Join 3,375 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


My, it seems you have uncovered a periodicals repository!
July 22, 2008 7:19 AM   Subscribe

Mygazines is for sharing magazines online.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (48 comments total) 17 users marked this as a favorite

 
Related: Magcloud is an interesting-looking print-on-demand service, but it's still in private beta.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:20 AM on July 22, 2008


This is great.

(Runs brazenly afoul of copyright, I'm sure, but still ... I'll call it great.)
posted by grabbingsand at 7:51 AM on July 22, 2008


hmmm
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:06 AM on July 22, 2008


But... but... why else are you supposed to go to a local [B&N/Borders] and sit in their cafe for hours flipping through magazines without buying anything?
posted by cavalier at 8:19 AM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


Every time I try to open a mag in Firefox it says I need Flash player. Have now downloaded and installed that three times and still not working. Working for anyone else with Firefox?
posted by gfrobe at 8:23 AM on July 22, 2008


Naked Wales is a HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT.

Also, I can't imagine this site will last very long. I'm sure a Condé Nast lawyer or two read MetaFilter.
posted by Kattullus at 8:24 AM on July 22, 2008


Same error here. Also, doesn't have the magazines I'd like to read. But neat, if short-lived, idea.
posted by DU at 8:25 AM on July 22, 2008


Wow, so all I have to do is turn off the Family Filter to enjoy the entertaining wit and style of Playboy and Penthouse? This is so much easier than sneaking peeks at my friend's dad's stash. Thanks Mygazines!!

- Every 12-year old boy
posted by adamms222 at 8:31 AM on July 22, 2008


Man, will I ever get used to reading .pdfs online? I just find them so tedious. Those of you who must do this for your living do you ever get used to it? I really hate the constant magnifying and reducing and the accidental page turning. Other than that the idea is cool, though for reference but for reading you still can't beat the portability of a mag.
posted by any major dude at 8:31 AM on July 22, 2008


- Every 12-year old boy with no access to the internet other than mygazines.com

FTFY
posted by DU at 8:38 AM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


Naked Wales is a HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT.

Not to some of us!
posted by ceri richard at 8:48 AM on July 22, 2008


How much does it cost?

It costs you nothing to publish a magazine on MagCloud. To buy a magazine costs 20¢ per page, plus shipping. For example, a 20-page magazine would be four bucks plus shipping. And you can make money! You set your issue price and all proceeds above the base price go to you. Shipping is a flat $1.40/copy (USPS first class mail) for quantities 1-9, or a flat $13 for quantities from 10-100 (per box of 10-100).


Who is gonna pay $6 - $7 for a 20 page magazine? I mean yeah quality over quantity and all that jazz. But that is really a poor value.

Then again Marvel suckers some people to pay $4 for 32 pages...
posted by Dreamghost at 8:57 AM on July 22, 2008


Interestingly, it won't let me sign up using ANY email address I've ever had (including some throwaways). Seems to be a bit broken.
posted by proj at 9:30 AM on July 22, 2008


I think the main point of this service is to be able to read magazine articles that are otherwise not online. So, if you read a cool article in Smithsonian that is not online, and want to post a FPP (or mail your friends), you can find it on Mygazines. I hope it works out but seems extremely illegal.
posted by stbalbach at 9:40 AM on July 22, 2008


As someone who earns his living writing for magazines, this strikes me as theft, pure and simple. I would like to get lots of stuff free--cars, surfboards, iPhones, massages--but people seem to have this selfish insistence on being paid for their work. True, I've already been paid for the writing of mine that appears on Mygazines. Widespread pirating eventually cuts into profits, which ultimately trickles down to shmoes like me. To those who cry, "Information wants to be free," I say, "Do your job without receiving a paycheck, and then come talk to me." Maybe I'm being a snob, but I have the same reaction when someone says to me, "Wow, you write for a living? You're so lucky. I wish that I had the time to write."

