<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_29_1644240</id>
	<title>Newspaper Execs Hold Secret Meeting To Discuss Paywalls</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1243618140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Techdirt got wind of a secret meeting by newspaper execs, complete with antitrust lawyers, to discuss how to proceed on the issue of <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090528/1832395048.shtml">implementing paywalls</a> going forward.  Of course, if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter. <i>"You may have noticed a bunch of stories recently about how newspapers should get an antitrust exemption to allow them to collude -- working together to all put in place a paywall at the same time. That hasn't gone anywhere, so apparently the newspapers decided to just go ahead and try to get together quietly themselves without letting anyone know. But, of course, you don't get a bunch of newspaper execs together without someone either noticing or leaking the news... so it got out. And then the newspapers admitted it with a carefully worded statement about how they got together 'to discuss how best to support and preserve the traditions of news gathering that will serve the American public.' And, yes, they apparently had an antitrust lawyer or two involved."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Techdirt got wind of a secret meeting by newspaper execs , complete with antitrust lawyers , to discuss how to proceed on the issue of implementing paywalls going forward .
Of course , if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter .
" You may have noticed a bunch of stories recently about how newspapers should get an antitrust exemption to allow them to collude -- working together to all put in place a paywall at the same time .
That has n't gone anywhere , so apparently the newspapers decided to just go ahead and try to get together quietly themselves without letting anyone know .
But , of course , you do n't get a bunch of newspaper execs together without someone either noticing or leaking the news... so it got out .
And then the newspapers admitted it with a carefully worded statement about how they got together 'to discuss how best to support and preserve the traditions of news gathering that will serve the American public .
' And , yes , they apparently had an antitrust lawyer or two involved .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Techdirt got wind of a secret meeting by newspaper execs, complete with antitrust lawyers, to discuss how to proceed on the issue of implementing paywalls going forward.
Of course, if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter.
"You may have noticed a bunch of stories recently about how newspapers should get an antitrust exemption to allow them to collude -- working together to all put in place a paywall at the same time.
That hasn't gone anywhere, so apparently the newspapers decided to just go ahead and try to get together quietly themselves without letting anyone know.
But, of course, you don't get a bunch of newspaper execs together without someone either noticing or leaking the news... so it got out.
And then the newspapers admitted it with a carefully worded statement about how they got together 'to discuss how best to support and preserve the traditions of news gathering that will serve the American public.
' And, yes, they apparently had an antitrust lawyer or two involved.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28150739</id>
	<title>Selling News like Porn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243710060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newspapers can take a cue from the porn industry - give away snippets and teasers for free, but to get the whole article and photos, you pay a nominal fee for access to a collection of news services, archives and back stories.</p><p>For the pay version you would get the whole Sunday cartoon, not just the first frame, crossword puzzles and sudoku big enough to use, ability to comment on articles, etc. Another nice feature would be to set up profiles for the kind of news I like to read. Don't like the business section, but love the sports? How about adding SMS text alerts and local news filters. Even better is a classified ad bargain hunter feature - I put in what I'm looking to buy, and the news site alerts me if someone posts an ad for it. Better include a spam filter though.</p><p>I think the secret here is to allow readers to tailor their news delivery for what they want. The value to the papers is they'll find out what parts of the paper actually sell the paper, not what they think sells it. They'll still need variety though or this will open up niche news markets for the readers who get their favorite news excluded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers can take a cue from the porn industry - give away snippets and teasers for free , but to get the whole article and photos , you pay a nominal fee for access to a collection of news services , archives and back stories.For the pay version you would get the whole Sunday cartoon , not just the first frame , crossword puzzles and sudoku big enough to use , ability to comment on articles , etc .
Another nice feature would be to set up profiles for the kind of news I like to read .
Do n't like the business section , but love the sports ?
How about adding SMS text alerts and local news filters .
Even better is a classified ad bargain hunter feature - I put in what I 'm looking to buy , and the news site alerts me if someone posts an ad for it .
Better include a spam filter though.I think the secret here is to allow readers to tailor their news delivery for what they want .
The value to the papers is they 'll find out what parts of the paper actually sell the paper , not what they think sells it .
They 'll still need variety though or this will open up niche news markets for the readers who get their favorite news excluded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers can take a cue from the porn industry - give away snippets and teasers for free, but to get the whole article and photos, you pay a nominal fee for access to a collection of news services, archives and back stories.For the pay version you would get the whole Sunday cartoon, not just the first frame, crossword puzzles and sudoku big enough to use, ability to comment on articles, etc.
