Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[B <beeline AT mindspring.com>]

AlMaur777 AT aol.com wrote:
> A recent wired article even mentioned my own LocalBusiness.com in 
> connection 
> with a story about the questionable legality of charging for links (which 
> we 
> apparently do after five or something like that, it was new to me). 

That's nice to know. I won't be linking to LocalBusiness.com. Tell me,
will this help publicize your business' site, or guide eyeballs to your
content?

> But I'll tell you this, if we don't find a way to make delivering news 
> online 
> pay, we won't have it. 

I'm not so sure about that. For example, the Discovery Channel has an
excellent site that also incorporates information from the Learning
Channel, Animal Planet, and the Travel Channel. (I don't know if these
are all owned by some conglomerate -- it's certainly possible.) The
wealth of these organizations ensures that their online presence will
most likely remain "free" to Web-browsing individuals, being subsidized
by the advertisers on their primary outlet -- cable and satellite tv.

Of course, this means that the advertisers will have a certain amount of
control over the Web content, as they currently have a certain amount of
control over the televised content. (Remember when Lou Grant was
canceled in 1982? The network caved because advertisers threatened to
pull ads when this most excellent show aired a segment about abortion. I
studiously avoid purchasing from those advertisers even now. I really
liked Lou Grant.)

Then there's the push to place public information -- the public record
-- on the Web through government sites. Since our taxes pay for this, we
probably won't be forced to pay for it individually. This will provide
the raw material that news organizations use to create their articles.
I've often felt that folks should have access to the raw information,
although (being a former newspaper editor/reporter) I believe that the
editorial voice can be extremely helpful -- assuming that the current
horrid "infotainment" virus doesn't infect all news organizations.

> It will be better information. You won't have to sort through nearly as 
> much 
> dross to get it. But you may have to come up with a few bucks one way or 
> the 
> other to have access to it. 

I can afford it, but the guy next door might not be able to -- and it
may be essential to us both that he get that information. I don't see
how this will do anything more than turn the Web into just another cable
provider, controlled by a few big players who charge for the privilege
of reading their take on events and issues. If the charge-to-link
scenario remains, and the charge-to-view paradigm takes hold, we may as
well turn the entire gig over to the Chinese government; it could be no
worse than allowing corporations to completely control not only what we
see and read but also what we may refer to others.

> We're already seeing some of the better sites, Salon, The Street.com, APB, 
> among others falter. The unfortunate truth is that professional writing and 
> reporting not only is not free, it's not even inexpensive. 

(I notice that you do not include Wired in this list, although you
referred to it at the beginning of your response....)

Writers are, an editor assured me many years ago, a dime a dozen.
Writers (I've made my living as one for nearly 30 years) are generally
the lowest paid professional group in just about any organization --
news or tech. The faces you see in your tv nightly news garner far
higher wages than the poor suckers who go out to the court house, comb
through the logs, and craft the sentences that the "talent" reads on the
air. Compare the salaries of the tech writers with anyone else in a tech
organization -- you may be surprised. It's why I'm getting out of the
writing-for-hire biz.

The sites you mentioned are losing money because they haven't got the
advertising dollars that traditional media attracts and because the
technology workers required to maintain and update sites are far more
expensive than folks who run video cameras or printing presses. It's
*not* the cost of the actual content.

I expect that the shortage of tech workers will go away within the next
several years, as kids who grew up with the computer enter the
workforce. According to supply and demand, this will make producing
sites much cheaper than it is now. More people will get connected.
Old-line businesses will recognize this and be more willing to give the
Web a bigger slice of their advertising dollar, and will probably even
develop a real Web presence, one that isn't simply an online copy of
their corporate brochure. More will realize that it's in their best
interest to welcome all and sundry.

> If people really want the information they need to make informed decisions 
> in 
> this so-called information age, they'll pay for it, I betcha. 

If they can afford it and recognize that they need it. If they can't and
don't, you may very well find out that being informed in an uninformed
democracy is worse than being a snowball in hell.

-- 
            "B"ing mobile
=====================================
    I always have more questions
Thank you in advance for your answers
=====================================
 http://beeline.home.mindspring.com