OK--enough ranting. I've got to get back to reading them free magazines.
posted by adgnyc at 10:16 AM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


call me when they have the believer
posted by es_de_bah at 10:19 AM on July 22, 2008


The alternative argument is that it's really quite simple to get free or nearly-free subscriptions to many magazines anyway; more people reading a magazine means higher circulation which means higher rates for advertisers which means more income. Why do you think the magazine companies haven't all started sealing their magazines to prohibit the Barnes & Noble/Borders cafe readers? Isn't that theft as well?
posted by proj at 10:20 AM on July 22, 2008


proj - what's your secret for free subscriptions?
posted by sevenyearlurk at 10:22 AM on July 22, 2008


I'm less inclined to feel guilty about this since they left the ads intact. On the other hand, a lot of magazines are giant ads in the first place, so I don't read them, free or not.
posted by Phalene at 10:26 AM on July 22, 2008


This website is so annoying. I am itching to read more magazines than I can afford subscriptions for, but I gave up after looking at the cover and first ad page of Spin.

There's something to be said for the feeling of a magazine in your hands -- the weight of a freshly printed glossy magazine spine pressing against your lower fingers; each page glinting in the sunlight; reading a flexible publication that can fit inside your tote bag without having to ruin the product and create annoying creases. Short blurbs, long essays, beautiful illustrations... It's the perfect ADD read and it existed before the web. I'll even go so far as expressing my love for the smell of new perfume line inserts, but they have nothing on the smell of the ink and paper..... MMmmmmMMMmmmm.

I think that either a publication is made for the web or made for print. If you're a traditional media company you hire a new media department to make your product geared for the web.

Never the twain should meet, even with a slick Flash interface.
posted by Menomena at 10:32 AM on July 22, 2008


sevenyearluck: I have happened upon loads of free subscription offers on the varying "deal" websites that publish coupons and online sales. I also got free subscriptions using frequent flier miles that I accrued on an airline that I don't often use.
posted by proj at 10:39 AM on July 22, 2008


I work for a company that's just launched a very similar site (which I'm not linking to because it's currently in a soft launch and I don't think we could handle the potential influx of MeFites). With that and our iPhone site, we've had the same problem that I've noticed in about half of the comments in this thread: everyone automatically thinks "zomg this is piracy!" We have contracts with hundreds of publishers, and it's all completely legal. I don't doubt that mygazines.com is also.
posted by Plutor at 10:41 AM on July 22, 2008


Plutor, I don't doubt that this could be done legally, and I think a legal version is a very good idea, but the tagline of the site -- "upload. share. archive." -- makes it clear that the content comes from the user, which it almost certainly wouldn't if the permission to use the material were legitimately granted. I have to agree that this seems pretty blatantly illegal.
posted by Amanojaku at 11:35 AM on July 22, 2008


We have contracts with hundreds of publishers, and it's all completely legal. I don't doubt that mygazines.com is also.

Nope. I work for one of the magazines on the site and we never gave them permission to post any scans. I just sent them a note about it, in fact.
posted by ftrain at 11:45 AM on July 22, 2008


I'm going to ignore the ZOMG illegal and the fact that the interface sucks and concentrate on how this will affect content (because Plutor's right that it can be done legally, and someone will eventually come up with a good-enough interface, though I don't feel like this is it).

In having magazines shown like this, it's incredibly simple to move past the ads. Which is fine—I'll cop to totally skipping past them in print. But when it's easy to skip past ads, then (in order to make money on the magazine), there are two options: either make the ads so compelling that they're worth reading on their own, or increase the density of product placement within editorial copy. The same thing happens with television and Tivo, and it's not bad for some magazines per se (Lucky isn't hurting), but it decreases the credibility of articles that do have product mentions in them, and it encourages a growth in the number of articles that do mention products.

Unlike music, where it's hard to argue that the internet or filesharing has had a net negative impact on quality, or television, where the only damage comes from narrowing the options for folks who would otherwise eschew placements, journalism (even shoddy journalism in teen magazines) relies on a notion of independence that can't be maintained when corrupted with advertorials. Using a song in an ad doesn't necessarily damage the song or all music.

I'm not saying that this is the deathblow to free democracy or anything, just that it's something that everyone involved in magazines (from publishers on down) has to deal with, and that it's a trend that I think goes very much against the stated aims of folks who would otherwise argue for the freedom of information etc.
posted by klangklangston at 11:57 AM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


journalism (even shoddy journalism in teen magazines) relies on a notion of independence

"Notion" being the operative word. Most (all?) of these journalists (or in some cases "journalists") still represent, consciously or unconsciously, the views of their corporate masters.
posted by DU at 12:12 PM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yes, yes, yes, they're all running dogs for capitalism. Congrats on your Adbusters subscription.

