Friday, April 27, 2012

D&C Editor guilty of violating own terms and conditions

Looks like another Editor at the D&C is taking a stroll down Hypocrisy Lane.

As we have seen that both comments and posts have been disappearing lately from the D&C’s website, I have included screen shots at the bottom of this blog of both the bloggers profile and the text of the article in discussion.

Now the expected, if not cliche, question to ask would be “What if a white Republican were to criticize the grammar being used by a black member of the opposing party?" Especially a sitting member of Congress. I will let you all handle that in the comments yourselves.

What I would like to address is how I, along with others, were accused by both Karen Magnuson and Jim Lawrence yesterday of attacking Jim personally by bringing up the fact that his name is found in public records as to having tax issues with NYS. I am still waiting to hear from either of them how we are attacking Jim but they aren’t attacking the folks they reported on in their story. Something tells me I have a long wait ahead of me.

Now on to the hypocrisy! Kevin Frisch is listed on the D&C’s website as the “Digital Opinion Editor” since December 2011. He titled his article “Out of the mouths of Boobs”. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t calling someone a name a “personal attack” and with that against the D&C’s terms and conditions? Why no calls from Jim or Karen to have Kevin's post removed? He goes on to say “He’s a congressional representative. Allegedly.” FYI Kevin, There is no allegedly here. He was elected and will continue to be a congressional representative until he either leaves office or is voted out.

Kevin questions whether the comments made by Rep West are deserving of a response due to the improper grammar but was willing to offer one himself. So the answer according to you Kevin is yes.

Link to the article:


Anonymous said...

D&C editors do not have to live up to the same set of Rules of Civility they demand from the public.

They're like Congress...

Their own rules don't apply to them!

PublicMarketMan said...

Again, my little ditty re real-time manipulation of on line content and comments:

Bru-Ha-Ha On Mustard Street - Upstate Digital Post

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the article, its clear you put a lot of thought and effort behined it. But I am still unclear how these types of articles provide benefit or fit within Mustard Street's overall mission.

The philosophy/social contract that a newspaper has to be fair and balanced in its reporting, left the train station with Randolph Hearst.

The advent of media paywalls like most pay services, cater to its customers needs and wants. Consequently, the rules have changed and its reasonable to expect the D&C will have even more of a bias in its coverage and pursuit of profit.

PublicMarketMan said...

OK, anon, let's get it on about paywalls.

The internet is an intrinsically spomtaneous real-time digital medium that users expect to be free of barriers for access, especially after registering for use of content and service ala facebook, email, tweeting, craigs list, etc.

A paywall is foriegn to ther user's mind, especially if it's not for a global brand that brings then supercharged content like a WSJ or the NYT's.

The print media lives in a dinosaur's world. They can't get it in their heads that they're supposed to make money from advertising just like they tried to do when they were print only.

In a lurch, they are still trying to recover some of their costs with a charge for distribution, much like they did with the charge for the cost of the printed comment to cover the laborious distribution of manufacturing and distributing newspapers. Those days are over.

The model now is "leave it free access and tagret your advertising based on profiling customers (by linking them to their facebokk and surfing activities within and outside your domain) and flip them well designed and placed ads while they are in your domain.

In fact, you supposed to not only customize the viewers ads to match their consumer preferences, your supposed to maybe even customing their content while their visiting you (or let them easily do it with interactive software.)

The print media needs to know that the internet has shown its print ads have no cloths. Advertisers (and ads that they can get the highest revenue for) will need to be highly customized and targeted to audiences likely to buy from viewing them, Advertisers will demand counts of views and tracable techniques for who of those actually performed a consumer transaction from the view ala amazon associates analytics.

This is how you make money presenting in digital content, not by creating paywalls to prevent folks from coming into your domain by charging them an entrance fee. It would be like charging folks to come to your Christmas party.

This is what we're talking about, a near death Newsweek who must have done its hopmework when they created unpaywalled The Daily Beast:

The Dasily beast

I suspect the Gannett execs live in great fear of the prospect of gaining revenue from ads that have actually produced a purchase, especially when the content next to the ads may not actually be a factor in targeting an audience who will buy the things advertised.

I suggest they open up an amazon associates account (if reston will let them) and see how, for free, they can run targeted ads and make up to 4% of the sale by targeting product ads to profiled viewers (you sell the kitchen items and cook books next to your living section cooking content, not cars.)

Oh, by the way, victimhood content is a real downer for getting into the consumer mood. But that's a whole nother story.