Welcome To Baristanet

A great story!!!

Congratulations!!!

However from having two heated exchanges with Montclair Times Editor, Mark Potter--- he's a JERK!!!!

He is. And his dumb comment about the barista's being an eel-- leeching off the work of others-- tells you all you need to know about him..... JERK!!!

But why do old-time newspaper folks conflate the death of the physical newspaper to the end of reporting in general and democracy in particular?

I'm reminded of the music business folks who tried to say that musicians won't make music because of free downloading. And guess what? MORE people are making music than ever before.

Here, folks with a desire to report will do it-- in a new way. And much like how Apple figured out a way for musicians to get paid, what is needed is a new model for folks to pay for news.

Unfortunately, these old timers haven't figured it out yet.

And Mark Potter, hopefully, will find himself muttering under a bridge about the good old days.

Barista, has for many years, provided that " this just in" news, that one could only get from an online service. I have, many times, went here to find something I wanted to know right away...and found it.

There is also something to be said about one's local paper...more sections of news, even though one might be getting it a day or two after the fact..but still, there's something about the home town paper, which if failed, would be a shame.

Blogs, like this one here, offers a very unique quality, which only could be found on blog's...people..people who you can chat with, in almost real time...those 'conversations' make it very special - something print media can never do.

I've met many folks from the community here, some became good friends, I like that, and hope to share, and meet with, many others. And one does not have to be in the area ...I've had friends who I haven't seen in years, find me posting here, and got in touch..and that could only happen here.

Many more years Barista, I'll check back with you later today to see what's up.

Lookin' good, Baristachicks! The Montclair Times reporter did seem a bit petulant when he claimed that it is the print-and-paper reporters that do all the legwork while the electronic media plagiarizes. That was a theme repeated several times in that piece, which -- IMHO -- had many too many working parts. I was not surprised that CBS's pundit/guru who predicted the demise of all newspapers by 10:30 AM next Tuesday also happened to be in the business of aggregating print journalism stories and presenting them on -- where else -- the Internet. Who knew? The numbers, while certainly trending downward, are not the black plague. Newsgatherers and broadcasters need to revise their model, and certainly make the various electronic media delivery systems profitable.

The Internet, as we know it, is dying, too, and maybe at a rate faster than the print press. It is basically insecure and insecurable -- the architecture is much too open and too easy to compromise. The model of free content supported by paid advertising has also proven to be less than efficient and nowhere near as profitable as it needs to be. The new Intenet paradigm will no longer be free. It will be much more subscription oriented, as is the software industry as a whole. In that new model people will pay for everything they see or do on the 'net, including journalism. That will usher in a return to market-driven competition for information, which alone should drive out (and rightfully so) about 90% of the crap that is offered up for free every day.

Hyperlocal media, such as Baristanet should certainly survive, but more as advertising-oriented calendars of events, restaurant reviews, movie time-tables, and -- oh, yeah -- pudding-cup assaults.

And remember, you heard this first right here on Baristanet.

The economics of newspapers are such that they have been able to pay reporters to cover news. The kind of coverage that has been done means it is time consuming to reach people, get comments, dig up facts, have graphics prepared, write the story, get a photo taken and have all this edited and vetted.

If you look across the vast internet you will find it hard to reveal local blogs that are making money. Baristanet is one of them which is why it was featured in this report. The way hyper local blogs work is that the OWNERS have to make a huge time commitment often working well more than 12 hours a day. The CBS report did not delve into the sustainability of local news sources or their level of professionalism or accuracy. Would YOU buy Barista.net as a local business knowing that it might take years to get your money back and that the "job" would control your every waking minute? It's not a sustainable business model
if it's not something you can sell. And you can't sell it because you can't PAY PEOPLE enough to make the kind of commitment that the owners MUST make to make it work.

They touched briefly on the value of "speed" as if knowing something, even if it is wrong, trumps facts. It doesn't.

It may well be that with the surfeit of reporters, emerging from failed newsrooms we will have highly skilled local bloggers covering hyper local news across the nation and then depend on
news filters and blog aggregators to provide us with the news.

But the MONEY at the bottom of all this is so much less, that inevitably the public will suffer because there is simply no proof that a sustained, credible effort to report reliably on a broad swath of issues can make it on the kind of square ads you see to the right of this comment.

They can't support a staff large enough to really go out and get reporting done at the level it has been done in the past. Two people cannot get to every meeting, every event, cover every issue, take photos, video, sell ads, do the accounting, collect the money, and take vacations, get sick,
AND have an actual life.

And there is NO proof that anyone will be willing to pay for the news online because there will ALWAYS be someone willing to provide it for free.....

I love baristanet (obviously--i'm the photo editor) and i also love and buy the montclair times. why should there be a competition? each serves a vital need, beautifully. i hope that our community would give support to both traditional and new information venues and recognize the importance of each.
i pay for my online subscriptions to the nytimes, the washington post, and the wall street journal and i'm happy to do so. i hope we can find a way to compensate the traditional newspapers in a fair way because an informed electorate requires a wide spectrum of reliable news sources.

This all feels so 2000, as I wrote, substitute "record industry" for "newspapers" and it's the same argument.

There is money to be made delivering the news. People will pay for it.

The only issue here is the model-- How will it be delivered and how will they charge?

But most of these old timers (who were slow to jump on computers, if you remember), don't seem like they care enough to find a new way.

Instead, they'd rather convince us that the sky is falling if THEY don't have a job.

I really don't want to fight here but if "people will pay for the news" someone will have to provide the proof. It's simply not there.
As I pointed out, given a choice between FREE and PAY...Free wins every time.

If I can go to a blog and get the GIST of the story that was on a PAY site (and why not...as the now popular but ridiculous phrase now goes, 'Information wants to be free') why would I pay even 3 cents to read the story? If it is important enough it will be carried on 30 different sites within an hour with most of the information laid out in detail.

The barrier to entry for publishing is now literally gone. The old maxim, "If you don't like the news, start your own newspaper" has come true.

Couple the obvious fact that FREE wins over PAY with the continuing decline in online banner advertising and the decline of the 'serendipity model" of associating advertising with content in the HOPE that people NOT there for that offer will click on or otherwise respond to ads and you have the perfect storm.

Small advertisers don't have the BUDGET to do BRANDING advertising and tiny web ads don't accomplish the same thing that a Sunday preprint circular does in print. They CAN'T.

Look at the ad to the right for Park Street Automotive. Click here for coupon? For what?

So SEARCH is replacing much of the function of advertising for people with specific needs. Small advertisers in the near future will come to understand that optimizing their site for search will serve them more effectively than the "blue sky" of associating their ad with content.

I don't foresee a bright future for local news since the landscape of providers will of necessity constantly shift.

When will people understand that GETTING the news costs a lot and that online advertising can't really support a truly robust wide area newsgathering operation?

Aaron,

Your thesis is wrong. Period.

People pay for free all the time.

The best example is WATER. Likewise, internet, which for many around here could be had from a neighbors wi-fi....

99% of the water in the US is good and clean. Yet, for some reason, people pay for it.

Music was/is free too.

People now pay (some of us reluctantly, but still....).

So the issue as I said, is the model.

Instead, the news industry would rather argue.

