Comments on: Should We Wish for Information Monopoly? http://blurringborders.com/2009/03/17/should-we-wish-for-information-monopoly/ Tech Policy, Development and World Affairs Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: prepbooks http://blurringborders.com/2009/03/17/should-we-wish-for-information-monopoly/comment-page-1/#comment-320 prepbooks Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:27:34 +0000 http://blurringborders.com/?p=592#comment-320 Thanks for the informative post Kevin, you are great, keep posts like this one coming lot often, have just bookmarked you. Thanks for the informative post Kevin, you are great, keep posts like this one coming lot often, have just bookmarked you.

]]> By: prepbooks http://blurringborders.com/2009/03/17/should-we-wish-for-information-monopoly/comment-page-1/#comment-215 prepbooks Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:27:34 +0000 http://blurringborders.com/?p=592#comment-215 Thanks for the informative post Kevin, you are great, keep posts like this one coming lot often, have just bookmarked you. Thanks for the informative post Kevin, you are great, keep posts like this one coming lot often, have just bookmarked you.

]]> By: Kevin D http://blurringborders.com/2009/03/17/should-we-wish-for-information-monopoly/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Kevin D Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:59:00 +0000 http://blurringborders.com/?p=592#comment-211 As usual, you're much more eloquent than I. The search for new cross-subsidies is what I was trying to get at with "false-monopoly."<br><br>Though Mike's new post says that maybe even cross-subsidies aren't needed: <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090317/0312314149.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://techdirt.com/articles/20090317/031231414...</a> As usual, you're much more eloquent than I. The search for new cross-subsidies is what I was trying to get at with “false-monopoly.”

Though Mike's new post says that maybe even cross-subsidies aren't needed: http://techdirt.com/articles/20090317/031231414…

]]> By: Kevin D http://blurringborders.com/2009/03/17/should-we-wish-for-information-monopoly/comment-page-1/#comment-210 Kevin D Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:56:37 +0000 http://blurringborders.com/?p=592#comment-210 Haha. Thought I'd get you to respond to this one : ) Haha. Thought I'd get you to respond to this one : )

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://blurringborders.com/2009/03/17/should-we-wish-for-information-monopoly/comment-page-1/#comment-209 Adam Thierer Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:29:02 +0000 http://blurringborders.com/?p=592#comment-209 The decline of newspapers comes down to the death of “protectable scarcity”. There’s just too much other competition out there online already for our eyes and ears. We’re witnessing substitution effects on a scale never seen in the media world, with disruptive digital technologies and networks splintering our attention spans. That de-massification of media means that high fixed cost endeavors like daily newspapers are not going to be able to sustain the cross-subsidies they’ve long gotten from advertisers. <br><br>Since we cannot -- and should not -- "re-create" scarcity (or local monopolies) to solve this problem, this presents challenging questions for the future of "long form" investigative journalism, which is expensive to fund and sustain. The best hope is to try to find create new cross-subsidies for investigative journalism, but where those cross-subsidies flow from is the difficult question. Non-profits? Micropayments? Google?? Who knows. Difficult days ahead no matter how you cut it. I wish I could be more optimistic, but it's hard for the reasons Zuckerman, Starr and many others note. <br><br>More <a href="http://techliberation.com/2009/02/27/compaine-on-the-future-of-newspapers/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The decline of newspapers comes down to the death of “protectable scarcity”. There’s just too much other competition out there online already for our eyes and ears. We’re witnessing substitution effects on a scale never seen in the media world, with disruptive digital technologies and networks splintering our attention spans. That de-massification of media means that high fixed cost endeavors like daily newspapers are not going to be able to sustain the cross-subsidies they’ve long gotten from advertisers.

Since we cannot — and should not — “re-create” scarcity (or local monopolies) to solve this problem, this presents challenging questions for the future of “long form” investigative journalism, which is expensive to fund and sustain. The best hope is to try to find create new cross-subsidies for investigative journalism, but where those cross-subsidies flow from is the difficult question. Non-profits? Micropayments? Google?? Who knows. Difficult days ahead no matter how you cut it. I wish I could be more optimistic, but it's hard for the reasons Zuckerman, Starr and many others note.

More here.

]]> By: Michael Masnick http://blurringborders.com/2009/03/17/should-we-wish-for-information-monopoly/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Michael Masnick Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:58:45 +0000 http://blurringborders.com/?p=592#comment-208 No. :)<br><br>Or, more specifically, hell no.<br><br>I've yet to see a less efficient market produce more of something. Give it time. There are plenty of models that will make sense for investigative journalism... and they'll end up being better at it than the current inefficient models.<br><br>TPMmuckraker is a start. There will be more. No. :)

Or, more specifically, hell no.

I've yet to see a less efficient market produce more of something. Give it time. There are plenty of models that will make sense for investigative journalism… and they'll end up being better at it than the current inefficient models.

TPMmuckraker is a start. There will be more.

]]>