Reply to post: Re: Short-lived but well-received

In defence of online ads: The 'net ain't free and you ain't paying

Ken Hagan Gold badge

Re: Short-lived but well-received

"I think we just have to accept that journalism is following music down the road to being an almost entirely amateur activity."

This, in spades. Applies to basically all forms of publishing. (YouTube's amateur content matches most of the output of "proper" TV stations. Academic publishers are facing a revolt from their own content providers in many fields. Even the porn appears to be free.)

Yes, you lose the editorial quality control and that does mean you get an awful lot of dross (and in the case of porn, probably a fair proportion that is criminal evidence), but if we can find new ways of sorting or searching by (our personal measures of) quality then this won't matter (except for the criminal bit -- I think we ought to be worried about that).

You may also lose the possibility of investigative journalism, which would suit the rich and powerful, but the internet appears to be offering a replacement in the form of millions of individuals who are willing to publish and be damned. It is not clear to me that we'll actually be worse off -- just different.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019