. The truth however is that the farm is putting out tainted food and the grocery store is just a conduit.

    One of the reasons newspapers are failing is that they don't report hard news any longer. Editorial decision making has crept into the news pool and is affecting how and what gets reported.

    When asked why in the world I would ever tune into Fox on cable for their biased reporting of the news, I say that I am forced to get a balancing version of the news so that I can understand what is really going on.

  • February 7, 2009

    10:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bitwranglers writes:

    I agree with TallPaul, except I haven't cancelled my paper subscription because I need it to start fires. I don't care how much kindling you pile on top of your monitor, it just won't do the job. I do notice the quality of writing and reporting does get cleaned up somewhat when you compare the online and paper versions of the same story. Some of the AP feeds are simply atrocious, and they are passed for online consumption without review. The local reporting is slightly better, but the lack of craftsmanship really shows. So I guess if we're going to read biased and sloppy junk, it might as well be free.

  • February 7, 2009

    11:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vimbo writes:

    With the exception of shiekyurbooty's silly little seminar comment, this is the best thread I've ever read on rmn.com. Nice, cogent thought. Kopel is great, and if the Rocky goes under, I hope he lands on his feet. There are myriad problems leading to the demise of American newspapers, and most are economic in nature, with the internet making newspaper advertising obsolete. But as long as folks like John Temple continue to discount or misunderstand the real anger and discontent felt by the half of Americans who are tired of the media denegrating America, newspapers will continue to face lessening circulation. Just having a balanced opinion page isn't enough. Propaganda in news stories has helped kill the print media.

  • February 7, 2009

    12:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    vimbo adds to the discussion. I actually sent a letter to Mr. Temple, I hope he reads it. I don't want M$M to go away, just clean up it's act.

    I WAS helping the comPOST on the media migration to e-media ( YourHub is one example ), but the on-line editor started to GODERATE and and abuse his CENSORSHIP powers. That is why I dropped the comPOST from my WORLD WIDE viewing habits. Censorship here is tolerable, but is far better than some others.

    And THAT is the crux of the whole problem. THE CONSUMER finds out which sites give VALUE to their on-line ( and print ) time. If you don't add VALUE, THERE ARE OTHER PLACES TO GET IT! We are no longer stuck with people like AP and their ilk. We ARE voting with our feet. ( or mouse clicks )...

  • February 7, 2009

    4:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    coskibum writes:

    TallPaul writes:
    Could moderation have saved the Rocky? Good question. But the left-wing agenda appealed more to young and "anti" people who don't buy or read newspapers.
    It's been a slow evolution, as the leftist papers die off. People slowly move to balanced, like Fox (not an Obama lapdog) and Drudge Report.

    Wow now that's fair and balance... I can understand one's leaving a publication due to differing views but, do you really thing these two outfits (I will not call them news or journalistic news rooms) give a non partisan view? They tend to be some of the most partisan views of any reporting outfits. If that's you cup of tea fine, but don't call them BALANCED!

    The problem with any publication is that if print costs are brought into the fold, you're at a disadvantage. With online newspapers once the software is paid for, the only cost of operation is the pipe to the internet and employee wages. I'm guessing nowadays that most reporters can use their home computers to upload their stories to the publication's servers. Where as the print publication is at a significant disadvantage with all the cost associated with printing and distributing, buildings and taxes.

    That said, I hope RMN is able to hang on as an online news entity that gives the "younger generation" a different and more enlighten view of Colorado and aboard. If not, you will be missed greatly…

    Coskibum
    (old guy)

  • February 7, 2009

    5:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DonaldJohnson writes:

    Here are a few thoughts from a former newspaper reporter (WSJ, Sun-Times, Journal of Commerce), magazine editor and publisher who first went online back in the early 1980s. I still subscribe to three dailies, the Rocky, WSJ and IBD and a few weeklies. I want the Rocky to survive.

    Dave K. apparently hasn't sat in an editor's chair that allowed him to compare copy written by professional reporters and volunteer experts. I have, and the experts almost always outperformed the reporters–except when I'm the reporter :).

    The reason the Post and Rocky reporters outperform bloggers today is that there is no reason for a volunteer to try to beat the pros.

    If the Post and Rocky disappear, I'm pretty confident that volunteers will easily take their places.

    Today, Politico.com's paid writers beat the political journalists on all newspapers. Hands down. Writers on seekingalpha.com, including yours truly, produce better and more useful copy about the markets and investing than any newspaper. Hands down.

    Techie bloggers and other volunteer writers have dominated computer and software journalism for more than a decade.

    Newspapers movie critics have lost their turf to the web sites that cover film. New moms get their best advice from message boards, not newspapers.

