Siwar 
The traditional press is plunged into an unprecedented crisis and faces the urgent need to rethink its economic model. This crisis is raging with particular virulence in the United States, a country which combines a plethora of local newspapers with a high Internet penetration rate. The current financial crisis has added to the mix to create a perfect storm.
The rest of the world, the crisis is severe, but less rampant. While some see their beards are bare, others put theirs to soak, and all rack their brains to find a lifeline that, nowadays, it seems uncertain.
As we mentioned already, from this rostrum, these experts often seem to persist in trying to save as a battered ships, whether they are used to navigate the new waters, or not. Much rarer, however, are the voices raised how to build new ships to sail the media landscape of the future-something that seems much more sensible and plausible.
The reason is clear: the design of these ships of the future seems to require small size, agility, enormous creativity, openness to citizen participation and multitasking ability to provide diverse and customized content in a variety of formats and platforms. A light and colorful flotilla, in sharp contrast to the oversized and monochrome battleships of the past.
salvation tables basically being proposed can be grouped into four: subscription, micro, new reading devices, and nonprofit foundations. These systems were described in detail in an article published recently in these pages.
Basically, all these tables of salvation is of doubtful viability for the same reason: to democratize the channel, we have gone from a monopoly to a system where there is a huge range of information. Also, the transmission model of information and is not unidirectional, but multidirectional and conversational.
This seems obvious, but judging by what you read in the press, it is not. A recent article David Carr in the New York Times comes to writing yet another chapter in the list of brainy opinion articles that propose a solution to a problem nineteenth century XXI century.
David Carr proposes , neither more nor less than all the newspapers are united in a common front and turn their editions on-line payment system, block, simultaneously and seamlessly. No more free content!, He proclaims.
Aware that his proposal is not only unethical but also to the law, Carr suggests that applies to the press a defense to antitrust law. No comments.
Internet has made available to the inhabitants of the planet a huge amount of information. It would take volumes to detail the benefits this has brought and is placing on society as a whole. Therefore, reading the words of David Carr over me feelings more. On the one hand, I can hardly express my solidarity with the plight of those who are willing to defend their privileges at the expense of the common good. On the other hand, it saddens me to see the shortsightedness of those who hold in their hands, not the survival of a business, but the survival of institutions that have been cradles of the best journalism and I think they are still an important role to play in the information landscape.
In times of crisis, one sees the best and worst of institutions and individuals. In traditional media are excellent journalists who understand their profession as a public service, and exercise a personal commitment to freedom. I am sure that the internet was still a prominent place for them. Unfortunately, in traditional media, we also find individuals who are unable to see beyond their declining status of the communication beautiful children, members of an elite club so far, impregnable, whose membership fee has gone from the night morning to worthlessness. Clubs whose membership is now open to all those who demonstrate passion, talent and worth, no matter who they are or are not sponsors, or whether they passed or failed by the stage of eternal scholar, or by the octroi mileurista newsroom, or if have survived abuse or cannibalism with the traditional gift for journalists to their peers.
Carr suggests, in short, an artificial lift an iron curtain behind the journalism, and back fifteen years ago. One wonders if it would not be a contradiction to the very principles of journalism, and if CreAcción of a cartel of newspapers is not a challenge to sociopathic internet has brought benefits to all citizens, including journalists.
is assumed also that those journalists hidden behind the Iron Curtain have free access to content is on the other side. Carr and lackeys seem to accept quite naturally, of course!, That the toll would always unidirectional and that the return would be only fifteen years ago in what suits them. I really would be more acceptable if these means the proposal could not include, nurture and consult information sources some on the Internet, without the corresponding micro-to citizens, to blog, Twitter or medium that provides the clue or the news on the Web By reducing its proposal to the absurd, we would say that if you do not want to pay, which go on street notebook in hand, and that dust off and bail out of the attic the teletype.
By reducing this model to the absurd, we see that the Carlet Segida informative Carr suggests not only an anachronism, illegal, and sociopathic, but perhaps also impossible.
Experimentation seems to me important and desirable but, frankly, in the Internet age, this unusual proposal seems to me like trying to put gates to the field.
