logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

richard
#1 Posted : 15 December 2012 11:57:12(UTC)
Richard

Rank: Administration

Groups: Registered, Administrators
Joined: 16/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3,379
United Kingdom
Location: Bradford

Thanks: 113 times
Was thanked: 345 time(s) in 286 post(s)
Dellers has an interesting post, taking on board the treatment of shale gas by the "legacy media", and in particular an article by Andrew Rawnsley.

The context is the comparison between the "legacy media" and bloggers, the former being the preferred source for the clever-dicks and much of the political classes. And there is an important difference between the two, according to Lord Justice Leveson. Mainstream journalists, he says, have "a powerful reputation for accuracy" while bloggers and tweeters were "no more than electronic versions of pub gossip".

But, says Dellers, while the Rawnsley piece is combative, provocative and seething with but-barely-contained righteous rage, every word written by the Chief Political Correspondent of Britain's once most-revered serious newspaper is "total, abject, weapons-grade toss".

However, there is no point in going to the "legacy media" for more and better particulars. If you want to be informed, you have to go to a specialist blogger. But the author of the one Dellers highlights on shale gas is not a professional journalist at all. Says Dellers, he's one of those dangerous blogger fellows Lord Justice Leveson warns us about: the type whose opinions are no better than an "electronic version of pub gossip".

View full article here

Nottoobrite
#2 Posted : 15 December 2012 12:30:18(UTC)
Nottoobrite

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 20/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 85
Germany
Location: Hamburg

Thanks: 29 times
Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 8 post(s)


The news I get is from you Richard, and like minded, I remember when the MSM was most widely read in the "outhouse" today, it is not even used as arsewipe.
It seems that Lord Whatshisname still has someone dig a hole in his garden !
bill poster
#3 Posted : 15 December 2012 12:47:44(UTC)
bill poster

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 27/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 21
United Kingdom
Location: Oxford

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 4 post(s)
What we are now seeing is the textbook outcome of cartel decay: an explosion of differentiation, specialisation, niche provision and innovation. Newspapers were protected for a long time by technological barriers to entry. Unsurprisingly, with the removal of these barriers by the Internet, we now have a proliferation of suppliers. As you rightly say, a lot of the new supply is as bad as the old. But the unleased foreces competition will take care of this for us.

Just as early Ford customers could have the Model T in any colour, 'so long as it was black', newspaper customers could read any analysis they wanted, so long as it was the establishment's (plus or minus 5 percent for the appearance of choice). No wonder they are desperate for any residual protection from competition they can find.
 2 users thanked bill poster for this useful post.
Nottoobrite on 15/12/2012(UTC), letmethink on 15/12/2012(UTC)
mmatis
#4 Posted : 15 December 2012 13:46:41(UTC)
mmatis

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 463
Man
United States
Location: Cocoa, Florida

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 36 time(s) in 27 post(s)
Well said, sir!
richard
#5 Posted : 15 December 2012 13:49:19(UTC)
Richard

Rank: Administration

Groups: Registered, Administrators
Joined: 16/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3,379
United Kingdom
Location: Bradford

Thanks: 113 times
Was thanked: 345 time(s) in 286 post(s)
Originally Posted by: bill poster Go to Quoted Post
What we are now seeing is the textbook outcome of cartel decay: an explosion of differentiation, specialisation, niche provision and innovation. Newspapers were protected for a long time by technological barriers to entry. Unsurprisingly, with the removal of these barriers by the Internet, we now have a proliferation of suppliers. As you rightly say, a lot of the new supply is as bad as the old. But the unleased foreces competition will take care of this for us.

Just as early Ford customers could have the Model T in any colour, 'so long as it was black', newspaper customers could read any analysis they wanted, so long as it was the establishment's (plus or minus 5 percent for the appearance of choice). No wonder they are desperate for any residual protection from competition they can find.