But someone, somewhere is going to do it and they will make all the money.

Like Apple and iTunes.

The record industry could have done it, instead, they spend their time suing college kids.

itunes makes almost no profit...it's VERY small. Apple is the first to point this out....and torrents, usenet and other file sharing continue to thrive. The morality of stealing music isn't an issue for many people...but the news is very different animal.
If I told you about a car wreck and then said, "You can pay a nickel and get more details online," I seriously doubt you'd do it. And no one would pay it if with one more click they could get the same details for free. What about that is confusing? There IS no monopoly on information any longer.

Water is a terrible analogy. That's about convenience and packaging. The internet levels the playing field for information.

And again..SHOW ME AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE PAYING FOR GENERAL INFORMATION. THERE IS NO MODEL THAT WON'T BE TRUMPED BY FREE.

Look at the television stations in your own market. They all have websites. If a local blog chose to start charging for access to information why would anyone go? What is to prevent someone from putting up another blog and then subscribing..then cherry picking the facts? The TEXT may be copyrighted but not the core information in most cases. It's public knowledge.

It's NOT like music which is proprietary, and it's not like WATER which you DO pay for (ever pay your water bill? or pay for a bottle of it for the convenience or additives?)

Show me ANY reasonable model. It's not enough to argue that "all that is needed is a new model." That's a specious argument from start.

Even the N.Y. Times stopped charging for access to "premium content" despite the fact that they made money from it..and Rupert Murdoch has held off going to pure advertising model for the WSJ since his well heeled vertical market customers pay so handsomely for the convenience of that service.

Local journalism is not that way. Ad rates are too low, the barrier to entry for competition is too low and people are unwilling to pay. Case closed.

What?

"Water is a terrible analogy. That's about convenience and packaging. The internet levels the playing field for information."

Ummmm, that's the idea here-- convenience and packaging.

You can claim it's different, because it refutes your argument, but it's true-- people will pay for something they can get for free if you give them a reason.

As for Apple making money on iTunes, the point there is also to show that (some) people WILL pay. Not that people stopped downloading.

And perhaps you should do a simple search before you spout an urban myth as "fact."

(A simple google search found that Billboard's Ed Christman "estimated $161 million to $390 million of operating profit on revenue of $1.9 billion. That comes out to an operating margin of 8.5 to 20%.")

Likewise the NY Times-- you know, a newspaper, had a post on its website- here we go- also calling out this myth.

Apple makes money with iTunes, the question is how much.

But since you leave it with CASE CLOSED.

I guess you rule the day, huh?

No further discussion here folks, Aaron has deemed this issue dead!!

Show me proof.
Assertions mean nothing.
Give me a list of ten unaffiliated news websites
Making a profit.

If you are right this should be easy.

(Has the case been reopened? Oh, lucky us. Thanks!!)

Um, what?

Where did I say a news site was making money? In fact, I specifically called this 2000 with the record industry.

Not my job to find a workable model. And if I did, I'd be working on it, Aaron, not sharing with you.

That's the issue here-- what's the model?

Beats me. But I know someone will find one and someday we'll back on this, and it will all seem funny....*(Springsteen....)

(Further, I love how you fail to address that you repeated an urban myth as truth-- because of that, friend, you're gonna have to work hard here to get me to believe anything you write.)

Now if you'll excuse me, I just got an email from an Nigerian Prince who needs me to send him some money.....

I'm curious what content Baristanet has pilfered from other sources. Baristanet routinely reports on breaking news that is supplied by the community. F*** the Montclair Times.

There is no workable model....aside from tiny hyper local sites in limited geographic areas with a tiny staff that works an inordinate number of hours. THAT's the point.

There are SO few of THESE (though they may grow in number) that we won't see a larger scale workable model emerge. There are simply too many factors that militate against it.

I've been in the business of journalism since the 60's and have been building websites since 1993. I have also been a consultant for corporations regarding the internet for a long time.

What I am arguing is this in case you don't quite grasp it. A workable model for larger scale journalism can't be built UNLESS it is a pure, constantly evolving aggregator of local blog and the remaining larger sites content. But even THEN the rates for online advertising are hovering at about 26 CENTS per thousand (according to Borrell and Associates and the Pew study)...and online display ads are clearly in decline.There is nothing on the horizon to drive these rates higher.

If you can get something for free (unlike music on itunes) without much effort (just as convenient) that is not breaking the law or against your own moral code...I argue that the majority of people will choose that over ANY amount they might pay.

Since FREE wins, display ads online are in decline (again Borrell and Associates), and there is no barrier to entry for competitors
AND because the huge bulk of the information is not proprietary... I don't see a PAY FOR INFORMATION model working on the web.

I'm not insulting you, or engaging in ad hominem attacks.

Just making my case with reasonable assumptions.
I DON'T know that someone will find a model.

There ARE TV station websites that do reasonably well but they rely heavily on the promotion for the site on free advertising.
If they went completely standalone they wouldn't draw the same numbers.

I hasten to point out that if there WAS a model it would probably have emerged by now. Blogging is not NEW. And the failure of DAILY newspapers has been coming for a long time (especially in markets where there are multiple papers).

I believe that we will see a constantly shifting landscape of thousands of voices all competing for attention and just scraping by with small overworked staffs for a few dollars. Aggregators and personal filters and the emergence of the Semantic Web will shift the balance of power even further away from what small information providers are able to accomplish since fragmentation of the market will limit the number of available advertising dollars.

Such a class comment from ubuwalker31 above. The very sort of thing which helped push hansi/fritzl out of here.

Or, because it's in favor of the Baristas, will they let it stand?

But that was a terrible CBS segment this morn. I was simply left wondering how much tape was shot to come up with those few minutes of nothing. Mr. Potter in particular was edited to seem vengeful and ridiculous. Yet where was footage of such a local eminent, straight-thinking Baristaville citizen and regular poster as, say, laserboy to make Potter look positively sagelike and mild-mannered by comparison?

I don't see how charging for individual website content is the same as television ... we pay for cable television service, but not for individual access to CBS, NBC, ABC ... and if they suggest the model for premium channels such as HBO, Showtime, et al, that is a much smaller marketshare than all basic cable subscribers.

I think the real question is: what is the value of an original investigative report, how many readers are there of such content, what are they willing to pay for it, what is the billing model (per click, per month, etc) and does the author's name and/or employer add any value to the content? Failed attempts by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times do not paint an enticing picture of this model. I suspect part of the answer lies in all the current free agrigatation of news content, plus the short attention spans of headline-grabbing news habits (who has time to read more than 3 paragraphs? and would you read a long report on screen or on paper?).

It's Mark PORTER, not Potter, who is the editor of the Montclair Times. (Just the facts reported here....)

Potter or Porter, either way he's an ass-- as he made clear this morning.

Aaron, the idea that if there were a workable model it would be in place now makes no sense.

Things happen when they happen, and usually folks in that industry say, damn, I thought that might work too--- again, EVERY music company had the idea to sell music online, but it was not until iTunes (which makes a profit, you know) showed them how that it was done.

Much like our energy crisis, somewhere, somehow, in a lab somewhere, someone is creating something that will make our use of oil/gas seem dumb.