Another nice feature would be to set up profiles for the kind of news I like to read.
Don't like the business section, but love the sports?
How about adding SMS text alerts and local news filters.
Even better is a classified ad bargain hunter feature - I put in what I'm looking to buy, and the news site alerts me if someone posts an ad for it.
Better include a spam filter though.I think the secret here is to allow readers to tailor their news delivery for what they want.
The value to the papers is they'll find out what parts of the paper actually sell the paper, not what they think sells it.
They'll still need variety though or this will open up niche news markets for the readers who get their favorite news excluded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143675</id>
	<title>News should be publically funded</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1243590840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like firefighters, police, (and healthcare!) etc.. news is an invaluable asset to a functioning society.  Especially a democracy.</p><p>It should be funded by the public (NPR-like + tax money).  Local newspapers by local towns (or several towns team up), nationwide news funded by the federal government.</p><p>There should be strict rules about government influence, and the reporting and story choice processes and methods need to be as transparent as possible.  Ideally there should be more than one national news service, perhaps 3 or 4.  Each should be governed by a body comprised of publically elected board members. If you feel that the news is not reporting the truth, vote them out.  It might make sense to have the 3-4 board elections happen regionally (Northwest news, SW news, etc..)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like firefighters , police , ( and healthcare !
) etc.. news is an invaluable asset to a functioning society .
Especially a democracy.It should be funded by the public ( NPR-like + tax money ) .
Local newspapers by local towns ( or several towns team up ) , nationwide news funded by the federal government.There should be strict rules about government influence , and the reporting and story choice processes and methods need to be as transparent as possible .
Ideally there should be more than one national news service , perhaps 3 or 4 .
Each should be governed by a body comprised of publically elected board members .
If you feel that the news is not reporting the truth , vote them out .
It might make sense to have the 3-4 board elections happen regionally ( Northwest news , SW news , etc.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like firefighters, police, (and healthcare!
) etc.. news is an invaluable asset to a functioning society.
Especially a democracy.It should be funded by the public (NPR-like + tax money).
Local newspapers by local towns (or several towns team up), nationwide news funded by the federal government.There should be strict rules about government influence, and the reporting and story choice processes and methods need to be as transparent as possible.
Ideally there should be more than one national news service, perhaps 3 or 4.
Each should be governed by a body comprised of publically elected board members.
If you feel that the news is not reporting the truth, vote them out.
It might make sense to have the 3-4 board elections happen regionally (Northwest news, SW news, etc..)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143267</id>
	<title>Re:The Benefits of Subscription</title>
	<author>Xylantiel</author>
	<datestamp>1243589040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Freedom from advertising -- I would pay $10/mo to NYTime Company today if they would stop putting animated ads and buttons on their pages.</p><p>- Convenient access -- this is the Kindle approach, where your subscription grants you access to well-formatted content from mobile or dedicated devices. This only works if the content is truly well-formatted, which it is often not on the Kindle. This is more or less the iTunes model, too, because you pay a small premium for the tight integration of content and device.</p></div><p>I have never really considered paying for online access to news until this was mentioned.  I might not pay $10/month, but I think I would be willing to pay something a bit lower than that to, say NY times and  the washington post to read their articles in a well-formatted form without the ads. (these two oddly go hand-in-hand).  Also freedom from being tracked and targeted by their advertising overlords would be a natural feature to add.</p><p>And imagine if it becomes "cool" to have clean non-ad-cluttered web pages.  Or combined with micropayments, a button that says "view well-formatted, without annoying ads for 10 cents".  Information wants to be free, but service can cost money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Freedom from advertising -- I would pay $ 10/mo to NYTime Company today if they would stop putting animated ads and buttons on their pages.- Convenient access -- this is the Kindle approach , where your subscription grants you access to well-formatted content from mobile or dedicated devices .
This only works if the content is truly well-formatted , which it is often not on the Kindle .
This is more or less the iTunes model , too , because you pay a small premium for the tight integration of content and device.I have never really considered paying for online access to news until this was mentioned .
I might not pay $ 10/month , but I think I would be willing to pay something a bit lower than that to , say NY times and the washington post to read their articles in a well-formatted form without the ads .
( these two oddly go hand-in-hand ) .
Also freedom from being tracked and targeted by their advertising overlords would be a natural feature to add.And imagine if it becomes " cool " to have clean non-ad-cluttered web pages .
Or combined with micropayments , a button that says " view well-formatted , without annoying ads for 10 cents " .
