BART Cop Smashes Drunk Dude's Head Through Glass
Asm. Tom Ammiano On Glass Breaking BART Cop
Parents Petition Caltrain to Reduce Train Speed In Palo Alto
Don't Dump Unwanted Stuff On City Sidewalks
Gavin Newsom's Mariah Carey-like Interview Demand
Pompous Wall Street Journal managing editor Robert Thomson is, for lack of a better word, dim. And old. Case in point, he was, for some inexplicable reason, asked to speak at Web Summit 2.0 in San Francisco this week. During a panel discussion with Google executive Marissa Mayer, he accused her of "unintentionally encourag[ing] promiscuity." (Odds are he never would have said the same thing to Sergey Brin.)
What's he pissed off about? The same thing most print publishing relics are: the future.
Specifically, Thomson wanted to know why, when computer users typed "Hamid Karzai" into Google News, the link citations appear in a "tiny, tiny" font. (Oh, and check out how not tiny-tiny said links are. Unreal.) The reason is this: you, Thomson, are not the story. The Wall Street Journal is not the story. Print publications are not the story. Ever. Hamid Karzai, in this instance, is the story. Have you all forgotten why you got into this whole writing business to begin with? Let us help: to disperse information.
Aside: we love Mayer's genius response. She makes the greatest noises while Thomson rambles. We feel her pain. Fortunately, listening to an old-school scribe talk about UI and web design is like listening to a New Yorker talk about surfing or burritos; it's hard to take them seriously. Don't stress it, Mayer.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I have mixed feelings about what Thompson is saying (and surely he is pompous). But I don't think the problem is that he doesn't understand the internet. In fact, I think he's correct that pages like the quotes page on Google News ARE NOT designed to drive traffic to the quoted websites. Rather, readers are encouraged to read the content on the Google site. To be clear, I *like* this, but it makes sense to me that the folks who produce the source materials do not.
You make a good point. Huge amounts of traffic aren't meant to go to the sites. It's one of those situations where the only thing you can do is throw up your hands and say, what can you do?
To me, "promiscuity" means something very different than the use of small text.
Perhaps Mr. Thomson is preoccupied with his frustration that he is unable to bone Ms. Mayer?
Thing is Rupert Murdoch, this flying monkey's master, has a bit of power and likes to wield it. He doesn't like the internets. As this all plays out watch for Murdoch's prints on all things bad in the ether. Pay walls, tiered service, subscription fees, censorship, metering, throttling, deep packet inspection, file blocking, etc. The problem is freedom. When we have it they must take it away, if they don't they lose control.
Saying the WSJ doesn't like the internet is a bit silly given that they are one of the few papers in the country that produce a strong profit and have both strong newspaper and online subscriptions.
Agreed. Fortunately, no one here is saying that.
Fortunately, listening to an old-school scribe talk about UI and web design is like listening to a New Yorker talk about surfing or burritos; it's hard to take them seriously.
Hmmm ... Given that this very site is a game leg of Gothamist it sounds like you're angling for one of those Google party invites.