Kinda like the radio folks crying over tv. Or the horse folks crying over the car.

And what of the phone companies? They adapted to become wireless information companies.

Things change.

The question is whether folks in the dying industry take the lead in the new industry, or do they just cry?

Again, in the very near future, some new model will emerge to render this discussion moot.

why all of the tension between blogs and newspapers? They both have a role in a well informed and active representative democracy.

And oh,btw, I hope all of you realize how special it is to watch and live during the lifetime of Tiger Woods. Remarkable.

Ice..you're so right...I grew up being an Arnie army guy, saw him play, up close, many times.

Watching the end today, was, well, like you said..watching history..I almost hate to say it ( being an Arnie fan ), but Tiger just might be the best that ever played golf.

Some years ago, when Tiger was just beginning his long streak of winning, an amazed older pro commented: "he plays a game with which I am not familiar." Quite a comment, aye?

How could I argue with the erudition of the brilliance of

"Things change"

?

People have been blogging since the late 90's, over ten years and yet no genuinely sustainable economic model has emerged across the board. SOME sites DO make money, no question about it but as a widespread trend they don't and likely won't. In internet time, ten years is an eternity and nothing that I have seen or heard in seminars, conventions, online or in practice seems to obviate this clear fact.

As of December 2007 Technorati was tracking 112 million blogs.

Think about that.

Not all of them are news obviously but my point is that if ONE blog charges...all I need to do is pay them for a subscription and then paraphrase their content, add a little of my own, sell some ads and voila! I get the audience who doesn't WANT to pay 5 cents an article or whatever the Pay to Read rate is. Nothing stops me from offering essentially the same thing for free.
Except perhaps legal action but most bloggers can't afford a copyright attorney and even if they could what would the damage award be?

In the case of iTunes (I should point out I'm also an Apple IT professional) the iPod is where the profit is...and the iTunes player, since it makes the downloading and synching of iTunes Store content seamless on ipods, iPhones, and computers is the force that binds them. It's generally acknowledged that Apple makes around 19 cents from a 99 cent song. But it's painfully obvious that OTHER music services cannot hope to rival Apple in this regard because they don't have the full infrastructure that seamlessly links the parts together. Without the ipod, Apple would not have generated the profit that they did. Hence the huge amounts of money lost by Apple's rivals.

There IS NO ipod for news that gives anyone an edge. The content is too generic and so much of it is publicly available.
Police departments have public information on the phone, on the web, and even offer RSS feeds in some cases. State and City governments publish lots of information on the web now and every organization you can name sends out email press releases.
There's no "lock" (read Digital Rights Management) you can effectively put on information. It's non proprietary.

It's possible I suppose for people to develop loyalties to certain information providers (bloggers, link pages...such as Drudge..., even certain aggregators like Topix.net or GoogleNews but there is very little money to be made in most cases.

SOME sites that generate original content (material they and they alone generate...making it ALL or primarily proprietary) COULD develop an edge and I can see how a few might be able to charge some small amount for the content...but so MUCH out there is FREE that it's unlikely it will ever be enough to support a large number of sites or even single vertical site producers (no staff to speak of).

Getting people to pay for something as generic as NEWS on the internet is a very hard road. It's why only a handful of local blogs make any money.

A couple of responses:

-- First of all, despite Mark Porter's ungracious comment, we don't pilfer news. When we pick up stories from other news sources, we always credit and link back to the original source, which sends traffic to their websites. We actually don't pick up very many stories from the Montclair Times.

-- As for the argument that this is not a sustainable business model because it requires its owners to to put in long hours, I ask: couldn't the same be said about almost every restaurant? What kind of dining experiences would we have if we required all restaurants to be scalable? Name an entrepreneur that doesn't put in long hours.

-- Regarding the serious public service and investigative journalism that is now threatened by the demise of the American newspaper. This is a serious issue, and we don't argue that Baristanet is the answer. Nobody knows the answer yet. The NPR small donation model is one possibility. Huffington Post today just announced the creation of an investigative reporting fund. We don't argue that Baristanet is the be-all or end-all to journalism, even local journalism. We think that we have succeeded, however, in being a vibrant corner in the local media landscape.

Debbie,
Truly, respectfully no..it could not be said about every restaurant. In the case of mom and pop style restaurants I'd agree that they put in long hours but that's not the test of sustainability.

Could you have two people (you yourself and another key person) become very sick and still operate your business?

Could you make a case to sell your business?

Could it run with a staff or are the revenues so limiting (for a number of reasons) that it REQUIRES the business to be run almost entirely by the principals?

I have to say that I've had good meals (to continue the restaurant analogy) at tiny places where the cook and the waitress owned the place...and I've had good meals in restaurants where the staff was large.

You can get good "food" from both mainstream media outlets and blogs or newsblogs or news sites in blog format (there seems to be some chafing at the use of the term blog for certain local news sites)... But

I have a very hard time believing that any business person would BUY Baristanet from you (should you try to sell it) AND/OR that you will want to maintain this level of effort for the rest of your life. What happens when you want to get out?

The Montclair newspaper can't match what you do precisely because they must PAY reporters who want to work a 40 (ok..50) hour week. You could not pay someone enough money to work the number of hours you put in. THAT is what I mean by a sustainable business model. If something terrible were to happen (God forbid) to the one or two people running a local blog...that community resource is suddenly GONE. This isn't the case with ANY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET RUNNING AS A BUSINESS.

BTW...that investigative fund? It has already been tried with certain AP reporters...it has not worked yet.

And...finally...I don't disrespect your efforts at all, In fact I applaud them. News is hard work and you've made a national name for yourself (as have a few others) precisely because you DO work hard and do good work. Others are likely to try and emulate your efforts. But I suspect we are moving into a time of shifting sands where blogs and news sources will shift frequently based on the health, interest, whim, capability, family situation, energy, and finances of those who run those sites.
As ProfWilliams points out, "Things change" but never so capriciously as for mom and pop news outlets.

Saying a business is not sustainable because you can't sell it pretty much crosses out most of the small businesses in the US. I spent 15 years in the printing business, supported myself and some employees, bought a house, etc. and at the end the only thing people wanted to buy was my rolodex (remember those??).

Why did I want to sell? The long hours and the fact that technology was changing the business in a direction I wasn't interested in. Sound familiar?

I was (very) fortunate enough to finally find someone who wanted to do what I had done, minus the 4 years of unprofitable start-up. That's what an entrepreneur does.

Sure, most small businesses started in the US fail within a year, many of the rest fail within 5 years because of a poor business model, "change", or just bad luck. The ones that don't power the economy and provide most of the jobs. I did it. I know.

Observation 1: Baristanet does more real reporting than The Huffington Post. Don't confuse genuine local news-gathering operations with the thousands of aggregators or millions of op-ed sites.

Observation 2: I agree to the extent that I would not pay for someone's opinion unless it had a direct monetary value to me. News, however, has the potential to be valuable on a regular basis.

Observation 3: I am only personally acquainted with 2 local news blogs - at opposite ends of the country. Both make money. (Ridiculously small sample, I know.)