Information wants to be free , but service can cost money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Freedom from advertising -- I would pay $10/mo to NYTime Company today if they would stop putting animated ads and buttons on their pages.- Convenient access -- this is the Kindle approach, where your subscription grants you access to well-formatted content from mobile or dedicated devices.
This only works if the content is truly well-formatted, which it is often not on the Kindle.
This is more or less the iTunes model, too, because you pay a small premium for the tight integration of content and device.I have never really considered paying for online access to news until this was mentioned.
I might not pay $10/month, but I think I would be willing to pay something a bit lower than that to, say NY times and  the washington post to read their articles in a well-formatted form without the ads.
(these two oddly go hand-in-hand).
Also freedom from being tracked and targeted by their advertising overlords would be a natural feature to add.And imagine if it becomes "cool" to have clean non-ad-cluttered web pages.
Or combined with micropayments, a button that says "view well-formatted, without annoying ads for 10 cents".
Information wants to be free, but service can cost money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141925</id>
	<title>Re:They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243626720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>... Washington Post, NYT, LA Times<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... </i> During the Gaza war, I discovered that
these papers are very biased toward Israel, almost disgustingly so.
(They do give lip service to opposing viewpoints, but not very often.)
I had to go elsewhere for accurate news.
Since then, I have simply stopped reading these; no point in wasting my
time if I can't trust them for the full truth.
Even Israel's own Haaretz is less biased.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Washington Post , NYT , LA Times ... During the Gaza war , I discovered that these papers are very biased toward Israel , almost disgustingly so .
( They do give lip service to opposing viewpoints , but not very often .
) I had to go elsewhere for accurate news .
Since then , I have simply stopped reading these ; no point in wasting my time if I ca n't trust them for the full truth .
Even Israel 's own Haaretz is less biased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Washington Post, NYT, LA Times ...  During the Gaza war, I discovered that
these papers are very biased toward Israel, almost disgustingly so.
(They do give lip service to opposing viewpoints, but not very often.
)
I had to go elsewhere for accurate news.
Since then, I have simply stopped reading these; no point in wasting my
time if I can't trust them for the full truth.
Even Israel's own Haaretz is less biased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140991</id>
	<title>Go ahead, collude and make our day!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243622880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly the kind of bully policies the RIAA, MPAA and other dinosaurs of 20th century industries fail with. They can't adapt so they think locking up the market will solve their woes. This is utterly misguided because then you'll have the smaller journalism organizations who've been kept out of the Big Boys Club coming in to fill the niche and unlike the cruise ships, they've got little overhead to contend with and can thrive off meager internet advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly the kind of bully policies the RIAA , MPAA and other dinosaurs of 20th century industries fail with .
They ca n't adapt so they think locking up the market will solve their woes .
This is utterly misguided because then you 'll have the smaller journalism organizations who 've been kept out of the Big Boys Club coming in to fill the niche and unlike the cruise ships , they 've got little overhead to contend with and can thrive off meager internet advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly the kind of bully policies the RIAA, MPAA and other dinosaurs of 20th century industries fail with.
They can't adapt so they think locking up the market will solve their woes.
This is utterly misguided because then you'll have the smaller journalism organizations who've been kept out of the Big Boys Club coming in to fill the niche and unlike the cruise ships, they've got little overhead to contend with and can thrive off meager internet advertising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140791</id>
	<title>Micropayments</title>
	<author>Simon Carr</author>
	<datestamp>1243622040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>see subj.</p><p>So how much easier would a more mature micropayment system make almost every information transaction?  Hell, at this point Second Life Lindens are starting to look like a good currency for this type of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>see subj.So how much easier would a more mature micropayment system make almost every information transaction ?
Hell , at this point Second Life Lindens are starting to look like a good currency for this type of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see subj.So how much easier would a more mature micropayment system make almost every information transaction?
Hell, at this point Second Life Lindens are starting to look like a good currency for this type of thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141761</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>strykerwilliamsv</author>
	<datestamp>1243626000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You make a good point: people do take journalism for granted, and the news that most Americans consume is more watered down every year. Most of this has nothing to do with economics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You make a good point : people do take journalism for granted , and the news that most Americans consume is more watered down every year .
Most of this has nothing to do with economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make a good point: people do take journalism for granted, and the news that most Americans consume is more watered down every year.
Most of this has nothing to do with economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141729</id>
	<title>Re:How to save the Newspaper Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243625880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>4. Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums.</p></div><p>The same publishers who can't make a profit now have to pay to use the system? Users need to pay for more content or there won't be enough money to go around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums.The same publishers who ca n't make a profit now have to pay to use the system ?
