I was wrong when I first read this post. I will go change what I wrote on my blog. I’m very sorry for having been such a dunderhead.

I was wrong when I first read this post. I will go change what I wrote on my blog. I’m very sorry for having been such a dunderhead.

“Peer Production” is a bad buzz word. “Credit Card VC” is what I call it, and that actually means something. I’m not recommending that as the new buzz words, what I’m recommending is that we all just get to work doing it rather than trying to decide what it should be called.

OK, back to work.

“Peer Production” is a bad buzz word. “Credit Card VC” is what I call it, and that actually means something. I’m not recommending that as the new buzz words, what I’m recommending is that we all just get to work doing it rather than trying to decide what it should be called.

OK, back to work.

The financial support for investigative journalism can easily shift from classified ad support to conventional ad support provided that pieces can be published in multiple formats. If one company owns a TV channel, AM and FM radio, a newspaper, and a website, there are probably enough total eyeballs on each piece to cover the costs, especially with a little syndication.

But this kind of media consolidation is opposed by the same interest groups that support net neutrality: George Soros-funded organizations Free Press and Moveon.org. So one might ask, without the slightest trace of paranoia, what Soros has against investigative journalism.

Is he set on wrecking investigative journalism to shield shady business dealings from scrutiny? Some have suggested as much.

The financial support for investigative journalism can easily shift from classified ad support to conventional ad support provided that pieces can be published in multiple formats. If one company owns a TV channel, AM and FM radio, a newspaper, and a website, there are probably enough total eyeballs on each piece to cover the costs, especially with a little syndication.

But this kind of media consolidation is opposed by the same interest groups that support net neutrality: George Soros-funded organizations Free Press and Moveon.org. So one might ask, without the slightest trace of paranoia, what Soros has against investigative journalism.

Is he set on wrecking investigative journalism to shield shady business dealings from scrutiny? Some have suggested as much.

If we’re looking at this from the point of view of overall social good (minimizing conflicts, maximizing standard of living, etc) and not individual personal gain, there are interesting arguments on both sides. Clearly, on the free side, the social benefit is readily apparent: the programmers do it because they’re creating something they want to use, and the rest of us benefit. All things being equal, a 3rd party business using free software is obviously going to have a better bottom line than one that is required to pay Microsoft licensing fees every year.

The other side, that tends to get obscured in these discussions, is that there are a good many things that can’t or won’t be done without a large concentration of capital. Free software, by its nature, requires a more subtle approach to making money that the obvious model of selling licenses (* although some people do just that). The main capitalist argument against free software seems to be that there is an opportunity cost that arises when people won’t invest in new, cool stuff, so that new, cool stuff won’t get made and society overall loses the benefit of innovation.

The problem with software and other “intellectual property” is that there are fewer natural costs of production: given sufficient time, skill and motivation a programmer could rewrite Windows on his home PC, but no matter my motivation or knowledge I can’t build the Golden Gate bridge without lots of concrete, steel, and heavy machinery.

I think one way that people tend to talk past each other is talking about funding the primary activity vs. indirect funding, where one revenue stream supports another activity. If the issue is investigative journalism, let’s talk about how to fund investigative journalism, not about how investigative journalism has historically been under the umbrella of a particular type of organization and because that organization is in trouble, this means the death of journalism.

On a final note, Talking Points Memo is a good example of a very popular blog that does a lot of independent investigative journalism, having among other things directly spawned a sibling site TPM Muckraker. These sites focus on national issues, of course, and it remains to be seen how well this model will scale down to local issues.

If we’re looking at this from the point of view of overall social good (minimizing conflicts, maximizing standard of living, etc) and not individual personal gain, there are interesting arguments on both sides. Clearly, on the free side, the social benefit is readily apparent: the programmers do it because they’re creating something they want to use, and the rest of us benefit. All things being equal, a 3rd party business using free software is obviously going to have a better bottom line than one that is required to pay Microsoft licensing fees every year.

The other side, that tends to get obscured in these discussions, is that there are a good many things that can’t or won’t be done without a large concentration of capital. Free software, by its nature, requires a more subtle approach to making money that the obvious model of selling licenses (* although some people do just that). The main capitalist argument against free software seems to be that there is an opportunity cost that arises when people won’t invest in new, cool stuff, so that new, cool stuff won’t get made and society overall loses the benefit of innovation.

The problem with software and other “intellectual property” is that there are fewer natural costs of production: given sufficient time, skill and motivation a programmer could rewrite Windows on his home PC, but no matter my motivation or knowledge I can’t build the Golden Gate bridge without lots of concrete, steel, and heavy machinery.

I think one way that people tend to talk past each other is talking about funding the primary activity vs. indirect funding, where one revenue stream supports another activity. If the issue is investigative journalism, let’s talk about how to fund investigative journalism, not about how investigative journalism has historically been under the umbrella of a particular type of organization and because that organization is in trouble, this means the death of journalism.

On a final note, Talking Points Memo is a good example of a very popular blog that does a lot of independent investigative journalism, having among other things directly spawned a sibling site TPM Muckraker. These sites focus on national issues, of course, and it remains to be seen how well this model will scale down to local issues.

Finance as an end – tail wags dog.

User value as an end – dog wags tail.

Financial returns and user value often correlate, but (increasingly, at this moment in history) not always.

Forcing this correlation to either side of the scale requires the illegitimate use of guns.

There exist apparent supporters of this illegitimate use of guns who also think Craigslist is a parasitic website.

Finance as an end – tail wags dog.

User value as an end – dog wags tail.

Financial returns and user value often correlate, but (increasingly, at this moment in history) not always.

Forcing this correlation to either side of the scale requires the illegitimate use of guns.

There exist apparent supporters of this illegitimate use of guns who also think Craigslist is a parasitic website.

I also reject the idea that there was some sort of golden age of investigative journalism before Craigslist came along. Newspapers were kicking out plenty of celebrity-obsessed crapola and navel-gazing “analysis” in place of hard news long before Craigslist came on the scene.

I also reject the idea that there was some sort of golden age of investigative journalism before Craigslist came along. Newspapers were kicking out plenty of celebrity-obsessed crapola and navel-gazing “analysis” in place of hard news long before Craigslist came on the scene.

Isn’t that radical?

Isn’t that radical?

And if you don’t pretend to be investigate, why the words “dirt” and “corporate intelligence” in your name and slogan?

Web sites like Tech Dirt are a dime a dozen, and the best one is written by robots. But all these things do is cannibalize and recycle the work of journalists, so when they go, you go.

But let’s not talk about that, it’s too “big picture” for tech analysis.

Crybaby.

And if you don’t pretend to be investigate, why the words “dirt” and “corporate intelligence” in your name and slogan?

Web sites like Tech Dirt are a dime a dozen, and the best one is written by robots. But all these things do is cannibalize and recycle the work of journalists, so when they go, you go.

But let’s not talk about that, it’s too “big picture” for tech analysis.

Crybaby.

You might want to try actually talking to some of our customers who get plenty of value out of our services before you go off half-cocked about the lack of “value” our business provides. Yes, we actually have a business model that works (which you seem to think is important, but apparently it’s no good for us since you seem to have some bizarre fixation with insulting me).

In fact, Tim was kind enough to discuss both the value we add and our business model recently. http://www.techliberation.com/archives/041526.php

We never claimed to be investigative journalists. I’m not sure where you picked that idea up from. However, to say we add no value only shows your own ignorance. I’d be happy to put you in touch with a few of our customers if you’d like to be proven wrong.

You might want to try actually talking to some of our customers who get plenty of value out of our services before you go off half-cocked about the lack of “value” our business provides. Yes, we actually have a business model that works (which you seem to think is important, but apparently it’s no good for us since you seem to have some bizarre fixation with insulting me).

In fact, Tim was kind enough to discuss both the value we add and our business model recently. http://www.techliberation.com/archives/041526.php

We never claimed to be investigative journalists. I’m not sure where you picked that idea up from. However, to say we add no value only shows your own ignorance. I’d be happy to put you in touch with a few of our customers if you’d like to be proven wrong.

* Did I say newspapers are entitled to the ad revenues they had before Craig’s List? Nope, I did not.

* Did I say that Craig’s List should be shut down? Nope, I did not.

* Did I say Free Stuff is the root of all evil? Nope, I did not.

What I did was inject one of the side-effects of peer production and user-based-content into a a tedious affirmation of the virtue of hobbyists that I’ve read so many times on this blog that it makes me want to spew, and the wounded dogs came out of the bushes.

What value do web sites like “Tech Dirt” create? They simply read the tech press and summarize somes stories. Some of their summaries are accurate enough, and some are wildly bizarre, but not a one of them is the real “dirt” on anything important. Real investigative journalism gives us the dirt, but if it can’t find a new financial model shortly it really will die.

And “Tech Dirt” is no substitute for investigative journalism, it’s just an old-fashioned clipping service with delusions of grandeur.

* Did I say newspapers are entitled to the ad revenues they had before Craig’s List? Nope, I did not.

* Did I say that Craig’s List should be shut down? Nope, I did not.

* Did I say Free Stuff is the root of all evil? Nope, I did not.

What I did was inject one of the side-effects of peer production and user-based-content into a a tedious affirmation of the virtue of hobbyists that I’ve read so many times on this blog that it makes me want to spew, and the wounded dogs came out of the bushes.

What value do web sites like “Tech Dirt” create? They simply read the tech press and summarize somes stories. Some of their summaries are accurate enough, and some are wildly bizarre, but not a one of them is the real “dirt” on anything important. Real investigative journalism gives us the dirt, but if it can’t find a new financial model shortly it really will die.

And “Tech Dirt” is no substitute for investigative journalism, it’s just an old-fashioned clipping service with delusions of grandeur.

Btw, Richard, this provides much greater insight into your net neutrality position. You seem to have these weird blinders where you believe that incumbent business models have some sort of inalienable right to be protected against competition.

It’s hard to see how that makes sense, but at least you’re consistent.

Btw, Richard, this provides much greater insight into your net neutrality position. You seem to have these weird blinders where you believe that incumbent business models have some sort of inalienable right to be protected against competition.

It’s hard to see how that makes sense, but at least you’re consistent.

At the Washington Post: “In Q4, classified advertising plummeted 22% to $12.5 million. For the year, the category fell 14% to $68.1 million.”

That money has to come from somewhere, and parasitic web sites aren’t filling the vacuum.

At the Washington Post: “In Q4, classified advertising plummeted 22% to $12.5 million. For the year, the category fell 14% to $68.1 million.”

That money has to come from somewhere, and parasitic web sites aren’t filling the vacuum.