Observation 4: I don't know what the future of news dissemination will be (if I did I'd be doing it) but I would pay a monthly fee for national/international news if it was reasonable, prompt and at least as reliable as current AP standards. I would continue to patronize local news sites and their advertisers. Am I typical? We'll find out.

Observation 5: Anyone who has to lie about the competition in order to justify their continued existence is toast.

Aaron,

People have been blogging since the late 90's

I'm sorry, but that is a bad example. People were driving cars for way longer than 10 years before they were anything more than a fad. It took the creation of infrastructure and dramatic price reductions to push the car into the American landscape. The same thing can be said for the internet as a whole and blogging in particular.

Sure, there were blogs in the late 1990s (and Usenet before then). But, it took ages to load even the simplest of graphics on a dial up connection and many households could not afford a computer in the first place.

Only in the last 5 years or so has the average price of a PC capable of handling what is now considered basic internet connectivity dropped to around $500 (still a luxury for many not in our immediate area) and DSL/Cable connections are still unheard of in large swaths of the country.

I would say we are still at least a good 5 - 10 years away before every person who currently relies on print media would consider the internet an equally accessible medium. Only once we hit that point will we really see concentrated effort placed towards establishing a financially viable model for charging for news from the 'net.

As the prof has said: It will happen, but not right away.

Also, please, for the love of God: Stop typing EVERY other WORD in CAPS. It is very annoying. Most people who read this site understand where emphasis is supposed to go in a sentence.

Your typing style makes it very hard to read such long posts.

Debbie, I don't think Mark Porter's comment was any more ungracious than, say, posting a screen shot of The Montclair Times' website on Election Day last year to brag over who had better coverage.

You put bitchiness out there, you get bitchiness in return.

Well you pretty much made my point. Thank you.

In 10 years of blogging TWO out of tens of thousands of neighborhoods, towns, cities, areas what have you, are managing to eke out a living working 15 hour days 7 days a week.

This isn't a sample it's an anomaly.

You know why you know about those two? Because they are not a model necessarily. They are unusual. They stand out because they are not evidential of a trend but rather what the news media and some in the public see as "proof" that it could work.

If in 3 more years we see 30 more get to the point they are in the black or even 100 it will still not be "sustainable" because the enormous majority are LOSING MONEY.
That's what the word means.

I don't equate salability alone with sustainability but also with business value. If a business makes a profit it is far more likely you can sell it and someone interested in more than just total slavish devotion to their work life will buy it.
I'm referring to the sustainability of the MODEL.

It's not like a restaurant or a printing shop or really much like too many other businesses. My point is that if the model doesn't really work across the board (as newspapers have for hundreds of years) then we are all poorer for it.

If a small community loses it's newspaper, to be replaced by a local news blog whose owner/operator/editor/reporter then gets sick where do the people get their news?

Small newspapers usually manage to put out the paper regardless precisely because many of them are not "two person" operations (some are of course but even then they don't "do it all").

There is someone to do the work because the business model makes enough money to pay someone. Not really true for local news blogs (with those two exceptions). I know of several, done by one person. If he goes to the hospital or wants to take a vacation, or spend the weekend with his children...the blogs suddenly don't have the content. That isn't a business. It's an all consuming "hobby" since it doesn't really make a profit. How long would you (or could you) sustain an effort in which you lost money? Who is doing the financing?

So far, every effort to get people to make "micro payments" for news they could otherwise get for free has failed precisely because uh...they could get it for free.

I agree that Baristanet does real reporting. No question about it. They do a great job. No confusion about that. What would happen if they asked their readers to pay a fee to read it?
Would YOU pay $5 a month to read their content? Or would you simply switch to the Montclair Times (or another local blog) for free?

News has the 'potential' to be valuable of course but since it is generic in nature there will always be the 'lowest common denominator' of FREE to limit the potential for anyone to make a profit from it. Why pay for it if you can get it free? The rise of the internet as a news source proves this point conclusively. The only barrier to entry is 'willlingness'.

Nobody knows what the future of news dissemination will be. That's why there is so much consternation about it and why websites like Baristanet get covered on CBS News.

Everybody lies about the competition. Are you kidding? Hilarious. They may not admit it even to themselves but they do.
That blog proprietor I mentioned? Constant, repeated lies about the number of pageviews they get vs. their competition. Come to think of it...you are right. He probably IS toast.

Mike,
You are right the infrastructure for automobiles was not built for many years. But the analogy doesn't really work.

Automobiles are a high ticket price commodity. Not something anyone with a wrench can produce. If there were free cars who would go out and buy one?
Plus today, the pace of change is incredibly rapid. Let's limit the time frame to the past five years if you are more comfortable.
Five years in 'internet time' is a very long time.
Local news blogs require news professionals who understand the level of commitment necessary to run them. Then they must be willing to make that commitment. Then they must be financially capable of making that commitment. Then they must live in a geographically unique (read right size) enough area to report on it. Then they must be able convince local merchants to pay for the ads to run on it. Then they must contend with the fact that online display ads don't cost much, that their price is going down not up, and that they generally are ineffective ad vehicles.
The Kindle and iPhone are both fine devices (well the iPhone is)...
but again, given the choice between free and pay to get the content for those devices most people will choose free which militates against anyone attempting to charge for it.

If you truly wish to support Baristanet for all the fine work they do...and I would applaud you for it... send them a check for $60 for your 'honorary subscription' for the year. They could use the money.

"I agree that Baristanet does real reporting. No question about it. They do a great job. No confusion about that. What would happen if they asked their readers to pay a fee to read it?"

I would totally pay. I need my daily dose Conan, Cathar, Laserman, MrsMartta, Cathar, Walleroo, Croaigusanam, Prof, Galaxyman, GNM, PadrePio, Iceman, .. God, there are way to many entertaining, informative and extremely funny posters in B'ville to mention.

I think much of Baristanets capital is in the personalities that visit and post on this site. I think the local news is often very timely and well reported too.

Aaron,

I LOVE how you substitute BOLD for the CAPS.

Made me laugh.

Equal to that, you claim to be an "Apple IT professional," yet throw out the urban myth of iTunes making no money (and your long winded thesis on the subject is far from an admission of you being wrong.)

(The long, scatter-shot, posts here are very hard to follow.)

Prof,
If you actually read the post you'd see that i point out that they do make money from itunes but only because they control the entire infrastructure of the ipod and itunes store.
This is not the case with a local news blogger. As for bold vs. caps..yeah...you got me...ok.

Mellon,
Send them a check today if you feel that strongly. I suggest $60 which pays them $5 a month. That's a reasonable fee.
Who's with Mellon? How many of you are willing to pay? 100? 200? That would be $12,000 a year. Probably enough to pay some part time reporters a stipend. But if those names you cite were available for free elsewhere would you still pay?

I would not pay, MellonBrush. What, to read myself, yourself, mikey or walleroo? Come now.

As for the idea that Baristanet offers up "reporting," no. Not at all. At least not as reporting is generally understood. (There simply isn no genuine commitment to newsgathering, although there is to skimming other sources for, uh, "inspiration.") It does, however, provide plenty of opportunities for riffing. From both the Baristas and outside posters. Which is often fun. And sometimes the riffing is even inspired. But it's not really worth paying for if it came to that. Also, the writing on so many items is just so bad, it's hard at times to take the supposed talents of its proprietors seriously. (Despite those frequent reminders how Montclair is larded with journalists, poets and novelists, too; this almost seems a form of contempt for one's audience.) Annette Batson in particular generally fails every conceivable test for the modest art of sentence clarity.