    So, while I love my newspapers, if they disappear, I won't miss them that much. There's already more content on the Web than I can use on any given day, and much of it is good stuff.

    Dave Hughes is right on btw.

    www.businessword.com

  • February 7, 2009

    6:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    davehughes writes:

    Just as I was posting the above comments, here came the US mail and the current Time magazine. Guess what the cover story is? "How to Save Your Newspaper." And then inside a long excellent article by no other than Walter Isaacson, previous managing editor of time. Where HIS solution is charging for 'content' but by far better ways than are now possible.

    Read it. You can (free, of course ha ha) at

    http://www.time.com/time/business/art...

  • February 7, 2009

    7:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    davehughes writes:

    Oh yes, The_Punnisher, I was quite aware of UUNET and Fidonet. In fact, since my goal was to insure that all of Rural American, where 25% of the population lives on 97% of the land area, get connected, I helped a teachers college in Montana use Fidonet linked to UUNET, via UUCP to start connecting up 115 one-room schoolhouses to the world. It was called Big Sky Telegraph, and at least got the smallest towns started.

    That worked tolerably well until I dove into the earliest (1990) release of unlicensed, tolerably secure, digital wireless. Which was invented (US Patent) by the love of my life when I was 13, Hedy Lammar, whom I successfully nominated for a national award while she was still alive at 83. And I used from the Rain Forests of Puerto Rico, to schools in Ulaan Bataar, Mongolia, small farms in rural Wales, the outback of Alaska, to Sherpa schools at 15,000 feet on the slopes of Mt Everest.

    For the FIRST requirement is for affordable broadband connectivity. (unlicensed wireless was a start) And THEN people being able to talk to other people online, and in ways moderated when in groups (blogs) or purposeful meetings and then being able to distribute whatever one has of value to the rest of the world at very low cost. THEN the profession of journalism can find its place and role, and reporters can get paid for their work.

    Isaacson believes that journalistic content can be charged as low as a nickle a piece. But he decries the lack of 'micropayment' choices - paypal being too costly below $1 transactions.

    Nuts, when the Sherpas of Nepal asked me to help them connect up their kids so they could learn 'oral English' - else they will be doomed to carry heavy loads for Westerners for $5 a day, I was able, taking off the shelf products to link up small classes of Sherpa kids in Thame, 5 miles with three relays to an IP satellite base service in Namche, up and down from there through Kathmandu, to Hawaii, then by terrestrial wired internet to Pittsburgh, where a Sherpa who is now a programmer in Pitt, knows English and Nepalese taught ORAL classes at ZERO added (beyond the fixed network costs) cost using free Skype connectivity. And in case you didn't know, Skype would permit delivery of written content - newspaper articles? - at the same time over the same connection. Skype with its Skype-out (ability to go from your computer connected to the net to ANY voice telephone in the world, for peanuts and micropayments. Like two cents a minute to any phone in the US or Canada.)

    There are already ways to do this. So WHAT national newspaper is going to connect all the dots?

  • February 7, 2009

    10:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    You did Big Sky? My hat's off to you. I just wanted a public duplicate to what we had at Cray...

    Then " the Internet " evolved. $5000 interface cards got cheaper. Our " club " got larger as private enterprises signed on.

    What was purely in house became a standard world wide. The Internet evolved. We pioneered. ( I had my share of arrows in the back )

    Who will be the pioneer in the media world? Here is your chance, RMN. Opportunity is knocking. We broke the rules and made the systems that couldn't be made. Break the rules, RMN...

  • February 7, 2009

    10:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    paidexaminer writes:

    The real danger to reporters, newspapers and readers is that newspapers are now hiring contractors and freelancers at a record pace who who will write articles and columns without the benefit of editors and simple fact-checking. For example, this article repeats several times that Examiners aren't paid and that authors are "allowed to register as subject-matter experts." Both of these statements aren't true. Examiners must apply, go through a background check and be selected. And we are paid, admittedly not a lot, but compensated nonetheless.

  • February 11, 2009

    2:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TroyJGrice writes:

    Sob, sob. Once upon a time, information was delivered through clay tablet. The clay tablet scribing business was wiped out by the invention of the papyrus scroll, which was, in turn, obliterated by Monk-scribes and paper who were ultimately undone by the printing press. Now the clunky newspaper is being vanquished by the internet. That's life. I'm sad to see the Rocky go but its absebce will not, in any way, impede the flow of information.

    What I'm expecting is for some congressfool to propose a bailout of newspapers (probably to save the NY Times and Paul Krugman from obliteration). This will be like trying to preserve the buggy-whip industry during the onset of the automobile.