Users need to pay for more content or there wo n't be enough money to go around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums.The same publishers who can't make a profit now have to pay to use the system?
Users need to pay for more content or there won't be enough money to go around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140721</id>
	<title>One idea...</title>
	<author>alain94040</author>
	<datestamp>1243621740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know paywalls won't work. However, the alternative is worse: if newspapers don't find a way to make money online soon, they'll start seriously blending advertising <b>inside</b> news content. I don't want that to happen!</p><p>One idea, based on what I have seen work abroad, is to mandate, for a limited time, a fee of $1 on all Internet connections. You could then use that monthly credit to subscribe to whatever content you chose. That would inject millions in the content economy. If what you want is free music, use your credit for that. If you want to read the New York Times, fine.</p><p>After a few years, phase out the fee (hum...). By then, people should have gotten used to it and you get a smooth transition to people using micro-payments for content. Any better ideas?</p><p>--<br><a href="http://fairsoftware.net/" title="fairsoftware.net" rel="nofollow">FairSoftware.net</a> [fairsoftware.net] -- fair jobs for iPhone developers and graphic designers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know paywalls wo n't work .
However , the alternative is worse : if newspapers do n't find a way to make money online soon , they 'll start seriously blending advertising inside news content .
I do n't want that to happen ! One idea , based on what I have seen work abroad , is to mandate , for a limited time , a fee of $ 1 on all Internet connections .
You could then use that monthly credit to subscribe to whatever content you chose .
That would inject millions in the content economy .
If what you want is free music , use your credit for that .
If you want to read the New York Times , fine.After a few years , phase out the fee ( hum... ) .
By then , people should have gotten used to it and you get a smooth transition to people using micro-payments for content .
Any better ideas ? --FairSoftware.net [ fairsoftware.net ] -- fair jobs for iPhone developers and graphic designers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know paywalls won't work.
However, the alternative is worse: if newspapers don't find a way to make money online soon, they'll start seriously blending advertising inside news content.
I don't want that to happen!One idea, based on what I have seen work abroad, is to mandate, for a limited time, a fee of $1 on all Internet connections.
You could then use that monthly credit to subscribe to whatever content you chose.
That would inject millions in the content economy.
If what you want is free music, use your credit for that.
If you want to read the New York Times, fine.After a few years, phase out the fee (hum...).
By then, people should have gotten used to it and you get a smooth transition to people using micro-payments for content.
Any better ideas?--FairSoftware.net [fairsoftware.net] -- fair jobs for iPhone developers and graphic designers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140817</id>
	<title>news</title>
	<author>markringen</author>
	<datestamp>1243622160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if they stop, i start.
people in all the war places can make their own news, and report to us.

those papers are stuck in old world thinking, people aren't going to take it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if they stop , i start .
people in all the war places can make their own news , and report to us .
those papers are stuck in old world thinking , people are n't going to take it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they stop, i start.
people in all the war places can make their own news, and report to us.
those papers are stuck in old world thinking, people aren't going to take it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144801</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>Johnny Mnemonic</author>
	<datestamp>1243596360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br> <i>Now that people can easily get their news from just about anywhere</i> <br> <br>That right there is the exact problem.  Since that's the case, I'm going to want to pay the least amount I can for the same news--and that amount is often "free".<br> <br>How about, I dunno, providing value to a story?  If you're just repeating what everyone else is reporting, you're just an echo chamber and the lowest value should carry the day.  On the other hand, if I find the analysis and value add of a particular news outlet to be unique and insightful, dare I say <i>valuable</i> then I will be much more likely to pay for the privilege of reading that content.<br> <br>

Google News is a good example of this.  Any single story topic is repeated several hundred times by several hundred different outlets, often with very very little variation. The system here is correctly identifying those needless inefficient redundancies and weeding them out.<br> <br>Yes, it's hard to provide unique insight and analysis.  Welcome to having to work for a paycheck, again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that people can easily get their news from just about anywhere That right there is the exact problem .
Since that 's the case , I 'm going to want to pay the least amount I can for the same news--and that amount is often " free " .
How about , I dunno , providing value to a story ?
If you 're just repeating what everyone else is reporting , you 're just an echo chamber and the lowest value should carry the day .
On the other hand , if I find the analysis and value add of a particular news outlet to be unique and insightful , dare I say valuable then I will be much more likely to pay for the privilege of reading that content .
Google News is a good example of this .
Any single story topic is repeated several hundred times by several hundred different outlets , often with very very little variation .
The system here is correctly identifying those needless inefficient redundancies and weeding them out .