But assuming that the system isn't smashed any time soon, this is taking corporate influence and making it more prominent and further eroding even the "notion" of independence that differentiates advertisement from editorial content, and it's happening in a way that minimizes transparency.

So "Things are already bad" is not a rebuttal to "This makes things worse."

(I could have an intelligent discussion about bias in the media and in what ways it is benign and in what ways it is malignant, but it seems you're more interested in just sloganeering.)
posted by klangklangston at 1:11 PM on July 22, 2008


Very much illegal. Even the relatively mild practice of "digital shoplifting" is a big enough concern to raise a stink in Japan; this is far worse. The magazine I work for would take a very dim view of appearing on this site. I hear many lawyers drafting many letters. Which is kind of a pity, because it's a good idea for a site where you can read lots of magazines online. But sadly magazines do cost money to produce, as do magazine websites with free content that you can already read for free.

Incidentally, we are aware that people read magazines in Borders and then don't buy them; this practice isn't a big concern, and bagging magazines solely to halt that practice (with no free gift) would probably lose more sales than it would gain. As a magazine consumer I've bought magazines that I didn't intend to buy because I've flicked into them and seen something interesting.

On the same token, advertisers know that people flick past and tune them out. There are still enough people who don't to make the economics of the whole industry stack up. For now, anyway.
posted by WPW at 1:13 PM on July 22, 2008


Incidentally, on the question of serving our corporate masters, I also hate advertorials and paid-for content. It pollutes all the editorial. The broader question of whether we, as journalists on magazines, are consciously or unconsciously serving the interests of our advertisers is a more complex one. Obviously, on one level we are serving their interests, or should be, because otherwise they wouldn't buy space. But advertisers in many cases buy space because they want their products associated with the editorial ethos of a magazine. Qualities like independence, a free spirit, fearlessness, and such are appealing to magazine buyers and also appealing to advertisers. The shrewder advertisers don't try to interfere in that (and instead indulge in the black art of PR, which is another story) and the better magazines don't allow interference. Obviously conflicts come up and there are ethical conflicts continually, but at least these are conflicts, fought over between an editorial department staffed by people who don't want to look like whores and salesmen who, although they have targets to reach, don't want to destroy the product they're selling. On all the magazines I have worked for, editorial has won more battles than it has lost, often by a big margin.
posted by WPW at 1:29 PM on July 22, 2008


Nice find. Am reading July 2008's MAD Classics. Thanks!
posted by not_on_display at 1:45 PM on July 22, 2008


Wow. I think Adobe could take a page from these guys' interface. Great post, but I wouldn't expect it to last. If it seems too good to be true...
posted by Brodiggitty at 2:53 PM on July 22, 2008


Congrats on your Adbusters subscription

Don't need it no more! (Though the misspelling makes it difficult to search the magazine section for.)

Sweet. That magazine was like $8 a pop. Now it's free!

Jamming the culture jammersTM since 2008
posted by mrgrimm at 2:56 PM on July 22, 2008


Brodiggitty is right, too. The interface is awful slick. I would give up my magazine subscriptions if I could read them like this on the day they released.

Pretty darn awesome. I haven't read Adbusters in years. The Invisible Life of Poet!
posted by mrgrimm at 3:13 PM on July 22, 2008


The alternative argument is that it's really quite simple to get free or nearly-free subscriptions to many magazines anyway; more people reading a magazine means higher circulation which means higher rates for advertisers which means more income.

Ignoring the premise of this beastly rationale (I'm only stealing a little bit, which they should thank me for), there's the subsequent logical problem of your assumption that all magazines generate a substantial or even meaningful amount of money on advertising revenue. The aforementioned Adbusters is included on this site, and the publication unsurprisingly makes their money not on advertising, but on sales.

Disclaimer: I work for a magazine that, as it happens, runs virtually no ads.
posted by waldo at 4:30 PM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


This website is so annoying. I am itching to read more magazines than I can afford subscriptions for, but I gave up after looking at the cover and first ad page of Spin.

Interesting. I skipped straight to the new music reviews, which is the only content of worth in the mag for me. I thought it worked great. I haven't read Spin in 15 years.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:45 PM on July 22, 2008


Ignoring the premise of this beastly rationale (I'm only stealing a little bit, which they should thank me for), there's the subsequent logical problem of your assumption that all magazines generate a substantial or even meaningful amount of money on advertising revenue. The aforementioned Adbusters is included on this site, and the publication unsurprisingly makes their money not on advertising, but on sales.

