-
chrismoranuk MattRogerson Google I mean, I agree and I don't. For a long time there were plenty of publishers who republished a lot of stuff off the wire because it wasn't just about aggregation, but the assumption that your local news source was also your window to the world....Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂
-
chrismoranuk MattRogerson Google The behavior change for that wasn't just about users, it was def driven, in part, by Google steering publishers to specific activity using pressure like search algo changes. I don't know if it's good or bad but I don't think we should underestimate that it wasn't reader driven...Permalink On twitter.com
Mood 0
-
chrismoranuk MattRogerson Google And I do think that selecting specific stuff off feeds and republishing it--as is--*is* journalistic. But for DM I'd note that they also have a significant portion of wire articles that they rewrite and add value to....Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂
-
chrismoranuk MattRogerson Google Here's the thing, I think we generally haven't thought much, more just reacted, to how we've changed our use of wire services in the digital age and it would prob be good to do so more actively. Especially because I think they do have value for pubs AND because...On twitter.com
Mood +3 🙂
-
chrismoranuk MattRogerson Google The thing is we've generally all come around to the idea that the fractured media landscape is bad. Maybe a little more centralization, where trusted publishers act as aggregators and *do* use wire services, could be advantageous to the health of the media landscape.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