There's also just too obvious a sense of nasty calculation in too many items. They run, whether it's a slow news day or not, to elicit a certain type of post, and solely for that reason, it seems. Their news value is questionable, their ability to bring posters a-slavering to establish their own wit or nastiness is prized.

And the stroking of advertisers and likely friends of Debbie Galant et al. is just too obvious and unseemly to constitute an environment for serious journalism. I mean, to cite just one obvious example, do we really need all those mentions of Steve Adubato Jr.?

There also remains, for me, the issue of the Baristas' apparent active disdain for something probably of great interest to local readers, athletics. There's lots of coverage about kids' comedy night appearances and plays with someone's offspring in them, but of, say, Montclair and Bloomfield's h.s. football and basketball fortunes, nothing.

Yes, too, this may be an evolving format. But we still need a lot more of Joseph Pulitzer and James Gordon Bennett and a whole lot less of the odious, smug Jeff Jarvis and of Arianna Huffington (who was either herself calculating enough not to care her spouse was gay as long as she could use his money and position or was too dense to notice) to make it work.

One does wonder, cathar, why you spend so much time at an establishment for which you have so much disdain.

It's Mark PORTER (not Potter).
Mark is actually a great guy, and a dedicated and serious journalist.

I'll refrain from the rest of this discussion as media is my field.

(ps. I was formally DeborahPub but I re-registered under my real name).

It would truly help everyone's perspective (including mine...since I need to read the whole study) to read this...

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/index.htm

and specifically this

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_online_intro.php?cat=0&media=5

I offer this information in true respect for Profwilliams and Mike
and Mellon's point of view. You all have good minds and I enjoy a healthy debate. If I have annoyed or offended anyone with my sometimes strident style I apologize.

Please look over the study and give me your conclusions.

She,s got you there cathar lol. And i think the only anwser is to start your own news blog. It seems you got the time with the amount of posting you do here.it seems you have your own ideas of what a news blog should be. This is a chance for you to put up.Will you do it? Idon,t think you got the coconuts

Cathar, I'm with you regarding the sports. There are tons of fine young athletes in B'ville. It would be nice to see some of them featured in B'ville.

Deborah,

Mr. Porter may have been nice to you, but I spoke to him twice and found him to be a pompous ass--- TWO TIMES.

And reading his dumb, hackneyed "Editorials" is a comic adventure.

But why can't you comment here about "the media"?

Certainly you have an opinion on the subject, and I'd love to hear it.

I don't think having thought on where news is going puts in any jeopardy with current or potential clients.

C'mon in. The water's warm......

It is because, Debbie (ye who consistently overrates your own importance in the scheme of things), because I keep hoping that I eventually won't be disappointed here. And because you need the comments of me and so many others to, I think, keep you at least occasionally "honest."

I'd also be terrible at ad sales, while, clearly, someone at Baristanet is very good at it. No blog for me, then.

So no, you don't at all have me there.

At this point, everything that can be said on this topic has been said, so I'll just say it was nice to see Debbie and Liz on the program yesterday morning.

Awwwww, what's the matter, prof? Did Mark Porter not run stories you told him the paper should run? Something about pudding by any chance?

Profwilliams --
I'm not good at the back and forth stuff that goes on at Baristanet , although I LOVE to read it. And I do want to say that w/o Cathar, Jerseygurl, Mrs. M, Walleroo, MellonBrush, Nellie, Lasermike (the back and forth with LM and Cathar are a sitcom in the making!), you and several other regulars, Baristanet wouldn't be as interesting.
I also should say that I really like Debbie --- whom I know as an author. That said, the NYT's is probably going to be starting a Montclair blog this year. However, they won't have our posters (who, afterall, make this blog).

As for paid content -- my main client (www.cooksillustrated.com) has a VERY successful paid website (and has since the beginning).
It's a controversial way to do business (America's Test Kitchen/Cook's doesn't take ads), but it works for them.
Also, I give out a LOT of content to newspapers (I do all of their publicity/pr/media relations and events -- both mags; both tv shows and all their books).

ps I don't want to keep defending Mark Porter but he really is a terrific guy. Plus he truly cares about Montclair. I'm sorry that you didn't have good conversations with him. I will say that everyone has a bad day or two (I know that I do!).

Mr. Charles, I'm sure Porter is thrilled to have you guarding his reputation.

I called him out about several photos he ran and his backtracking, evasive and unaware comments made it clear to me-- he's dumb. And a jerk.

(Is this where you tell me you saw him help an old lady across the street? Or how he turned water into wine? Either way, he's a little man in my book---- AND his comments on show-- I REPEAT-- tell you everything you need to know about him.)

Moreover, your pudding comment was so far from funny, amusing or even interesting that it tells me all I need to know about you too.

I would be interesting to do a piece on people who regularly blog on a site like B'net, to find otu what the lure is. I picture a panel show with cathar, laserpanelist, Iceman...all the regulars...

What's the profile of a committed blogger??

I'll bet someone has compiled profiles, Nellie.

the prof sits angry in a dark room with 4 computer monitors going, casting an eerie glow to his pale skin.

He will not come out in daylight as it has a way of taking the edge of his sometimes witty, sometimes caustic, rarely kind, persona.

Just kidding.

I love everyone!!!

And write only what I would say to your face.

However, I don't want to meet anyone here.

I like the image I've created in my head.

At the risk of being flamed for double posting...

I urge anyone interested in newsblogs, newspapers and the fate of news media in general to read the Pew study. It's very well done and quite illuminating as to where we are today. You may disagree with some of the conclusions but the facts on the ground are what they are.

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/index.htm

I would truly love to hear anyone's opinion on this after they have read through it.

Thank you.

The people who comment are not bloggers (unless they also have their own blog), they're commentors, commenters? Commentators?

In 1982 I was working on a DEC computer system that ran on teletype machines. It ran over telephone lines at 300 BAUD and had the capacity to send messages back and forth between users at different locations. You wouldn't believe how fast people started to get flirtacious and crazy when typing messages rather than talking face to face.

I remember life as a kid in Hackensack...

We had to walk 10 miles to school everyday.........

Sigh. I am really shopwing my age.

In college, for extra cash, I keyed cards on an IBM 360/85. Those machines took up a whole room (that was in the last 70s).

Later, when I was in my early 20s, I thought that the Apple 2E was da bomb! I remember saving my money but by the time I had enough to buy one, it was outdated. I ended up with and IBM PC and was truly amazed when the whole internet thing came about. My earliest recollection of having email (outside of work) was 1994. I thought AOL was da bomb, too, so that just shows you how far we've really come!

You folks are old....

I remember the first generation iPhone like it was a few years ago.

The touchscreen, the visual voicemail.... WOW!!

(the prof will never admit to being jealous of my friends Commodore 64... Never.... life began in 2005!!)

TINA = There is no alternative. This is false. There are alternatives to the corporate model. Public news and not-for-profit news. Two good model examples would be the BBC and Democracy Now!. Let's not forget citizen journalism. The power is in your hands.