Yes , it 's hard to provide unique insight and analysis .
Welcome to having to work for a paycheck , again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Now that people can easily get their news from just about anywhere  That right there is the exact problem.
Since that's the case, I'm going to want to pay the least amount I can for the same news--and that amount is often "free".
How about, I dunno, providing value to a story?
If you're just repeating what everyone else is reporting, you're just an echo chamber and the lowest value should carry the day.
On the other hand, if I find the analysis and value add of a particular news outlet to be unique and insightful, dare I say valuable then I will be much more likely to pay for the privilege of reading that content.
Google News is a good example of this.
Any single story topic is repeated several hundred times by several hundred different outlets, often with very very little variation.
The system here is correctly identifying those needless inefficient redundancies and weeding them out.
Yes, it's hard to provide unique insight and analysis.
Welcome to having to work for a paycheck, again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142933</id>
	<title>problem isnt that its free but that its worthless</title>
	<author>bigbigbison</author>
	<datestamp>1243630680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The solution to losing money isn't to find a new way to charge people but to make the product worth paying for.<br> <br>
There is so little in a newspaper that you can't get elsewhere for free and without waiting that there's little reason to buy one. There is more sports coverage than I would ever want on television. There is live news as it happens on television. There are comic strips that are still written by their creators online. There are a million websites with editorials, opinion columns, and reviews. What does that leave? Investigative journalism and sadly it isn't like my local small town newspaper has ever done a much of that.<br> <br>Until they realize that their product isn't worth paying for they will keep struggling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to losing money is n't to find a new way to charge people but to make the product worth paying for .
There is so little in a newspaper that you ca n't get elsewhere for free and without waiting that there 's little reason to buy one .
There is more sports coverage than I would ever want on television .
There is live news as it happens on television .
There are comic strips that are still written by their creators online .
There are a million websites with editorials , opinion columns , and reviews .
What does that leave ?
Investigative journalism and sadly it is n't like my local small town newspaper has ever done a much of that .
Until they realize that their product is n't worth paying for they will keep struggling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to losing money isn't to find a new way to charge people but to make the product worth paying for.
There is so little in a newspaper that you can't get elsewhere for free and without waiting that there's little reason to buy one.
There is more sports coverage than I would ever want on television.
There is live news as it happens on television.
There are comic strips that are still written by their creators online.
There are a million websites with editorials, opinion columns, and reviews.
What does that leave?
Investigative journalism and sadly it isn't like my local small town newspaper has ever done a much of that.
Until they realize that their product isn't worth paying for they will keep struggling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</id>
	<title>How to save the Newspaper Business</title>
	<author>Alzheimers</author>
	<datestamp>1243622520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call it "The Kindle does Cable:"</p><p>1. Stop printing news on paper.<br>2. Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly<br>3. Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate (say, $14.99 with a 2-year subscription)<br>4. Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums. So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine, dining guide, etc.<br>5. Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call it " The Kindle does Cable : " 1 .
Stop printing news on paper.2 .
Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly3 .
Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate ( say , $ 14.99 with a 2-year subscription ) 4 .
Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums .
So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine , dining guide , etc.5 .
Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call it "The Kindle does Cable:"1.
Stop printing news on paper.2.
Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly3.
Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate (say, $14.99 with a 2-year subscription)4.
Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums.
So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine, dining guide, etc.5.
Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141669</id>
	<title>This Sounds Familiar</title>
	<author>Cheirdal</author>
	<datestamp>1243625640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure the buggy makers fought to keep their market share once the automobile industry started to dominate the market and we all know how well that worked out.  CNN makes a metric buttload of money from ads online as probably do a lot of other news and pseudo news organizations. Newspapers can wall up their content instead of going to an online ad based revenue stream and kill themselves off altogether. The bottom line is news happens and there will be free sources to view it such as CNN. I'm not ever going to pay for online content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the buggy makers fought to keep their market share once the automobile industry started to dominate the market and we all know how well that worked out .
CNN makes a metric buttload of money from ads online as probably do a lot of other news and pseudo news organizations .
Newspapers can wall up their content instead of going to an online ad based revenue stream and kill themselves off altogether .
The bottom line is news happens and there will be free sources to view it such as CNN .
I 'm not ever going to pay for online content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the buggy makers fought to keep their market share once the automobile industry started to dominate the market and we all know how well that worked out.
CNN makes a metric buttload of money from ads online as probably do a lot of other news and pseudo news organizations.
Newspapers can wall up their content instead of going to an online ad based revenue stream and kill themselves off altogether.
The bottom line is news happens and there will be free sources to view it such as CNN.
