Seth, I see you are tilting at windmills as usual :) As far as I can tell, you are never going to get those things acknowledged… (mostly because they are true… *lol*)

Dan,

I’m not sure if you grossly distorted what I said on purpose but it certainly looks like it…

here is what I said:

“If the NYT ran a poll that showed that *the vast majority* of readers would prefer that info to be segregated somewhere where it could be easily avoided, would that matter to you?

I think it should!” {emphasis just here to make my point]

and here is what you responded to Seth who brought up my post:

“If the NYT doesn’t obey *a small number* of self-deluded readers in this case” {my emphasis]

if at this point, you truly believe that it is laughable that the needs and wants of the users should be taken into consideration (that if the vast majority of long term readers would rather be able to read the paper version of the NYT without giving up the ability to watch the Olympic games without already knowing who won, the almighty NYT should just decline it…), I fear for the well being of your new project (you should have learned this basic lesson when your first project failed — it’s prohibitively expensive not to do so).

Delia

P.S. and let’s not pretend the NYT has no financial interest in this… from the short term business POV, they would *love* to plaster that stuff on the front page asap so they would sell more copies of that particular issue. Horrible idea! if that would be pissing off the loyal long term paper readership…I’m having a hard time believing you just don’t get this. And to say they are just doing it in the interest of solid journalism! yeah, right… and I got a bridge to sell you! (in Brooklyn); this is the ind of stuff that has been bothering Seth for a long time — as it should! D.

What we do know is that at least a few loud complainers are unhappy that the New York Times chooses to do real journalism instead of catering to the complainers’ wish not to know what’s happening until NBC chooses to broadcast it.

Seth and several others here apparently believe the newspaper is kissing off a significant number of readers by holding to its standards, and that this is likely to hurt the paper’s bottom line. They have no evidence for this either, and I’d only note that the paper’s online audience continues to grow at a rapid rate.

Seth continues to insist that I can’t reconcile my belief that the democratization of media is, on balance, a good thing and my equally strong belief that quality will find a community to support it in the end. There’s no conflict except in his own mind. But to create the conflict, he quotes a commenter whose position is, in my view, laughable.

Seth accuses me of “trying to escape a dilemma by pronouncing it shouldn’t exist.” Not at all. I don’t have a dilemma to escape here, because it does not exist in the first place.

> What you call the “obvious argument” is nothing of the sort.

C’mon. It’s repeated endlessly. Look what jack said above:

“I do like that your business model is essentially to not adapt to consumer needs, and to essentially tell them to shove off. Content providers no longer have the control and power that they used to. Times have changed (and are changing), it’s a consumers world and we’re just living in it.”

> the more likely outcome of the Times’ decision to do actual journalism is that it’ll be more trusted and have a wider readership.

HA HA HA. That’ll happen right after justice prevails and good triumphs over evil.

This is what I mean by trying to escape a dilemma by pronouncing it shouldn’t exist.

What you call the “obvious argument” is nothing of the sort. If the NYT doesn’t obey a small number of self-deluded readers in this case, it does not follow AT ALL that the paper deserves to die when those readers go elsewhere. I not only don’t make that argument, I reject it, because the more likely outcome of the Times’ decision to do actual journalism is that it’ll be more trusted and have a wider readership.

Dan, step back a moment – how long have I been reading you? For the sake of discussion, can you grant me a little credit for knowing what you believe and advocate, and then perhaps having an insight about its problems in a wider context?

The problem is at a level higher than only your statements. It’s that as a New-Media-Guru (or whatever term you want), you’re then embedded within the engine being driven by pseudo-popularism. THUS, when you write that something is a violation of journalistic standards, you’re going to get that pseudo-popularism argued against you. That’s what is being shown in this thread, and which I consider a very trivial statement. This is the dilemma you’ve created for yourself. And how many times have I or others pointed out you can’t effectively escape the sorts of problems it creates by declaring they shouldn’t exist?

Look at what Delia just said:

“I find it strange that you appear to give no consideration to the wants and, arguably, needs, of the people reading the NYT which should ultimately dictate what’s being done about issues like this.”

The obvious argument is that if the NYT doesn’t consider them, then people will take their precious advertising-consuming eyeballs elsewhere, and then the NYT deserves to die because of it. Now, you make not be making this argument yourself – but my point is you can’t effectively escape it either, because it’s a shibboleth

I’m an advocate for the idea that users should do what they want with the material they get from various sources. Users have control only to a point, of course, but they do have plenty of options. So if someone wants, in this example, to create an RSS feed of NYT front-page stories that excludes all mention of the Olympics, that’s idiotic on their part, I believe, but also a choice they have every right to make. The one some of them ask for — and the one I’m glad the Times declines — is to bastardize the journalism in order to suit the whims of people who prefer to live in a fantasy world for a few hours.

There is absolute no conflict between what I’ve been saying for years and what I’m saying now. And I think you know it.