I was talking to William Eastman from SAGE software. He's a math/computer genius that lives on a mountaintop in West Virginia.

He told me of a time he was at a client site in the 1970s and a flat bed trailer pulled up with a full load. It's load was one million bytes of memory.. F*ck!!!!!!!!!

LaserMike,
I agree with you there ARE alternatives to the corporate model but ....

It's really a question of depth, reach, and quality. People gathering facts, doing interviews, asking tough questions, doing research, preparing clear and comprehensible graphics, shooting good video that is then well edited, shooting good photographs that really tell the story...All these are (or have been) what the best of professional journalists provide. With a reduced economic scale (smaller organizations, smaller scope, limited geographic coverage) or alternatively, highly vertical sites Montclairsports.com for example you will find significant gaps appearing in what the public has been getting. It has been pointed out that Baristanet doesn't cover local sports very much...true...and that with the decline of corporate journalism, investigative reports (which require a lot of staff and time) are going to suffer...true...

But the idea the your local PBS station will do local news is absurd...and the not-for-profit model you mention is severely hampered by it's funding...
So yes, alternatives exist and will exist...but they are a poor substitute...(only my opinion obviously).

The Mtc Times has not been anything of what it was when Mr. Mulford was publisher, (rip despite demons that resulted in tragic end). Right or wrong he was dedicated to putting out a quality product. Paper now is no better than the rag called the star-ledger.

Conan and prof, you are right on so many levels (like the 70's disco is great, disco sucks analogy, nobody agrees, some had fun, things change) the internet is young and even in fast moving times things need some time to change, in ways someone is imagining somewhere.

As far as apple and it's itunes-ipod-iphone-, bunch of jerks, and I mean jerks (just call customer service) it IS amazing anybody pays so much for their crap (but a sucker is born every second now, eh?), and no surprise you can't see the evolutionary process while focusing on a result that isn't there Aaron, lol.

We'll all have implanted chip that debits the bank account for whatever we do....soon, problem solved.

There is one lever that we can pull, the airwaves belong to the people. It's time to get TV and Radio corps to deliver real news (not propaganda) or risk losing their license.

Aaron, your TINA argument is weak.

If you care about these new orgs why don't you tell people, especially young people, to get a subscription to the print version.

On the other side, the price for online ads are too low. Ad prices must increase or the corporate model is dead.

I don't want to see the demise of the newspaper. I love visiting new cities and reading their paper to get the local flavor. But I guess the new paradigm will be to look online for the local 'baristanet' blog.

Anyway, this whole thing is Obama's fault.

Pokey, I defy ANYONE to use an Apple produce and NOT immediately understand that in most cases, it is not only wonderfully designed-- it works.

I sit surrounded by Apple products-- I'll continue to pay a premium for quality.

I wouldn't use a wintel machine if you paid me. Really. If you gave me a brand new, top of the line wintel machine, I wouldn't even touch it.

Evidence can be found:

Here.

And here.

If Mellon starts paying, I want a cut.

As an editor Porter is mediocre at best, but as much as I love Baristanet, he's right in this case. The Montclair Times does the lion's share of the reporting in this town. Sorry, it's just plainly true.

I'm sorry, Fran, but your comment about why can't the two just coexist peacefully is a nice sentiment but just hopelessly naive and full of wishful thinking about the world, which like it or not is a very tough, competitive place, now more than ever and in this field in particular.

Do you have kids? Do they play on any competitive sports teams? I would recommend it heartily.

Perhaps it's time that Baristanet get out there are write some news like the Montclair Times does.

I would take any advice Lasermike offers regarding the subject of "writing" with a grain of salt. This from a man who in the past few minutes alone has provided us with these gems:

"Corporate news is dieing."

"On the other side, the price for online ads are too low."

Dear Baristas, I wish to disassociate myself from any laseropinion herein expressed.

Corporate news is dieing."

"On the other side, the price for online ads are too low."
-------------------------------------

EEK! Laserclarkkent needs an editor!

I have dyslexia. If I use less words I will make less errors. I'll stick to that.

Less is more.

Yes. :)

If only we could convince Cathar that "less is more"...

If you get the Montclair Times on Thursday, or go on the Montclair Times site right now, you will not know that there's a potential predator trying to lure girls in his car. And even if they did have the alert (which they don't), you probably wouldn't have seen it if you live nearby in Glen Ridge, Clifton, Bloomfield or West Orange.

There is a reason why we've had 19 million pageviews in the past five years. Actually, there are probably 19 million reasons.

I don't see the problem with co-existence. Yes, Debbie is right: For immediate news (car crashes, sex predators, street closings, train problems), you would turn to Baristanet. Baristanet is 24/7, the Montclair Times comes out every Thursday. Also, because the MT has a larger staff, they can afford to do more in-depth, non-time-sensitive pieces. I think both serve a purpose; it's not a matter of either or.

Also, I think it would be a disastrous business model to start charging for B-net. Can we say NY Times? Remember what happened when they tried to charge for online content? They admitted it was a huge mistake and went back to free online access.

If you want to charge for things, introduce some sort of new service (A dating component? Just a suggestion).

Just my 2 cents.

Can we just shoot Web 2.0 please? Baristanet provides a valuable service, I believe, plus enjoyable (sometimes) entertainment reading these posts. This blog is not supposed to replace "JOURNALISM AS WE KNOW IT" (now you have me shouting), nor do I expect the New York Times to have a story on Pudding-Cup Flinging above their front-page fold.

I think I made a comment on this thread early yesterday to the effect about 90% of what is offered up for free every day on the Internet is crap. That would include many of the posts in this thread. Maybe even this one.

Sorry. Got to get back to the piece I am doing on "12 Easy Ways You Can Get a Life!" for www.msn.com. Mortgage is due on Wednesday.

Aaron, who do you work for?

Did you mean to say that using fewer words will lead to fewer errors?

If it wasn't for the dyslexia, laserbrain, you might really be in trouble.

Mike,
I won't divulge who I work for but it isn't in Montclair. This link will give you some clues if you choose to explore them.

http://www.snl.com/press/20090330.asp

The internet, since it provides information (and for that matter entertainment) on demand for free is rewriting the old business model rules for far more than newspapers. In many ways it's good. Often referred to as Creative Destruction this process has been going on for a long time, accelerated now by the internet.

But, as I've outlined in previous posts, the "Serendipity" model is
breaking down due to the internet too. If you don't know what that refers to... it means ads are presented in association with content in the hope that you, the reader, viewer, listener, consumer will be influenced, persuaded, informed or otherwise motivated to respond.

Search is slowly killing that model.

This isn't to say branding has no place...but for small market advertisers their budget is not large enough for pure branding ads to work. They need results that are more concrete for their ad spend.

Borrell and Associates, often thought of as the gold standard for media trends, has recently said, advertising dollars, that in the past have supported local media (newspapers, radio, television) are in decline.

On the rise are "promotional spending" and to a lesser extent online video advertising. Also on the rise are paid search, affiliate relationships (such as becoming an authorized Google Reseller) and clearly site optimization for smaller businesses.

Local news sites are in jeopardy in next few years as even local advertisers come to demand more direct accountability for their advertising dollars.