Disclaimer: I work for a magazine that, as it happens, runs virtually no ads.
posted by waldo at 4:30 PM on July 22 [1 favorite +] [!]


I'll also ignore the part where you completely misrepresented what I said.
posted by proj at 6:53 PM on July 22, 2008


As someone who earns his living writing for magazines, this strikes me as theft, pure and simple. (...) True, I've already been paid for the writing of mine that appears on Mygazines. Widespread pirating eventually cuts into profits, which ultimately trickles down to shmoes like me.
posted by adgnyc at 1:16 PM on July 22
1 - You have already been paid, so nobody is robbing your stuff. Yet.
2 - "eventually"... "ultimately": you don't know that. Nobody knows that. All we know is that most traditional media haven't found a way (ways) to prosper on the Web. Yet. It doesn't mean that they can't or that they won't. All we are witnessing is that what happened to music first is now happening to print (mags, dailies) and to tv. The ground is moving. Everything is moving. This is not necessarily bad. We live in interesting times. What we learned in print doesn't work anymore on the Web: not only business models but the craftsmanship of journalism itself is shifting. Complaining won't stop the wave. Journalism is about exploration. Only this time we have to explore the future or our own work.
I'm not saying that this is the deathblow to free democracy or anything, just that it's something that everyone involved in magazines (from publishers on down) has to deal with, and that it's a trend that I think goes very much against the stated aims of folks who would otherwise argue for the freedom of information etc.
posted by klangklangston at 2:57 PM on July 22
The first part of your sentence (until "...to deal with") is not related to the second part. How "free information" on the Web goes against "freedom of information"? You are projecting that the way of producing and monetizing information has to be the same on the Web. Obviously it isn't the same. As far as I know, most traditional mass media still make millions for their owners. It's only when they try to transfer their business model on the Web that they fail. Does it mean that mass media will have to find other ways of producing and monetizing information? Looks like it. Should we cry for them while they are forced to confront change? I don't think so.
posted by bru at 6:59 PM on July 22, 2008


This is so blatantly damaging to the print magazine industry I'm not even going to click on the fucking thing.
posted by autodidact at 7:18 PM on July 22, 2008


Okay I clicked through and found the PC Gamer review of Mass Effect within fifteen seconds of loading the site. I think this is wonderfully useful and although it might in some way be allowed, I don't think the website should exist.

As someone who still harbours a fantasy of getting some graphic novels published, the thought of some asshole just scanning them so that everyone on the web can look at them for free thanks to some other asshole who is now making ad revenue from my work while I get paid nothing and miss a sale really irks me.
posted by autodidact at 7:24 PM on July 22, 2008


The first part of your sentence (until "...to deal with") is not related to the second part. How "free information" on the Web goes against "freedom of information"? You are projecting that the way of producing and monetizing information has to be the same on the Web. Obviously it isn't the same. As far as I know, most traditional mass media still make millions for their owners. It's only when they try to transfer their business model on the Web that they fail. Does it mean that mass media will have to find other ways of producing and monetizing information? Looks like it. Should we cry for them while they are forced to confront change? I don't think so.

God, are you retarded?

The "mass media" has found other ways of monetizing information—through an increased reliance on advertorial and stealth-advertorial content (like, in the current issue of Seventeen, one of the ways to get your beach crush to notice you is to buy him a Mountain Dew). Which means that while the information will be easier to distribute, it will be of lower quality (quality here based on subjective but traditional views of public good, like independence and advocacy). Given that folks who argue for the trope of information "wanting" to be free generally are of liberal stripes, this is an unintended and also negative consequence.

So please spare me your tired clichés about new media or "exploring our future." I explained above why music and television are different models—on either side—and why this matters to journalism, and you gave me the hackneyed Cory Doctorow bullshit.
posted by klangklangston at 8:28 PM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


They only have two options for gender on signup. I dunnae like it already.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:58 PM on July 22, 2008


> Which means that while the information will be easier to distribute, it will be of lower quality (quality here based on subjective but traditional views of public good, like independence and advocacy).