I'm not ever going to pay for online content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140965</id>
	<title>redundant</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1243622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever see dozens of reporters trying to ask the same questions? All reporting on the same story with the same facts? 10 microphones redundantly recording what someone says for different news agencies?</p><p>There's no need for that duplication of effort. It's surprising the industry has lasted that way for so long.</p><p>As for local papers: your classifieds are all going online. Your reprinting of AP stories, sports scores, and stock prices adds no value. Your only real product is the local stories--all 2 pages of them. How much is that worth? Not much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever see dozens of reporters trying to ask the same questions ?
All reporting on the same story with the same facts ?
10 microphones redundantly recording what someone says for different news agencies ? There 's no need for that duplication of effort .
It 's surprising the industry has lasted that way for so long.As for local papers : your classifieds are all going online .
Your reprinting of AP stories , sports scores , and stock prices adds no value .
Your only real product is the local stories--all 2 pages of them .
How much is that worth ?
Not much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever see dozens of reporters trying to ask the same questions?
All reporting on the same story with the same facts?
10 microphones redundantly recording what someone says for different news agencies?There's no need for that duplication of effort.
It's surprising the industry has lasted that way for so long.As for local papers: your classifieds are all going online.
Your reprinting of AP stories, sports scores, and stock prices adds no value.
Your only real product is the local stories--all 2 pages of them.
How much is that worth?
Not much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142623</id>
	<title>Re:Um... So?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1243629360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I happen to work at a small(ish) rural newspaper that has an online edition"</p></div></blockquote><p>
And what you provide is valuable to your local users. Stuff they can't get elsewhere, so they are willing to pay for it. You create value, your customers pay for it... sounds like good business to me. Now... why should you pay your local newspaper for a straight copy of information you can get directly from the source on the Internet? If you don't add value, what exactly is compelling people to pay? Figure out how to add value, give people something that they can't get elsewhere, and you profit. News on local government actions is highly relevant. News on local happenings, reviews of local restaurants, things people want. Remember... your customers are your advertisers, NOT the people reading. They are your product. The news is simply your means of keeping a quality product (lots of relevant eyeballs) to sell to your customers (advertisers).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I happen to work at a small ( ish ) rural newspaper that has an online edition " And what you provide is valuable to your local users .
Stuff they ca n't get elsewhere , so they are willing to pay for it .
You create value , your customers pay for it... sounds like good business to me .
Now... why should you pay your local newspaper for a straight copy of information you can get directly from the source on the Internet ?
If you do n't add value , what exactly is compelling people to pay ?
Figure out how to add value , give people something that they ca n't get elsewhere , and you profit .
News on local government actions is highly relevant .
News on local happenings , reviews of local restaurants , things people want .
Remember... your customers are your advertisers , NOT the people reading .
They are your product .
The news is simply your means of keeping a quality product ( lots of relevant eyeballs ) to sell to your customers ( advertisers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I happen to work at a small(ish) rural newspaper that has an online edition"
And what you provide is valuable to your local users.
Stuff they can't get elsewhere, so they are willing to pay for it.
You create value, your customers pay for it... sounds like good business to me.
Now... why should you pay your local newspaper for a straight copy of information you can get directly from the source on the Internet?
If you don't add value, what exactly is compelling people to pay?
Figure out how to add value, give people something that they can't get elsewhere, and you profit.
News on local government actions is highly relevant.
News on local happenings, reviews of local restaurants, things people want.
Remember... your customers are your advertisers, NOT the people reading.
They are your product.
The news is simply your means of keeping a quality product (lots of relevant eyeballs) to sell to your customers (advertisers).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143903</id>
	<title>No money for u, Slashdolts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243591740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would never pay to read this article. Slashdot owners, if you ever think about monetizing this site, fire all your copy editors (if they even exist). They produce third-rate, biased blog postings that are riddled with spelling, grammatical and factual errors, and language meant to mislead and insinuate things that are more sensational than the truth really is. In other word, shoddy.</p><p>Good journalism is prosaically boring and full of facts. Definition complete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would never pay to read this article .
Slashdot owners , if you ever think about monetizing this site , fire all your copy editors ( if they even exist ) .
They produce third-rate , biased blog postings that are riddled with spelling , grammatical and factual errors , and language meant to mislead and insinuate things that are more sensational than the truth really is .
In other word , shoddy.Good journalism is prosaically boring and full of facts .
Definition complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would never pay to read this article.
Slashdot owners, if you ever think about monetizing this site, fire all your copy editors (if they even exist).