(the prof fell asleep reading the first paragraph of Aaron's link-- wake me up before you go-go.....)

I work with open source software. I've learned that information wants to be free. News providers have a weak business model. Patrons have usually supported new organizations. I buy newspapers because I value the authors product and I want to see them prosper. I would buy a newspaper, dump it in the trash, and then read it online if I new it would keep them going. I wish that newspaper companies would allow me to give them money directly without having to receive a newspaper. I have also given donations to not-for-profit news providers.

Information doesn't "want to be free" anymore than food wants to be free. It's a statement without meaning. PEOPLE (sorry for the all caps Prof)...want everything to be free. To refer to Debbie's restaurant analogy... if there were two restaurants one offering free food (and good food too...maybe no dessert offerings) and another charging whatever... regardless of how most people felt about "supporting the old time restaurant" in town and stating that they would "gladly pay for the food they provide"....sadly the free food place would win out.
News providers don't have a weak business model. Most newspapers still actually make a profit. This includes of course the thousands of papers in communities you have never heard of. TV stations still make money. Radio stations (a lot of them anyway) still make money. It's BLOGS that have a weak business model. They are based on a tiny overworked staff to survive and dependent on online display ads that by all expert accounts are in decline.

I think it's great that you value the author's product and want to help them out. It's very kind of you...honestly your heart is in the right place.But your assertion that "patrons have usually supported news organizations" is simply not true...unless you are referring to advertisers. I'm here to tell you they still do. Look at the Sunday New York Times...

Hey Prof...I'm sorry you were bored by that link. Some things are irreducibly complex. The point of the story was that television station advertising is also in decline (they still make more money than most)...precisely because of the breakdown of the old model.

Nothing has come along to replace it. Not yet.

Who is Aaron and why did he decide to bore the hell out of us about the value/no value of Baristanet? WTF anyway? The Blog is a fun community where we have the free and open exchange of assorted ideas and ideologies. As evidenced by many of the postings, this aint no Mensa site but a mental playground.

While I don't agree with everything Aaron says, I can at least appreciate his communication style and intellect. Iceman and Profwilliams (and others, presumably) have nothing but derision for someone who attempts to communicate intelligently and thoughtfully. Why am I not surprised?

If it can't be summed up in a snarky and brief comment that openly demeans another B'net commenter, then it's not worth anything, apparently, to Iceman, Profwilliams, (and presumably others). What exactly is so wrong with intelligent commentary?

Well, it's happened. Baristanet has become YouTube. Time to find another source for local Montclair news. Anyone? This can't be the only game in town.

Re: who Aaron is ... He travels around the Internet trying to denigrate those of us (we are in Debbie's business, on the other coast) who are actually DOING SOMETHING aside from either weeping over the collapse of the old media or snarking at those who are working in new media. Just so's y'all know. And contrary to his fistful of studies and surveys, what matters is what you can accomplish in your community, and in our community, local display advertising ain't anywhere near dead. The businesses find it of value. The readers find it of value.

Meantime, much as I am philosophically opposed to registering to comment - I had to, because he issued a dare, and it took me a bit to answer it. Here's 11, Aaron. If I didn't have to get back to my brutal hours and continuous risk of being struck by lightning or hit by a truck, I'd have more. And Jane Stevens will be collecting the official list. Only reason we didn't have the names at our fingertips is because, well, we're unaffiliated, to use your word.

Baristanet
http://www.baristanet.com

West Seattle Blog
http://westseattleblog.com

Exit 133
http://exit133.com

Paulding.com
http://paulding.com

Coastsider
http://coastsider.com

Pegasus News
http://pegasusnews.com

Brownstoner
http://brownstoner.com

New West
http://newwest.net

Sun Valley Online
http://sunvalleyonline.com

Ann Arbor Chronicle
http://annarborchronicle.com/

Quincy News
http://quincynews.org

All different types of sites, but all unaffiliated and paying the bills, as best my shrubbery-rustling can determine.

Now, good night, Baristaville, and sorry for the threadjack! Keep up the great work, Debbie, Liz, and company! And don't ever let the curmudgeons get you down.

Congratulations Debbie and Liz and thank you Barists, all, for everything that you do for us.

It's a little amusing that people choose to see my comments as "denigrating" when the truth is I applaud their work. I merely point out that assertions are not facts...even my own assertions.

What people and businesses find "of value" varies quite often, even day to day (aside from breaking news and profits). You may disagree with that!

And as I want to emphasize, the most recent survey of over 1400 news websites by the highly respected Borrell and Associates, and the Pew study on the state of the media 2009 shows online display ads in decline. Just the facts.

The obvious umbrage and personal tone taken by westseattleblog tells me that the facts alone are not enough.

Listing eleven websites that make some dubious level of subsistence against the thousands of newspapers in the nation only makes my point.

If hyper local blogging were easy we would see a large number, now ten years or even five years into the 'blogging revolution' but we don't. Remember, the pioneers are often the ones with the arrows in their back.

It may well be a trend. I don't know. No one really does. I am suggesting, based on hard evidence, that

1. Local blogs can work only if they do so in a very limited geographic area
2. They are run by journalists (westseattleblog, judging from their site is just that as are the folks at baristanet)
3. Are able to work extremely long hours seven days a week.
4. Are able to master multiple tasks such as writing, photography, video, sales, and promotion.
5. Are able to sustain this effort for several years without making a profit
6. Are able to rally the community around them to garner public support, cooperation and more critically, contribution
7. Are able to maintain their health since with a tiny staff (usually 2 people) everything rests on them.

This isn't (only in my opinion, no denigration intended or implied) a model for widespread success. How many people in how many communities can meet those requirements? Is there an army of mom and pop journalists out there willing to devote their lives to the risky effort of bringing news to their community? Maybe there is. I honestly don't know. But I can say with some certainty that eleven websites is not proof of concept.

PS-Note the time of westseattleblog's post 4:15 AM.

Sorry...one more point

8. local blogs can only work in a place where the competition is asleep, lagging, or non existent that ALSO has a large enough local business community (of small businesses...not big box stores) that can buy the ads.

Aaron,

The one thing I think you're missing here is that local blogs aren't working to replace or become the new newspaper.

Understand, user generated content-- a tipster. Or someone writing in who is near a happening or is a party to a happening cannot happen with a newspaper.

In fact, the newspaper model is the gatekeeper model-- WE will provide YOU with what WE think you should know. Whereas a local blog uses some of that model, but also incorporates user content.

Moreover, local blogs are FUN!!!

(Unlike, Mr. Porter and the Montclair Times where no fun is allowed.)

This simple point is missed by folks who claim to "understand" or have "expertise" in the area.

Remember, what we do know is this: no one knows nuthin'.

Not a clue.

So reading your posts make me laugh because you seem to think you know what will and won't work.

No one has a clue what news, journalism, or blogs will look like and how folks will get their info.

We are in uncharted water.

Some are drowning.

Some are swimming.

The Barista's are on a party boat, having a Long Island Iced Tea!!

Mikey cum (a/k/a the reincarnation of William Randolph Hearst if Hearst were residing in a padded cell somewhere), we heard you "the first time" years ago too. And yet you still keep hammering away futilely and nonsensically.