The traditional press is plunged into an unprecedented crisis and faces the urgent need to rethink its economic model. This crisis is raging with particular virulence in the United States, a country which combines a plethora of local newspapers with a high Internet penetration rate. The current financial crisis has added to the mix to create a perfect storm.
The rest of the world, the crisis is severe, but less rampant. While some see their beards are bare, others put theirs to soak, and all rack their brains to find a lifeline that, nowadays, it seems uncertain.
As we mentioned already, from this rostrum, these experts often seem to persist in trying to save as a battered ships, whether they are used to navigate the new waters, or not. Much rarer, however, are the voices raised how to build new ships to sail the media landscape of the future-something that seems much more sensible and plausible.
The reason is clear: the design of these ships of the future seems to require small size, agility, enormous creativity, openness to public participation and multi-tasking to provide diverse and customized content in a variety of formats and platforms. A light and colorful flotilla, in sharp contrast to the oversized and monochrome battleships of the past.
salvation tables basically being proposed can be grouped into four: subscription, micro, new reading devices, and nonprofit foundations. These systems were described in detail in an article recently published in these pages.
Basically, all these tables of salvation is of doubtful viability for the same reason: to democratize the channel, we have gone from a monopoly to a system where there is a huge range of information. Also, the transmission model of information and is not unidirectional, but multidirectional and conversational.
This seems obvious, but judging by what you read in the press, it is not. A recent article David Carr in the New York Times comes to writing yet another chapter in the list of brainy opinion articles that propose a solution to the century A problem nineteenth century.
David Carr proposes , neither more nor less than all the newspapers are united in a common front and turn their editions on-line payment system, block, simultaneously and seamlessly. No more free content!, He proclaims.
Aware that his proposal is not only unethical but also to the law, Carr suggests that applies to the press a defense to antitrust law. No comments.
Internet has made available to the inhabitants of planet a huge amount of information. It would take volumes to detail the benefits this has brought and is placing on society as a whole. Therefore, reading the words of David Carr over me feelings more. On the one hand, I can hardly express my solidarity with the plight of those who are willing to defend their privileges at the expense of the common good. On the other hand, it saddens me to see the shortsightedness of those who hold in their hands, not the survival of a business, but the survival of institutions that have been cradles of the best journalism and I think still have a very important role play in the information landscape.
In times of crisis, one sees the best and worst of institutions and individuals. In traditional media are excellent journalists who understand their profession as a public service, and exercise a personal commitment to freedom. I am sure that the internet was still a prominent place for them. Unfortunately, in traditional media, we also find individuals who are unable to see beyond their declining status of the communication beautiful children, members of an elite club so far, impregnable, whose membership fee has gone from the night morning, worthless. Clubs whose membership is now open to all those who demonstrate passion, talent and worth, no matter who they are or are not sponsors, or whether they passed or failed the intern stage eternal mileurista octroi or the newsroom, or have survived abuse or cannibalism The traditional gift for journalists to their peers.
Carr suggests, in short, an artificial lift an iron curtain behind the journalism, and back fifteen years ago. One wonders if it would not be a contradiction to the very principles of journalism, and if the cartel CreAcción a newspaper is not a challenge sociopathic the internet has brought benefits to all citizens, including journalists.
is assumed also that those journalists hidden behind the Iron Curtain have free access to content is on the other side. Carr and lackeys seem to accept quite naturally, of course!, That the toll would always unidirectional and that the return would be only fifteen years ago in what suits them. I really would be more acceptable if these means the proposal could not cite sources or check nurtured any information on the Internet, without making a micropayment for the citizen to blog, Twitter or medium that provides the clue or the news on the Web By reducing its proposal to the absurd, we would say that if you do not want to pay, they are out, book in hand, and dust off and rescue teletype attic.
By reducing this model to the absurd, we see that the Carlet Segida informative Carr suggests not only an anachronism, illegal, and sociopathic, but perhaps also impossible.
Experimentation seems to me important and desirable but, frankly, in the Internet age, this unusual proposal seems to me like trying doors field.
