What he's talking about is not news, but analysis. The Economist _really_ shines here as a model.
News isn't dead, only our consumption patterns have changed and it is definitely still more mainstream than being limited to news junkies, I don't know why everyone keeps saying that. Like, ask anyone if they watch the news, and the answer is no, but we're all on Hacker News or digg or insert_community_of_choice here and consuming "news" in other ways.
I think that twitter will probably be the platform that the next generation "news" app is built on. What it will do, and who it will appeal to are open questions...
Two stand-out features of The Economist I'd like to see emulated more:
1. No separation of op-ed from news reporting. Just-the-facts-Ma'am reporting isn't objective, it just plays coy games with selective quotes and straw-men. It's dishonest and, worse, it's wordy.
2. No signatures on articles, whether written by one person or the entire staff. The text is boldly honest, without worrying the author might never work again for saying the wrong thing. The paper itself holds the opinions, which lean different directions in different decades. This is okay.
Most blogs and have the first item down pat. But the second is rare, despite the easy collaborative editing that modern blogware offers, and the benefit of pseudo-anonymity for amateurs who can't keep a perpetually diplomatic tongue. A platform that nudges its community in this direction might be all that's needed.
I was going to say "The Economist" as well. They do some breaking news on their web site, but not much, and I wouldn't really go there for that. By the time I actually get the print edition, it's usually a bit stale in terms of the absolute latest, but the analysis and commentary is usually interesting to read.
There's also newspapers that isn't as focused on analysis as The Economist, which release on a weekly basis. Some newspapers even have international or weekly editions like The Guardian[1]. It does seem like this was a lot more common before the breakthrough of the Internet.
Also I think there's an issue with the format. I personally enjoy magazines like The Economist more in print, while it's the other way around with daily newspapers.
I used to read this quite often, but it was so short that each sentence-length "story" was too short to contemplate, and there were no links to in-depth stories.
Clicking on your example though, I was very happily surprised to see that they have corrected all of these shortcomings! I'm not sure when it happened, but Harpers is definitely going back on my radar.
[edit] On second thought, it is still as myopically US and frivolous news oriented as ever, nevermind. I'll stick to the economist.
Relevant project "Long News" - http://longnow.org/ - "How many of today's headlines will matter in 100 years? 1000? Kirk Citron's "Long News" project collects stories that not only matter today, but will resonate for decades -- even centuries -- to come." via TED Talks - http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/kirk_citron_and_now_the_re...
Interesting perspective. That seems like the niche held by magazines and "the Sunday paper". It's ironic that they provide a solution to information overload and yet are slowly being killed by the firehose itself.
Do they have the better content model? Is it just the cost of providing that type of service that makes the delivery model impossible in today's world, where we expect news to be free?
In the information age "a week old is not recent". This is contextual. (Some living in Indonesia would find a week old report on US politics to be "recent").
[+] [-] aditya|16 years ago|reply
News isn't dead, only our consumption patterns have changed and it is definitely still more mainstream than being limited to news junkies, I don't know why everyone keeps saying that. Like, ask anyone if they watch the news, and the answer is no, but we're all on Hacker News or digg or insert_community_of_choice here and consuming "news" in other ways.
I think that twitter will probably be the platform that the next generation "news" app is built on. What it will do, and who it will appeal to are open questions...
[+] [-] goodside|16 years ago|reply
1. No separation of op-ed from news reporting. Just-the-facts-Ma'am reporting isn't objective, it just plays coy games with selective quotes and straw-men. It's dishonest and, worse, it's wordy.
2. No signatures on articles, whether written by one person or the entire staff. The text is boldly honest, without worrying the author might never work again for saying the wrong thing. The paper itself holds the opinions, which lean different directions in different decades. This is okay.
Most blogs and have the first item down pat. But the second is rare, despite the easy collaborative editing that modern blogware offers, and the benefit of pseudo-anonymity for amateurs who can't keep a perpetually diplomatic tongue. A platform that nudges its community in this direction might be all that's needed.
(Just another company I'm too lazy to start.)
[+] [-] davidw|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stse|16 years ago|reply
Also I think there's an issue with the format. I personally enjoy magazines like The Economist more in print, while it's the other way around with daily newspapers.
[1] http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/
[+] [-] j053003|16 years ago|reply
Ars Technica -- "Week in __________"
- Tech: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/week-in-tech...
- Apple: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/week-in-apple-veri...
- Microsoft: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/04/week-in-micros...
- Gaming: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/04/week-in-gaming-e...
[+] [-] superjared|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delackner|16 years ago|reply
Clicking on your example though, I was very happily surprised to see that they have corrected all of these shortcomings! I'm not sure when it happened, but Harpers is definitely going back on my radar.
[edit] On second thought, it is still as myopically US and frivolous news oriented as ever, nevermind. I'll stick to the economist.
[+] [-] eleanor|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tessro|16 years ago|reply
Do they have the better content model? Is it just the cost of providing that type of service that makes the delivery model impossible in today's world, where we expect news to be free?
[+] [-] stcredzero|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tichy|16 years ago|reply
Not exhaustive enough - I also would wish for a HN with only the best links...
[+] [-] whatusername|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maddalab|16 years ago|reply
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/news
In the information age "a week old is not recent". This is contextual. (Some living in Indonesia would find a week old report on US politics to be "recent").
[+] [-] chime|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maethorechannen|16 years ago|reply
http://www.theweek.co.uk/
[+] [-] ben1040|16 years ago|reply
http://theweek.com/home
[+] [-] tdavis|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gojomo|16 years ago|reply
http://mediactive.com/2009/11/08/toward-a-slow-news-movement...
[+] [-] winter_blue|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jupe|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonlbaptiste|16 years ago|reply