Financial as well as technological barriers were the problem. Starting up a new publication was hugely expensive. Entry costs on the internet are minimal. A key issue was also access to information ... that was definitely a technological issue ... once information was posted online, the newspapers lost their privileged access to it. It then became a question of who had the best online search skills, and the best technical ability to analyse and write material. In the contest between hack and specialist, there is no contest.
 1 user thanked richard for this useful post.
Flashman on 15/12/2012(UTC)
PeterMG
#6 Posted : 15 December 2012 16:12:40(UTC)
PeterMG

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 20
Man
United Kingdom
Location: Stroud

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Originally Posted by: richard Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: bill poster Go to Quoted Post
What we are now seeing is the textbook outcome of cartel decay: an explosion of differentiation, specialisation, niche provision and innovation. Newspapers were protected for a long time by technological barriers to entry. Unsurprisingly, with the removal of these barriers by the Internet, we now have a proliferation of suppliers. As you rightly say, a lot of the new supply is as bad as the old. But the unleased foreces competition will take care of this for us.

Just as early Ford customers could have the Model T in any colour, 'so long as it was black', newspaper customers could read any analysis they wanted, so long as it was the establishment's (plus or minus 5 percent for the appearance of choice). No wonder they are desperate for any residual protection from competition they can find.




Financial as well as technological barriers were the problem. Starting up a new publication was hugely expensive. Entry costs on the internet are minimal. A key issue was also access to information ... that was definitely a technological issue ... once information was posted online, the newspapers lost their privileged access to it. It then became a question of who had the best online search skills, and the best technical ability to analyse and write material. In the contest between hack and specialist, there is no contest.


There are two areas that spring to mind where we desperately need your cartel decay to reach critical mass. They are in politics and banking. Banking is a classic where once upon a time everything was done at a local level and on the whole people were careful with money and could get advice from someone they knew and who knew them. That all went when the Banks replaced people with technology without understanding the consequences. I have banked for 12 years now with an online bank, (having got feed up of 2 high street banks and their centralisation) where the relationship has been understood from the start and it has worked remarkably well. We should have dozens of these online banks, but regulation designed to "protect" we consumers does nothing of the kind and only guarantees the impossibility of staring a new small local bank. But I recon in 20 years if we get the 6 demands Banking will be changing due to Cartel Decay and we could have 20 to 30 online banks that share high street facilities for cash transactions and the like.

But if we look to our friends both across the channel and the pond they are doing the very opposite. In the EU with the Banking union they are only doing what they are doing because they need a mechanism to sweep all the small banks under carpet and to strengthen 2 or 3 large banks in each Euro Zone country. In the US they introduce Dodd-Frank which on the face of it is to prevent a Lehman type event and no more bailouts. Its sold as a way of an orderly default. This is what we all want but only there it only applies to the "too big to fail" and allows the government to step in at any time they think there is distress. Many think it makes the system more stressed because now people will try to second guess the government and this could have opposite effect to that intended.


malvoisin
#7 Posted : 15 December 2012 16:39:27(UTC)
malvoisin

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 9
United Kingdom
Location: STOCKPORT

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
According to Lord Justice Leveson. Mainstream journalists, he says, have "a powerful reputation for accuracy"

You have to stand in awe at such a statement.
richard
#8 Posted : 15 December 2012 17:25:23(UTC)
Richard

Rank: Administration

Groups: Registered, Administrators
Joined: 16/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3,379
United Kingdom
Location: Bradford

Thanks: 113 times
Was thanked: 345 time(s) in 286 post(s)
Originally Posted by: malvoisin Go to Quoted Post
According to Lord Justice Leveson. Mainstream journalists, he says, have "a powerful reputation for accuracy"

You have to stand in awe at such a statement.





BigGrin And what is worse, he probably believes it.

nemesis
#9 Posted : 15 December 2012 18:23:25(UTC)
nemesis

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 29/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 50
United Kingdom
Location: Middlesex

Thanks: 35 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
'30,000 unique visitors a week!' - Well I'm impressed. When the opportunity arises, I do point people in the right direction!.
James102
#10 Posted : 15 December 2012 19:47:04(UTC)
James102

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 01/12/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 12 post(s)
What about cases such as Tommy Robinson, a man seemingly kept in solitary confinement on rather trivial charges? Nothing in the Main Stream Media not even the demonstration by his supporters outside Wandsworth Prison.
I followed the link after reading a post on Coffee House Wall.
Political prisoners in Britain? Held on charges that would normally result in bail? Held in solitary confinement “for his own protection”?
Keep the Web free.
F U Fed Up
#11 Posted : 15 December 2012 20:10:56(UTC)
F U Fed Up

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/08/2012(UTC)
Posts: 279
United Kingdom

Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 21 post(s)
Quote:
What about cases such as Tommy Robinson, a man seemingly kept in solitary confinement on rather trivial charges? Nothing in the Main Stream Media not even the demonstration by his supporters outside Wandsworth Prison.
I followed the link after reading a post on Coffee House Wall.
Political prisoners in Britain? Held on charges that would normally result in bail? Held in solitary confinement “for his own protection”?
Keep the Web free.