Except this is exactly what the public clearly demands — large quantities of low-quality information. This is what the mass market is willing to pay for.

If you want to produce quality — and it's as true for woodworkers as it is for journalists — you're going to be chasing a relatively small part of the market: consumers who care about quality. The journalist who wants to produce unbiased reporting is, essentially, in the same position as a woodworker who wants to produce beautiful hand-made dining-room sets: the average consumer doesn't care enough to pay the premium required to keep him in business. (Or, more charitably, they don't understand why the price difference is so big for the perceived difference in quality.)

I'm not sure what the long-term solution is here, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve propping up obsolete business models purely because they have the side-effect of keeping quality high(er). If high-quality journalism is such a necessity as a public good that we're willing to consider that, perhaps we should just subsidize it directly. (And if we're not willing to subsidize it directly, perhaps it's not such a necessity after all.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:25 PM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


DU:
"Notion" being the operative word. Most (all?) of these journalists (or in some cases "journalists") still represent, consciously or unconsciously, the views of their corporate masters.

DU, I'm wondering how many journalists you actually know.

And yeah, neutrality is a myth - often a dangerous one - but I'm afraid earnest use of the phrase "corporate masters" might have tipped your comment over in to self-parody.

Kadin2048:
Except this is exactly what the public clearly demands — large quantities of low-quality information. This is what the mass market is willing to pay for.

Except that the news media is in some ways a command economy. The public, for the most part, demands information consistent in tone and scope with the information they have already been supplied and with which they have formed opinions. The fact that this is "low-quality" often boils down to editorial or business decisions, not "demand." Treat people like idiots, they will act like idiots.

The journalist who wants to produce unbiased reporting is, essentially,

nonexistent, or has only just now applied for j-school. There are no unbiased journalists. There are journalists who are aware of their biases, acknowledge them gracefully and try to find flexibility within them, and there are journalists who don't give a shit. But everyone is biased. Everyone. And generally the ones who seem most not to be are the ones to trust the least, because either they are actively lying to you, or they aren't even smart enough to be aware of their own hang-ups.
posted by regicide is good for you at 11:15 PM on July 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


God, are you retarded?
note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the
issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site.


The "mass media" has found other ways of monetizing information—through an increased reliance on advertorial and stealth-advertorial content (like, in the current issue of Seventeen, one of the ways to get your beach crush to notice you is to buy him a Mountain Dew). Which means that while the information will be easier to distribute, it will be of lower quality (quality here based on subjective but traditional views of public good, like independence and advocacy). Given that folks who argue for the trope of information "wanting" to be free generally are of liberal stripes, this is an unintended and also negative consequence.

So please spare me your tired clichés about new media or "exploring our future." I explained above why music and television are different models—on either side—and why this matters to journalism, and you gave me the hackneyed Cory Doctorow bullshit.
posted by klangklangston at 11:28 PM on July 22
I sure appreciate your respectful consideration of a point of view differing from yours. It is a great asset in the journalistic profession.

Let me just stress that all I said is that, given the data we have right now, we can't know what's up ahead. I am not announcing a rosy future, I am just saying that the doom you are predicting has no factual basis. "Information (...) will be of lower quality." Thanks, professor, but how do you know that? You don't and you can't. Overall, the quantity and quality of information we have access to right now has never been so high and so diverse. That's the data. The rest is just a projection of your enjoyment of immanent doom, that nobody has to share.
posted by bru at 6:55 AM on July 23, 2008


Wonder what Kid Rock thinks.
posted by autodidact at 7:10 AM on July 23, 2008


Kid Rock's analogy seems deeply flawed. People do not download content for free because the creators are rich. Also, most (rational) people recognize a qualitative difference between stealing an actual physical object and "stealing" an idea or making an unauthorized copy.

That said, I do agree with most his suggestions (aside from the obvious "Stay in school; stay off drugs" joke). Steal Toyotas, steal gas, and steal jeans. Yes yes yes! Steal everything (except people, pets, and plants)!

As someone who still harbours a fantasy of getting some graphic novels published, the thought of some asshole just scanning them so that everyone on the web can look at them for free thanks to some other asshole who is now making ad revenue from my work while I get paid nothing and miss a sale really irks me.

Welcome to the 21st century. If that is the worst of your irks, we should all be so lucky.