(Prof, you're not making a whole lot of sense today either.)

Aaron,

Thanks for all those great posts. Can you please remember to begin posting again this evening, ideally around 10:15 pm. For about two weeks, I've been having the most awful time trying to fall asleep. But not last night! Keep up the good work.

I'm also much looking forward to addressing Debbie as "Ma'am" every time I wonder about the "newsgathering" or item "newsworthiness" on this site.

Can I also call you "ma'am," laserboy? Such fun!

PS: Was that terse enough for you, jerseygurl?

complainerpuss,
I have a book for you. It's a genuinely wonderful book with truly useful wisdom. I offer it because your name, and tone suggest to me that you are unhappy and that's unfortunate. I walk a spiritually connected path in life. I think you (and many others) would benefit from reading:

The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz

I don't take your comments, or anyone's comments personally.
Personal attacks have no effect. I understand that they are not about ME but about that person's own frame of reference and relationship with themselves. Peace.

Aaron (may I jump in here? thanks!), that you turn out to apparently be a spouter of the worst kind of New Agey cliches and a reader of nonsense does not come as much of a surprise.

I therefore have a friend to suggest for you. He's a genuinely wonderful lughead with truly useful wisdom to impart in every conceivable area of life, forget just the news business. His name is Ma'am mikey,

This is a pretty good thread. Here's what I'm taking away:

1. Aaron is a smart guy; he totally understands this business and industry.

2. Debbie and gang get pretty much most of their content from other sources, rewrite it (or at least try to) so it's not outright plagiarism and post it on Baristanet in the guise of "community journalism".

3. The regulars here are offering very little value to the conversation, and instead just throw zingers at each other trying to out-do each other. It's almost as if they're competing to see who has the biggest [enter noun here].

4. Mark Porter is a clueless old journalism guy who hasn't come to grips yet with the fact that he needs to embrace the Internet, not treat it like the enemy. This does not excuse the fact that much of Baristanet's content and story leads are pilfered from other sources. Mark, if you want to compete you must get your your Montclair Times web site up-to-date. Right now, it's a pathetic excuse for a web site. You've got the content and a readership; now do the right thing and get a better web publishing tool in place.

5. The egos of Debbie and gang are a wee bit inflated right now. So what if you were on TV. Big whoop. Why don't you follow that up with, you know, some actual journalism. Prove to the world that is watching right now that you're not riding on the backs of the dying newspaper industry. Prove that you have what it takes. Honestly some of your choices for stories in the past few months have been quite awful, where you choose to run filler (uh, dog slideshows...) instead of going out and getting the real news or even, gasp, interviewing people to get more than one side of the story.

Can I be the first to introduce "Gunther Hoffman" to both hansi and fritzl?

And lad, if it is you the third time out, why this fixation with names which soound like a WWII=era Luftwaffe duty list?

For reference this is not new age. Just wisdom. These are the basic four agreements.

1. Be impeccable with your word.
Words have immeasurable power, so use them with care. Say only what you mean, and remember your opinion isn’t fact. Silence is better than saying something you’ll regret.
2. Don’t take anything personally.
Here I’ll quote the book, “Nothing other people do is because of you. It is because of themselves.” That guy honking at you just spilled scalding coffee all over his lap, the boss screaming at you is going through a divorce. Their stuff has nothing to do with your stuff, and assuming you’re the root cause of someone’s behavior is not only self-centered, it’s also a big waste of energy.
3. Don’t make assumptions.
You can spend hours generating theories about why someone did something, or you can just ask. When someone lashes or does something unexpected, save time by seeking clarification.
4. Do your best.
Do the best you can with the conflict in front of you, and you won’t need to waste brain power on self-judgements or regrets.

cathar, aliases are just aliases. What you make of them says more about you than it does me. Unlike most people, I know what the word 'cathar' means but I don't obsess about it. Hmmm?

I would not be forced to re-register if they'd get the act together and:

1) stop banning me for ridiculous reasons
2) stop changing their registration process
3) create a place online where I would actually dare to use my own name instead of an alias(es)

I would love to see some competition for Baristanet online. Patch is not going to be it, nor do I think the New York Times upcoming effort will be it, either. The Montclair Times needs to realize there is a huge opening for them here.

As it is now, I would bet much of the readership of the Montclair Times would take on look at Baristanet's community and run away because a tool-measuring competition is simply not what they care about, unlike many of the regulars here. Civil discussion? Respect for each other? Baristanet has thrown so much out the window in exchange for page views...

Actually, gunther/hansi/fritzl, no, I doubt you know what "cathar" actually means. And if you wish to choose three posting names which sound like a Junkers crew, yes, that is just a bit odd.

But not close to how odd it is that, after two previous ejections, you truly wish to keep hanging round here. Surely you don't imagine we're all just waiting to applaud another of your rather frequent bursts of profanity (which in part is why you got bounced)? And you really don't think you're going to make friends here, do you? You've kind of assured that won't happen by your previous less than courtly behavior.

Yes, prof, basically just today.

Lastly, Aaron, puhleeze! I have had quite enough of people who assume they have achieved a level of serenity which I am then bound to envy. (You sound like Michael Rennie in "The Day The Earth Stood Still.") But I don't and to quote from such a compendium of hokum as you do is definitely not to my taste. Whereas late Mark Twain, say, is in general.

Still, some of your air of superiority might wear very well upon the shoulders of Ma'am mikey, I suggest. If only he could bear the awful weight.

I assume nothing. Not a level of serenity, nor superiority.
I just disagree with you and your impression.
Using word wisely is not hokum.
Not taking things personally is not hokum.
Not making assumptions is not hokum.
Doing your best is not hokum.

None of this implies that you are beneath me or that anything I might offer to this or another dialog means that I am right and you are wrong. As the prof accurately points out, "we are in uncharted waters."

Throughout this thread I have wanted to share my point of view about the uncertainty of ALL media outlets. The internet and people's desire to have everything for nothing are changing not only the way we find and consume information but much of the rest of how commerce is conducted.
Newspapers in particular have been slow to change for a lot of reasons but primarily because of their world view and internal structure. They have looked with disdain at bloggers (wrongly I might add) and dismissed them. That's a mistake. But it's hard to look at your paycheck and know that that money came from someone buying an ad in print...and that the online dollars won't support your job any longer.
Much smaller forms of journalism are emerging as blogs, local news sites, vertically integrated sites (single topic), and even personal editorial or entertainment sites. The problem then becomes one of fragmentation. How small a piece of the audience can a site have and still offer an attractive enough audience size for an advertiser?

Hence the emergence of neighborhood blog networks that offer larger advertisers a bigger aggregated audience.
This is an exciting, sad, creative, destructive, highly volatile period. Keep the discussion going.

In case you doubt what I say, information about online display rates is widely available. Here's an example:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=92664

The current model for sales online is Cost Per Impression/Cost Per Thousand

So...if you are good at math you should be able to easily extrapolate how many pageviews/impressions an ad must get to justify what Baristanet charges ....at least based on the national average.
Yup...They have to have a LOT of pageviews and based on the average an advertiser has to determine if what they are paying is worth it. That number is heading lower, not higher.