I'll second that......well remember how Robinson took Paxo apart........the establishments most feared attack dog looked very stupid.

As for his treatment......my anger grows.
bill poster
#12 Posted : 15 December 2012 21:23:31(UTC)
bill poster

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 27/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 21
United Kingdom
Location: Oxford

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Originally Posted by: PeterMG Go to Quoted Post


There are two areas that spring to mind where we desperately need your cartel decay to reach critical mass. They are in politics and banking. Banking is a classic where once upon a time everything was done at a local level and on the whole people were careful with money and could get advice from someone they knew and who knew them. That all went when the Banks replaced people with technology without understanding the consequences. I have banked for 12 years now with an online bank, (having got feed up of 2 high street banks and their centralisation) where the relationship has been understood from the start and it has worked remarkably well. We should have dozens of these online banks, but regulation designed to "protect" we consumers does nothing of the kind and only guarantees the impossibility of staring a new small local bank. But I recon in 20 years if we get the 6 demands Banking will be changing due to Cartel Decay and we could have 20 to 30 online banks that share high street facilities for cash transactions and the like.

But if we look to our friends both across the channel and the pond they are doing the very opposite. In the EU with the Banking union they are only doing what they are doing because they need a mechanism to sweep all the small banks under carpet and to strengthen 2 or 3 large banks in each Euro Zone country. In the US they introduce Dodd-Frank which on the face of it is to prevent a Lehman type event and no more bailouts. Its sold as a way of an orderly default. This is what we all want but only there it only applies to the "too big to fail" and allows the government to step in at any time they think there is distress. Many think it makes the system more stressed because now people will try to second guess the government and this could have opposite effect to that intended.




Indeed. It is incredibly frustrating to see "under regulation" touted as a cause of the collapse, when in fact an excess of complex regulation increased market concentration to uncompetitive levels.

I'd definitely add law, accountancy and credit rating to your list though. Politics will probably come last.
Dodgy Geezer
#13 Posted : 16 December 2012 16:10:12(UTC)
Dodgy Geezer

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 371
United Kingdom

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 26 post(s)
Quote:
Thus, one sees the contrast between the lightweight frippery of Newsnight and the serious exploration of the issues by Witterings, the former with the funding and the exposure, its quality being in inverse proportion to both.


'Twas not ever thus....

Normally, the MSM do not speak Truth, because they are speaking on behalf of Power rather that to it. Power has worked out that it is worth while corrupting the press, and has duly done so. The individual journalists are (probably?) capable of thought - it's just that they aren't allowed to. It used to be different - Wilkes and issue 45 spring to mind.

If blogging is here to stay, then blogging will get corrupted, like everything else. At the moment, it is 1763 for bloggers....

richard
#14 Posted : 16 December 2012 18:03:41(UTC)
Richard

Rank: Administration

Groups: Registered, Administrators
Joined: 16/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3,379
United Kingdom
Location: Bradford

Thanks: 113 times
Was thanked: 345 time(s) in 286 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dodgy Geezer Go to Quoted Post
Quote:
Thus, one sees the contrast between the lightweight frippery of Newsnight and the serious exploration of the issues by Witterings, the former with the funding and the exposure, its quality being in inverse proportion to both.


'Twas not ever thus....

Normally, the MSM do not speak Truth, because they are speaking on behalf of Power rather that to it. Power has worked out that it is worth while corrupting the press, and has duly done so. The individual journalists are (probably?) capable of thought - it's just that they aren't allowed to. It used to be different - Wilkes and issue 45 spring to mind.

If blogging is here to stay, then blogging will get corrupted, like everything else. At the moment, it is 1763 for bloggers....




They have done their best to corrupt blogs, with the proliferation of media blogs ... the so-called "clogs". But there are still the independents, and they will keep coming.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 1.9.6.1 | YAF © 2003-2013, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.270 seconds.