The unauthorized duplication of your work would likely increase your sales rather than decrease them, and regardless, it's the Internet. As long as access remains open to all, there's gonna be some country somewhere where your notion of IP laws do not apply. It's possible that a NWO-type agreement between G7 countries, etc. could essentially shut down unmoderated access to the Internet, but hopefully not in my lifetime.

If it's any comfort, I don't think the profitability of the Google AdSense model will last for very long (the click-fraud storm brews), so I think it would be unlikely anyone else would profit off stealing your novels and posting them for ad revenue. (However, I've been way late on all my technology predictions ever, so maybe I'm overly optimistic there.)

Anyway, it's a brave new world of IP law. In the case of art, I think it's very hard to make a case for the necessity of IP law (i.e. I don't see much, if any, inherent public good in making artistic works copyrightable). However, journalism seems to be a very different story. There does seem to be a very obvious public good in providing an incentive for journalists to investigate, expose, and deliver reliable information to the public.

I admit that it feels "more wrong" to read unauthorized copies of news magazines then it does to download an unauthorized copy of a song or album. I think that's because a news story (or even magazine article or novel) is not a tangible possession, whereas music and movies are.

If I download music and like it, I'll buy the album if it's available, pay money to see the artist perform, and (tho rarely) support the artist with merchandise. If I download a news article from, say Ken Silverstein or Eric Alterman, I read the article online and that's it. Even if it's fantastic, I'm not going to buy a copy (although I already subscribe to Harper's and The Nation), I'm not going to buy a T-shirt, and I'm certainly not going to pay money to hear them talk.

Just rambling ...
posted by mrgrimm at 10:49 AM on July 24, 2008


"I am not announcing a rosy future, I am just saying that the doom you are predicting has no factual basis."

And this is why I asked if you were retarded. No factual basis? You haven't noticed the marked increase of product placement, even to news shows? Or seen the myriad of news stories tying this to Tivo and other DVRs?

For those of us who work within journalism, the trend toward product placement and advertorial content has been obvious, especially if you have any experience in the freelance world. Magazines have cut straight editorial pages, and magazines like Maxim and Cosmo have increased their placement pages year after year for the last five years. Magazine sales, especially general interest magazines, has fallen year by year, with publications like Lucky (which are essentially ALL advertorial) some of the only rising numbers.

So, given that the response in television, EVEN NEWS TELEVISION, is relying more and more upon product placement to shore up decreasing advertising revenue, and given that the magazine industry is facing similar straits and is responding in a similar manner, to argue that there's no factual basis for these claims and then go off on some bullshit about how we all have to adapt to New Media means that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

And your quibble about the semantics of the quality of information would have been rendered entirely moot if you had bothered to parse the parenthetical that defined quality. If you want people to respect you, try not to be such a cheerleading dot-com dumbass.

The points that regicide… makes about command versus demand economy for journalism are important too.
posted by klangklangston at 3:53 PM on July 24, 2008


Oops. I didn't realized this thread had gone on.

klangklangston, I am sorry that you are feeling personally the tremors that are shaking traditional mass media. I know what you are going through: I have been a journalist and an editor in chief. I have done my share. But I have stopped earning money from print journalism almost 10 years ago. So I suppose that you are still judging the quality of journalism as an insider who sees his world crumble. From this point of view, you may be right.

However, my point of view is as an avid and knowledgeable consumer of news, and I have never been so well informed from so many sources about so many events. That's my definition of quality: do I have more credible sources? Check. Am I alerted to more events? Check. Do I have more diversity of points of view? Check. Do I have more in-depth knowledge available on any topic? Check. Are more fields entering my perceptions? Check.

The crisis involving people making a living in the news business doesn't mean that there is a crisis in the availability of information. It is possible that you have lived in a professional world where you believed that the responsibility of a balanced information rested on the shoulders of honest journalists. I drink to this optimistic post war work ethic. The world is changing and I think that it is now my own responsibility as a reader to make sure that I check a variety of sources for every important news.

And, as a reader, I'll be glad to get involved in journalistic endeavours:
the process of journalism itself is increasingly open to deconstruction: the tools of researching, recording, publishing and distribution can now be broken up and distributed between teams of organised readers.
posted by bru at 9:26 AM on August 6, 2008


« Older Art Deco...  |  The Coffee Junkie’s Guide to C... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments