SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Writer's strike could carry $500 million price tag

    Talking about a writer's strike here is pretty much like talking about a unicorn. However, it's instructive to see different models where content drives revenue.

    Back then, thousands of people were thrown out of work for more than five months, and some estimates peg the entertainment industry's strike-related losses as high as $500 million.
    --A writers' strike nobody wants
    Apparently these smart Hollywood guys haven't heard of all the great readers you get with an elance ads promising twenty bucks.

    Or maybe they know something about creating content that drives revenue the human scraper software corps don't.

    It seems a genuine pity we can't see what made for adsense TV programs on every channel would look like. Now maybe we can. Yes, Hollywood could learn a lot about written content from the web.

    Hey, maybe if this strike drags on long enough the networks will run a contest on Craigslist. Lowest bid gets to write your favorite series. Now just turn that around and you'll get a taste of what users face every day. ...With a small break at Americas Funniest Home Youtube videos.

  2. #2
    Avid Logophile silver trophy
    ParkinT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,343
    Mentioned
    192 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    IMHO, if the TV writers go on strike, who would notice?
    The 'quality' of American television today is disgustingly poor.

    Lowest bid gets to write your favorite series
    Isn't that how the current "Reality TV" shows came about?
    Don't be yourself. Be someone a little nicer. -Mignon McLaughlin, journalist and author (1913-1983)


    Git is for EVERYONE
    Literally, the best app for readers.
    Make Your P@ssw0rd Secure
    Leveraging SubDomains

  3. #3
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I certainly wouldn't notice TV workers striking... with all the talk of workers in a creative industry, I think these are the least. I only really watch TV for the sports/news anyway... television shows aren't my bag.
    Tienes los perros informacion?
    Razas de perros es muy bien y foro de perros!

  4. #4
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,341
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    i guess none of you guys like leno's monologue, then?
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  5. #5
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You know, the last time the writers went on strike this crazy upstart network called Fox (I'm pretty sure it was Fox) had the audacity (the AUDACITY) to green-light a little show called "America's Most Wanted" - nowadays nobody would dare criticize the show, save for those who've been profiled on it of course.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The real issue is what's the secret of creating enough revenue so a strike can cost $500 million? And that is content, backed by a sane revenue model. Another, apparent, secret: Content costs money.

    And content that keeps readers coming back and telling their friends about (lowering your SEO costs) costs more money.

    The implication is saying content is king ...and really meaning it.

    As the source of Youtube videos -- the ones people want to see -- starts drying up, it's be interesting to see what the response is. It's far from clear that one well-paid writer may keep 5,000 bloggers with something to opine about on a regular basis.

    While it probably won't drag on for five or six months this time. If it does, the lack of original content to echo should serve as the web equivalent of the credit crunch to the echo chamber that is the web.

    Web content writing makes TV writing look like Shakespeare in comparison.

  7. #7
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by DCrux View Post
    Web content writing makes TV writing look like Shakespeare in comparison.

    +1 ... brilliant post dCrux and I agree 100% with your point of view.

    Rob
    *** AdSense Forums & AdSense World ***

    Burglary.org Controversial.org Defamation.org
    Puebla.org constituent.org eoliens.com oxycodone.us

  8. #8
    Word Painter silver trophy Shyflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Winona, MN USA
    Posts
    10,053
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DCrux View Post

    It seems a genuine pity we can't see what made for adsense TV programs on every channel would look like. Now maybe we can. Yes, Hollywood could learn a lot about written content from the web.
    Apparently your cable or satellite subscription doesn't include all the shopping channels... or those that run infomercials from dusk to dawn.

    Guess what... there are a lot of great content writers on the web and some of them have chosen that genre for their specialty. To some of them, $20.00 is big money. In some countries its enough to feed them, put a roof over their heads, and pay their bills (if they have bills) for nearly a month.

    Moreover, when you compare web content writing to Television writing you are comparing apples to oranges. Web content writing is not meant to entertain, it's meant to sell. Writing web content, even in advertising is a completely different animal from writing televised content. Web content is meant to take a reader through the seller's sale process in a medium where consumer trust is abysmal. When was the last time you had a trust issue with the big brand advertisers on television. More to the point, television advertising can be anywhere from 10 seconds to 60 seconds per spot. Website pages take much longer to convert viewers to buyers.

    So... exactly where does your analogy fit?

    You know I'm not done yet because this really gets under my skin. One more question... when did you last read a web page that needed a laugh track to "sell" it's value to its visitors? Shakespeare? I think not.
    Linda Jenkinson
    "Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean." ~Unknown

  9. #9
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One more question... when did you last read a web page that needed a laugh track to "sell" it's value to its visitors? Shakespeare? I think not.
    Alas, for a muse of Flash which would ascend to the very heavens of dull, witless gimmickry.

    Or if we're talking about advertising: Flash, the animated GIF of a new generation.

    Web content writing is not meant to entertain, it's meant to sell. ...Apparently your cable or satellite subscription doesn't include all the shopping channels... or those that run infomercials from dusk to dawn.
    I'd like to see what cable TV you get. For myself, I have a couple home shopping channels, I don't mind studying infomercials, and can't recall the web page that rises to that level of simple commercial competence. I do see a lot of web sites that are trying to entertain when they should be attempting to sell. But more and more entertainment TV is only stopping a moment on TV before providing the motivating draw to web "successes" like Youtube.

    Yes, the web is more about the 'long tail.' But in order to have a tail, you require a dog ....and the web's long tail is attached to the dog of content written for TV. A truth rather too inconvenient to acknowledge. It's funny how many who "don't watch TV" just mean they're not watching TV commercials because they are watching TV content ported to Youtube.

    More often dull, boilerplate generics are used to disinterest people into buying. On most web sites the information value is nil. And web copy would make a procrastinating teen's copy-and-paste Wikipedia term paper look like a white paper from a think tank.

    Heck I can't seem to find a competent commercial web infographic with anything interesting to say about its subject. Most people writing web site copy seem to be more enthused about picketing business and railing against base commerce than participating in it. At least the WGA writers seem somewhat interested in making money.

    In other words, given most products -- I'll take fifty minutes on a home shopping channel or well written national informercial over fifty weeks of Professional SEO, Web Design and Hosting. Adsense is more a chain letter scheme than a business model. Infomercial people only make money when people buy product -- they get absolutely zip when somebody surfs the channel for .5 seconds.

    There are no "surf fraud" mills employing Indians to surf TV to artificially boost informercial income. And, when you're employing a laugh track, you at least have to know what's happening with the written dialog. It's almost a web standard the cheap gimmicks have to be irrelevant to the written word on a web page.

    With TV you can't interchange the visuals and dialog randomly without someone noticing they don't go together. It's quite possible to randomly interchange the generic boilerplate web copy between sites.

    However, I'm sure the networks are quite open to hiring $20-per-day workers off the web. And I'm all for having that happen. That would take care of the networks business model and there wouldn't be money for the WGA to strike about, but that too would be more entertaining than not.

    Of course with America's Funniest Home videos gone to Youtube, then Youtube being shown on TV, it's arguable who's leading the march to the bottom. I'll accede the web with a more nimbler and faster response time can get much worse much faster.
    Last edited by DCrux; Nov 12, 2007 at 12:16.

  10. #10
    Word Painter silver trophy Shyflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Winona, MN USA
    Posts
    10,053
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DCrux View Post
    more enthused about picketing business and railing against base commerce than participating in it.
    Yes, I catch your enthusiasm.


    I think you fail to see the forest. There is a lot of excellent content on the web and there are many web writing professionals who work to improve standards in content as well as in code.

    You, yourself have left many links to articles written by very competent web writers. Do you exclude them from what is written on the web?

    Yes, there are a lot of copy/paste sites and poor content sites out there, but I choose to do what I can to improve the web and help aspiring copywriters improve their content, not chastize the clueless.

    Things only get better when we work to improve them. I've never seen a good building go up while a bulldozer was still on site.

    For my part,
    Linda Jenkinson
    "Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean." ~Unknown

  11. #11
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Do you exclude them from what is written on the web?
    Uh, quite a few of those were articles railing about "webified" content (not my term, but theirs). As WPTS exemplifies, the web is good at one form of inspiration -- perhaps two.

    I see that an occasional lonely tree springing from a trash heap does not a forest make. It is far more likely to make for one soon-to-be dead tree.

    You should be aware of Sturgeon's law. The web really makes Strugeon out to be an wild eyed optimist.

  12. #12
    Word Painter silver trophy Shyflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Winona, MN USA
    Posts
    10,053
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I read through all three of the links you left. I totally agree with the article on "theirs" In fact, it's a great article, but it isn't talking about the 'average' web copywriter, IMO, it's talking about all those whose buzzwords and hackneyed web terms seem to define them as the upper echelon of web copywriting.

    Again, oddly enough on WPTS (one of my favorite sites BTW), most of those in the top ten aren't the small businesses that provide the backbone for most freelance web copyrighters. Instead they are the high-profile businesses that don't hire the $20.00 a page help. However, Vincent Flanders talks a whole lot more about design than content. His whole gig is usability... design and structure, not readability.

    Your third link... someone whining because there's nothing original on the web. Well, there was nothing too original on his site nor about his complaint. Take a look around. Cars (talking about design here), clothes,... and your topic, television... all carbon copies of what came before.

    Yet, sometimes those carbon copies come up with small changes that make them better. Wasn't it Shakespeare who said, "There's nothing new under the sun." or was that from an earlier source... the Christian bible? Either way, that complaint has been around for centuries.

    So we build on what we know and try to make it better. Of course the other choice is to, instead, carp like Sturgeon about how rotten everything is.
    Linda Jenkinson
    "Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean." ~Unknown

  13. #13
    SitePoint Addict BlazeMiskulin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DCrux View Post

    There are no "surf fraud" mills employing Indians to surf TV to artificially boost informercial income.
    Instead, there's "Sweeps Week", when TV networks bring out the big guns and/or bring blockbuster movies to the small screen so that they can get lots of artificially-raised ratings in order to set their advertising rates for the next 6 months.
    M Blaze Miskulin
    President
    Geek Niche Web Hosting

  14. #14
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    True. And the they commit this fraud by (horrors) airing programs which are well-written and (gasp) researched and tested as popular. And that's the average response, most TV networks participate in this awful practice of using good material to boost ratings.

    And they are properly criticized for doing this. Some shows actually use this practice as an "in joke."

    In contrast, rather than do the same for a web page, the generally accepted popular thing is to pay money to game the search engine. A more direct ratings-boost equivalent would be to (horrors) research quality content to (gasp) actually qualify for high page rank.

    And for this -- aside from myself and a pitiful smattering of criticism from Zeldman and few others -- there is silence.

    Again, in comparison TV makes the web look like the content production equivalent of a carnival sideshow. (My apology to carnival folk)

  15. #15
    winter is around the corner Tomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The 500 million was the loss 20 years ago. I think today, the TV industry is much larger, the loss would probably be much larger, billions.

    - Tomer

  16. #16
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    billions.
    Yes, but keep in mind this is only suggests that part lost is a fraction of a much larger pie. What you want to focus on is with TV, whatever level of quality you want to assign to it, the value created is tremendous. When you can't imagine the tremendous value creation effect of well written content, of course you're going to focus on cost as sole determining factor.

    Consequently, instead of increasing the size of the pie (value), you're left scrambling for crumbs.

    The argument is, you get to be able to lose $500 million, or a couple billion, when you acknowledge content is king. And you prove that by making your wallet back up the blithely mouthed words.

    Show me where you spend your money and you won't have to tell me where your priorities are, because I'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    Last edited by DCrux; Nov 13, 2007 at 08:04.

  17. #17
    SitePoint Addict BlazeMiskulin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DCrux View Post
    True. And the they commit this fraud by (horrors) airing programs which are well-written and (gasp) researched and tested as popular.
    Not really. They air sensationalist manure that will pique the interest of the masses. Or they replay movies that were never written for television.

    So you can't say that this is "well-written television,"

    Again, in comparison TV makes the web look like the content production equivalent of a carnival sideshow. (My apology to carnival folk)
    Then I would suggest that you aren't looking at the right places on the web. And you're not looking at the majority of what's on television. On a daily basis I read information and entertainment that is far superior to what's on television and never could be on television.

    I read approximately 20 web-comics every day. Most of them could never make it to mass media because they require that the reader understand science, politics, sociology, and comparative religion. Compare this to the fart jokes and cheap gags you get from TV cartoons.

    I read several well-researched, well-documented, in-depth blogs every day which deal with significant civil rights issues. Compare that to TV news shows that use sensationalism and deception to cater to the prurient interests of the masses then pat themselves on the back for "protecting the people".

    I participate in several forums on a daily basis; forums where I can engage in intelligent dialog and debate, work to educate myself on technical, social, and political issues, as well as help to educate others on the same topics. Compare that to "Day of Our Lives."

    I actively read and interact with the sites I visit. I read the content, question it, learn from it, perhaps reply to it. Compare that to the millions of TV "viewers" who simply turn the box on and let it run in the background all day long while paying no attention to it.

    If you're arguing that the television sector of the entertainment industry has a large economic footprint, then yes. You are correct. If you're arguing that the television sector of the entertainment industry is inherently well-written and intellectually important, then I have to disagree. It's fodder for the masses--bread and circuses, my friend. Bread and circuses.
    Last edited by BlazeMiskulin; Nov 14, 2007 at 06:18. Reason: fixed typo
    M Blaze Miskulin
    President
    Geek Niche Web Hosting

  18. #18
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Also important to note, the mass versus niche differences. Still an interesting debate to have, especially where we're "debating" O.K. versus Okay and whether to capitalize an acronym.

    We'll see how interesting these sites, many of which cater to the "I don't watch TV" crowd, fare without a kickstart from a TV writer to opine about. Whether news or entertainment, Colbert report and The Daily Show infotainment, more of the interesting stuff (read traffic producing popular) on the web is TV.

    The famed web "interactivity" is amusing. Increasingly the web supplies the comment box widget for a TV show or print publication. More likely a fragment of a too short TV news spot, taken out of context.

    More amusing still when you realize, but for TV writers in general, this thread would not even exist. And it is this particular shade of web colored glasses perhaps this strike will reveal for what it is.

    Few, if any, of these interesting sites go out and collect the news. They rather "spin" it for a narrow niche, who then considers the spin as accurate reporting. And I'm talking about web reporting spun so hard it should be shooting sparks ....Fox News and other MSM might be envious, but hardly a leader here. I don't watch or even much like what little of Fox News I've seen, but at least they seem aware enough to consciously know what they're doing.

    And what they're doing is taking a hint from the Web. Love it or hate it, Fox news is the imperfect product of trying to do on one medium what another pioneered.

    Actually, this may be one of the last few years we can have a thread like this, as one medium becomes an echo chamber of the other. I expect this debate will shortly be seen as a rather annoying nit-picking of the chicken versus egg variety. Historic trivia perhaps, but only that.

    Here's hoping a long strike will wake up more than the networks. Dumbed down mass pablum versus narrow long-tail faction-casting of that self-same pablum ....hmmm. Tough choice.
    Last edited by DCrux; Nov 14, 2007 at 07:55.

  19. #19
    Word Painter silver trophy Shyflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Winona, MN USA
    Posts
    10,053
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BlazeMiskulin View Post
    Not really. They air sensationalist manure that will pique the interest of the masses. Or they replay movies that were never written for television.

    So you can't say that this is "well-written television,"



    Then I would suggest that you aren't looking at the right places on the web. And you're not looking at the majority of what's on television. On a daily basis I read information and entertainment that is far superior to what's on television and never could be on television.

    I read approximately 20 web-comics every day. Most of them could never make it to mass media because they require that the reader understand science, politics, sociology, and comparative religion. Compare this to the fart jokes and cheap gags you get from TV cartoons.

    I read several well-researched, well-documented, in-depth blogs every day which deal with significant civil rights issues. Compare that to TV news shows that use sensationalism and deception to cater to the prurient interests of the masses then pat themselves on the back for "protecting the people".

    I participate in several forums on a daily basis; forums where I can engage in intelligent dialog and debate, work to educate myself on technical, social, and political issues, as well as help to educate others on the same topics. Compare that to "Day of Our Lives."

    I actively read and interact with the sites I visit. I read the content, question it, learn from it, perhaps reply to it. Compare that to the millions of TV "viewers" who simply turn the box on and let it run in the background all day long while paying no attention to it.

    If you're arguing that the television sector of the entertainment industry has a large economic footprint, then yes. You are correct. If you're arguing that the television sector of the entertainment industry is inherently well-written and intellectually important, then I have to disagree. It's fodder for the masses--bread and circuses, my friend. Bread and circuses.
    Bravo! Well said!
    Linda Jenkinson
    "Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean." ~Unknown

  20. #20
    SitePoint Addict BlazeMiskulin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DCrux View Post
    We'll see how interesting these sites, many of which cater to the "I don't watch TV" crowd, fare without a kickstart from a TV writer to opine about. Whether news or entertainment, Colbert report and The Daily Show infotainment, more of the interesting stuff (read traffic producing popular) on the web is TV.
    What?

    You're saying that the web is nothing but a rehash of what's on TV? Okay... I'm not sure what web you're on, but it ain't mine. I'm online about 16-18 hours a day. I'm on at work, I'm on at home. The only TV-related site I go to is the torrent site where I can grab Heroes. (I can't watch it on TV since I don't own one--and haven't for years).

    I read news (first-hand news and commentary on news gathered from newspapers and other print media). I read comics. I do research (ths past month it's been photography, mythical figures, snakes, mummification, hardware stores, tropical islands, outboard motors, and decking material for piers, among other topics). I read comics. I read several forums dealing with computers, politics, and photography. I read stories and anecdotes written by some great storytellers.

    No TV included in there anywhere. The only mention of TV in any of these was by a friend of mine who's a novelist. He made a brief post in support of the WGA, since many of his fellow writers have ties to the TV end of the entertainment industry.


    More amusing still when you realize, but for TV writers in general, this thread would not even exist. And it is this particular shade of web colored glasses perhaps this strike will reveal for what it is.
    By gosh you're right! If something didn't exist we wouldn't be writing about it. How profound!

    This is a strawman, pure and simple.

    Few, if any, of these interesting sites go out and collect the news. They rather "spin" it for a narrow niche, who then considers the spin as accurate reporting.
    Then you're not going to the right news sites. Take a good look at news on the web. Much of it comes from AP and UPI--both print media organizations. Even more of it comes from newspapers and news magazines--national, state, and local. And a healthy and growing sector comes from bloggers from all ends of the spectrum who go out and do first-hand investigative research. They submit FOIA requests. They go to town meetings and state Congressional sessions. They read police reports. They interview people. They collect and publish photos and videos taken by individual citizens. TV enters into it nowhere. If TV were to vanish, these media would get more popular, not less.

    If you're looking at the web and seeing nothing but television reflected back at you, then it can only be because that's what you're projecting onto it.
    M Blaze Miskulin
    President
    Geek Niche Web Hosting

  21. #21
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    commentary on news gathered from newspapers and other print media
    Another piggybacking on highly-paid writers. There's just no strike there to dry up the source.

    Like no man, no media type is an island. Let's take an example from the web I see, which is a local blogger who (one supposes) gets into his car and goes out and gets the news. That news is a conference of one highly paid writer (Local Print News, which will then put that conference on their online pub) and one of the local TV News Outlets who set up the whole thing to have something to telecast (and then put on their online pub).

    That's just the top of the blog post, taken as it comes. Yes the guy is going out and doing original reporting of what probably is a conference important for its news value ...which specifically exists solely for access by old media news coverage and would not exist but for those outlets.

    In other words the event itself would not exist for the blogger to cover were it not for old media.

    Yes, a vanishing small portion of bloggers do original reporting which would not exist but for that blogger, or bloggers.

    While it might change in some future time, the photo ops happen not for web cams but for TV Network cams. And it is, to say the least, disingenuous to think this isn't a piggyback a little like the original Napster piggybacked on old media.

    I could go down the list to the highly paid writer behind every post on that bloggers' site. ...A research white paper quoted (was the writer of the white paper hired off craigslist and paid fifty bucks for a keyword stuff job? Probably more like a highly paid economist -- or in your case -- scientist). As for other events, we're talking about a highly paid writer or proofreader who goes over a speech, delivered for coverage by highly paid writers in TV and Print.

    And whether it is a highly paid science writer publishing in a journal, which gets on Wired, ...which gets to a blog, we're talking about all the dependents who go begging without that writing. Writing which has no incentive to exist without pay.

    Unless you're talking about mentos and coke. ...But I don't see a new source of cold fusion coming from that reaction.

    The exception -- again on my example -- is a youtube of a blogging event, held by bloggers, for bloggers, about blogging ...probably about other bloggers. As I scan through, there are no TV networks, none of those fancy cameras or microphone toting network spokes-models with journalism degrees much ridiculed covering the event.

    And looking over the vid, it's not a big wonder.

    I can pretty much page down any blog. And get events which would never exist but for the TV and print news coverage, and being shadowed by a blogger. Again, we're talking about the fruits which flow from highly-paid writers to the web. Scratch the overwhelming majority of what draws people, and you will find a writer 1) Not paid the standard pittance you can see regularly bandied about here 2) Not producing the standard result of paying a writer as little as possible ....plus whatever you can get away with

    Not that it doesn't go the other way as well. I do recall the John Kerry "don't taser me bro" event was expertly covered on the web first. TV really hasn't added anything to that but show it.

    Hopefully that bolsters your arguement, as it is not primarily about TV. It's about getting what you pay for with writers. TV is simply the occasion. It could have been a strike of any group of content writers. ...Except maybe for one group I can think of.

  22. #22
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And now, because nobody can mount a rebuttal with a specific, I'm forced to write something myself. Notice my stuff has examples of specific events?

    ....Anyone?

    For an example take the rise of, say, Ron Paul. Now this was a reaction, by the web, to lack of coverage and dismissal by MSM (TV and print, with print probably taking it lead from TV).

    A one-day fundraising event, orchestrated primarily online, by what seems to be amateurs raised something over $4 million. This is not unlike Howard Dean and other grassroots efforts which, but for the web, would probably not exist in size and speed.

    The Ron Paul thing could have happened through direct mail. This would take 1) Highly paid direct response writers, probably specialized in political fundraising. 2) A lot of upfront money for physical mailings and postage.

    It probably could not have worked as well to produce those results on one day for logistics reasons.

    Again, the impetus was MSM. However the response has at least a smidgen of credibility for something uniquely web. And, as far as I can tell, no highly paid expert content writers like those who are on strike had anything to do with it. The example is that this web event seems to have changed the coverage of Paul from a non event to a dark horse.

    It's a devious example, because it was sparked by a dearth of TV writing, mostly notably televised debates which exists only for television, but the example does hold. The web got writers in MSM to change. This, in contrast, to having the latest cute Youtube nonsense conveniently available to fill airtime.

    For science, the example would be exemplified by the Mars Global Surveyor data. Poured over by amateurs organized through the web, it was able to identify features about as well as professional trained geologists could do.

    If it were just the geologists, then they or a science journalist, would write up the data and findings for a print journal ...which would then have been covered by a blogger or bloggers.

    As the amateurs were part of interpreting the original data, they can honestly claim to be originating the story you then enjoy online. And then you maybe go into some riff on "The Wisdom of Crowds" being uniquely attuned to the web zeitgeist and give me a sound thrashing that way. Using specifics.

    ....And Not Until. Those are specifics which refute what I was saying. Other than the good use of the network sweeps thing, it's all vague hyperbole. A little hyperbole adds a little flavor, trouble with online writing is too many make it the whole meal. Rather proves my point rather than refuting it. Getting off on the TV tangent and then citing other highly paid writers for print pubs didn't really help the case.

    This thread could have been about the WSJ writers striking against the Murdoch takeover.

    Again, it's also about the value created by highly paid writers, both print and TV. TV does come trailing along to cover some business event sponsored by a Barron's or Crain's or WSJ. The larger lesson for online writing is following the stream to its source. Helps the networks see where their value is coming from, but it also helps the people bottom fishing here.

    Unfortunately, since I have to hold up both sides of the thread, it's more than a little boring. But I get your general drift.
    Last edited by DCrux; Nov 15, 2007 at 11:41.

  23. #23
    SitePoint Addict BlazeMiskulin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DCrux View Post
    And now, because nobody can mount a rebuttal with a specific...
    I wrote a rather lengthy post above as rebuttal to your claims. You took one line and used that as "proof" that you're right and that I (and the others here who have agreed with me) are wrong.

    We're not silent because we can't produce proof to support our position, we're silent because your position has become a joke and it's not worth our time to continue talking to a brick wall.

    So you go right ahead and believe that TV is the font of all wit and wisdom, and that the entirety of the internet is just bunch of thieves parroting what they've seen on the box.

    I'll be out reading original, quality news and entertainment--online.
    M Blaze Miskulin
    President
    Geek Niche Web Hosting

  24. #24
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    we're silent because your position has become a joke and it's not worth our time to continue talking to a brick wall.
    My case is made.

    I made a case for your side as well, hardly a brick wall position.

    There may be a need to refer back to the thread title at this time. It is about a writer's strike, and potential effects. It need not be TV writers alone. That is the specific event, but could be expanded upon to include the value creation effect ...and how a writer can create a bigger value footprint.

    The two specifics outlined in my post show a way which might play to the web's strength. You may call this "aggregation." That is a general inference (category) drawn from a specific (Ron Paul fund raising event, Mars survey participation).

    Mummification, and the general admission you went to a site and read "something" about it is a generalization. ...Was it a paper, blog post, web cast? ...Was this reading about the procedure or a specific mummy? Had the person, for instance, been a curator at a museum blogging about a new exhibit, and perhaps sought feedback from the reading audience as to how to set up display, that would be called a "specific." And if those things together got a news crew out to the site, well, then you've got something.

    I'm not going to touch the "cable is bad because of infomercials and home shopping channels ....the web is for selling" thing. But I do acknowledge that too is a specific. Those copywriters are a high-paid subgroup and, in order to make the point, it would be useful to draw that specific conclusion. Once made, it would be clear one person was making some kind of point in support of a certain position.

    When one says "I saw this topic and that rebuts your specifics," there may be alternatives which carry more weight. ....That is, if you're trying to stay on the topic of the thread.
    Last edited by DCrux; Nov 16, 2007 at 08:09.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •