Isaacson's Micropayment Article An Example, By Itself, Of How Screwed Up Mainstream Media Is

from the irony-without-the-micropayments dept

We've already beat up on Walter Isaacson and his ridiculous plan to save mainstream newspapers and magazines via online micropayments, but couldn't resist discussing one extreme bit of irony pointed out by Tim Lee and discussed at length at the Abstract Factory blog: the reasoning in Isaacson's article is so weak, it shows why it's not worth paying for. Specifically, the post notes that Time Magazine published Isaacson's writeup instead of those who actually understand the issue, because he's a part of their "club" (the former managing editor). Thus, Time chose a clueless friend, rather than an informed stranger -- and that sort of thinking is all too common in the business:
When you're a member of the club, your buddies will publish any old crap you write; better you than some stupid professor nobody knows....

I mentioned irony earlier. Isaacson has filigreed the irony with extraordinary precision. His article is inferior to material produced for free online by people who draw their paychecks from other sources (Shirky and Odlyzko are both professors who also work(ed) in the private technology sector). Furthermore, it is inferior as a direct consequence of structural weaknesses of traditional magazines. Despite its inferior quality, it presumes its own superior status by ignoring or dismissing contributions to the discussion which occurred outside of traditional "journalistic" media. Finally, taking that superiority as a given, it argues, poorly, that people ought to pay money for products like itself, because (quoting Bill Gates) nobody can "afford to do professional work for nothing".

In short, Isaacson's article not only fails to make its case, it actively undermines its own case while doing so.
Meanwhile, if you want yet another good argument against micropayments, be sure to check out Charles Arthur explaining how micropayments would turn the web into Zimbabwe.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: micropayments, news, newspapers, walter isaacson

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Albert, 20 Feb 2009 @ 6:27am

    Smarter than ya think?

    Yet another reason micropayments won't work is that they add up. The web's grown because we can afford to wade through all the noise to discover and find the limited content that we want. We can afford to amuse ourselves or, more accurately, we can afford to fail to amuse ourselves.

    Once we start paying for every page visited, even if it's a penny or few, we're going to stop exploring because we'll be paying much more for the myriad pages of junk we wade through than we will for the content we ultimately wanted or needed.

    At least ninety percent of the links I follow from Digg, Fark and their ilk are to things I'm indifferent about. Probably no more than two percent turn out to be things that I found interesting or worthwhile once I got there. Links from Google search results are only marginally more satisfying. If you start charging me by the page I won't be wasting my cents on anything that doesn't have a very high probability of satisfying me. That means I'm going to stick with what I know more often than not.

    Ultimately I think this is what big-content realizes and that's why there are aiming for it. They don't want you exploring and discovering that there are alternatives, much less better alternatives, and they don't want to adapt or grow or improve. Instead they want to force you to visit them by making it cost prohibitive to visit their competition.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

Introducing the new Techdirt Insider Chat, now hosted on Discord. If you are an Insider with a membership that includes the chat feature and have not yet been invited to join us on Discord, please reach out here.

Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.