They produce third-rate, biased blog postings that are riddled with spelling, grammatical and factual errors, and language meant to mislead and insinuate things that are more sensational than the truth really is.
In other word, shoddy.Good journalism is prosaically boring and full of facts.
Definition complete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851</id>
	<title>Ooh... "secret" meetings?</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1243622340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a non-story to me.  Or does the article submitter imply that whenever companies get together, they should invite the press and make it a fully open meeting?</p><p>Yeah, so they want to get paid for their work.  Might as well spin this as: "Capitalism 2.0: Your time ain't free".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a non-story to me .
Or does the article submitter imply that whenever companies get together , they should invite the press and make it a fully open meeting ? Yeah , so they want to get paid for their work .
Might as well spin this as : " Capitalism 2.0 : Your time ai n't free " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a non-story to me.
Or does the article submitter imply that whenever companies get together, they should invite the press and make it a fully open meeting?Yeah, so they want to get paid for their work.
Might as well spin this as: "Capitalism 2.0: Your time ain't free".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142403</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1243628460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop trying to keep things the same as they are. The thing you need to find is value that you can provide that nobody else can do, or do it better than the other guy. Craigslist works because it has local sections. It's a product that's relevant to people. What can your news organization do to provide a product that's relevant to your local subscribers? Locally here, The Onion is making pretty decent money from advertisers because people love reading the content, and they sell advertising to local businesses that are relevant to their subscriber base. More tattoo shops than gardening centers, and so on. You need to figure out what your value is, and how to monetize it. You are no longer the only source for world news for your subscribers, or for advertising. You now have competition for time and eyeballs. How you get their attention is your problem, and your business plan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop trying to keep things the same as they are .
The thing you need to find is value that you can provide that nobody else can do , or do it better than the other guy .
Craigslist works because it has local sections .
It 's a product that 's relevant to people .
What can your news organization do to provide a product that 's relevant to your local subscribers ?
Locally here , The Onion is making pretty decent money from advertisers because people love reading the content , and they sell advertising to local businesses that are relevant to their subscriber base .
More tattoo shops than gardening centers , and so on .
You need to figure out what your value is , and how to monetize it .
You are no longer the only source for world news for your subscribers , or for advertising .
You now have competition for time and eyeballs .
How you get their attention is your problem , and your business plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop trying to keep things the same as they are.
The thing you need to find is value that you can provide that nobody else can do, or do it better than the other guy.
Craigslist works because it has local sections.
It's a product that's relevant to people.
What can your news organization do to provide a product that's relevant to your local subscribers?
Locally here, The Onion is making pretty decent money from advertisers because people love reading the content, and they sell advertising to local businesses that are relevant to their subscriber base.
More tattoo shops than gardening centers, and so on.
You need to figure out what your value is, and how to monetize it.
You are no longer the only source for world news for your subscribers, or for advertising.
You now have competition for time and eyeballs.
How you get their attention is your problem, and your business plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142081</id>
	<title>seems like it pretty much guarantees a suit</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1243627380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in <em>Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly</em> somewhat raised the bar for allowing privately-brought anti-trust suits to proceed, but its standard seems to be met here if they do actually implement pay walls, so a suit could at least go to trial. In <em>Twombly</em>, a suit against the Bells was thrown out because it only alleged parallel behavior (not itself illegal) and a claim of conspiracy to carry it out not backed up by any allegations specifying why the plaintiff had any reason to believe it actually was coordinated. Here you can state a sufficient pleading easily: if they simultaneously introduce pay walls, you have parallel behavior, and you additionally allege that they had a meeting at which they discussed carrying out said parallel behavior in concert. Not sure that alone would allow a plaintiff to actually prevail at trial, but it should at least allow a suit to go forward investigating it if this happens (assuming the newspapers don't get a Congressional exemption).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly somewhat raised the bar for allowing privately-brought anti-trust suits to proceed , but its standard seems to be met here if they do actually implement pay walls , so a suit could at least go to trial .
In Twombly , a suit against the Bells was thrown out because it only alleged parallel behavior ( not itself illegal ) and a claim of conspiracy to carry it out not backed up by any allegations specifying why the plaintiff had any reason to believe it actually was coordinated .
Here you can state a sufficient pleading easily : if they simultaneously introduce pay walls , you have parallel behavior , and you additionally allege that they had a meeting at which they discussed carrying out said parallel behavior in concert .
Not sure that alone would allow a plaintiff to actually prevail at trial , but it should at least allow a suit to go forward investigating it if this happens ( assuming the newspapers do n't get a Congressional exemption ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly somewhat raised the bar for allowing privately-brought anti-trust suits to proceed, but its standard seems to be met here if they do actually implement pay walls, so a suit could at least go to trial.
In Twombly, a suit against the Bells was thrown out because it only alleged parallel behavior (not itself illegal) and a claim of conspiracy to carry it out not backed up by any allegations specifying why the plaintiff had any reason to believe it actually was coordinated.
Here you can state a sufficient pleading easily: if they simultaneously introduce pay walls, you have parallel behavior, and you additionally allege that they had a meeting at which they discussed carrying out said parallel behavior in concert.
Not sure that alone would allow a plaintiff to actually prevail at trial, but it should at least allow a suit to go forward investigating it if this happens (assuming the newspapers don't get a Congressional exemption).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143715</id>
	<title>Re:Publishers: The free Internet is over</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1243591020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.garfield.com/comics/todayscomic.html" title="garfield.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.garfield.com/comics/todayscomic.html</a> [garfield.com]</p><p>Let Jim Davis earn his own keep.  Fuck the papers, let them all go out of print.  Papers are just content aggregators and distributors just like the internet is now.  The internet has replaced the newspaper.</p><p>The new model is that the journalist creates the stories they want to make and they think they can sell.  They then market themselves to news sources and other aggregators on the internet and then they can link back to their own site.  The content creator can then sell ads through Google ad sense or whatever means they want.  They could even sell directly to the aggregator.   The newspapers don't need to pay for staffs anymore they just need to say "hey, we need someone to cover the local town meeting for ATL city hall, we'll pay $0.02 a page view for it." or something like that.  You the content provider go to the town hall meeting and maybe someone else does as well. Both of you publish you're article on the meeting the content aggregator chooses which story it likes better or thinks is the better deal and the problem is solved.  The person who didn't sell theirs to CNN or the AJC can put it up on their own website and earn some income based on the ads from their own sites.   Who knows maybe they could sell their story to some other outlet.  Then these competing content creators can earn a name for themselves and possibly have their ads worth more money.</p><p>The same could be for someone covering a war story, if the content is good someone will pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.garfield.com/comics/todayscomic.html [ garfield.com ] Let Jim Davis earn his own keep .
Fuck the papers , let them all go out of print .
Papers are just content aggregators and distributors just like the internet is now .
The internet has replaced the newspaper.The new model is that the journalist creates the stories they want to make and they think they can sell .
They then market themselves to news sources and other aggregators on the internet and then they can link back to their own site .
The content creator can then sell ads through Google ad sense or whatever means they want .
They could even sell directly to the aggregator .
The newspapers do n't need to pay for staffs anymore they just need to say " hey , we need someone to cover the local town meeting for ATL city hall , we 'll pay $ 0.02 a page view for it .
" or something like that .
You the content provider go to the town hall meeting and maybe someone else does as well .
Both of you publish you 're article on the meeting the content aggregator chooses which story it likes better or thinks is the better deal and the problem is solved .
The person who did n't sell theirs to CNN or the AJC can put it up on their own website and earn some income based on the ads from their own sites .
Who knows maybe they could sell their story to some other outlet .
Then these competing content creators can earn a name for themselves and possibly have their ads worth more money.The same could be for someone covering a war story , if the content is good someone will pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.garfield.com/comics/todayscomic.html [garfield.com]Let Jim Davis earn his own keep.
Fuck the papers, let them all go out of print.
Papers are just content aggregators and distributors just like the internet is now.
The internet has replaced the newspaper.The new model is that the journalist creates the stories they want to make and they think they can sell.
They then market themselves to news sources and other aggregators on the internet and then they can link back to their own site.
The content creator can then sell ads through Google ad sense or whatever means they want.
They could even sell directly to the aggregator.
The newspapers don't need to pay for staffs anymore they just need to say "hey, we need someone to cover the local town meeting for ATL city hall, we'll pay $0.02 a page view for it.
" or something like that.
You the content provider go to the town hall meeting and maybe someone else does as well.
Both of you publish you're article on the meeting the content aggregator chooses which story it likes better or thinks is the better deal and the problem is solved.
The person who didn't sell theirs to CNN or the AJC can put it up on their own website and earn some income based on the ads from their own sites.
Who knows maybe they could sell their story to some other outlet.
Then these competing content creators can earn a name for themselves and possibly have their ads worth more money.The same could be for someone covering a war story, if the content is good someone will pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28147071</id>
	<title>Re:How to save the Newspaper Business, fixed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243617480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1. Stop printing news on paper.<br>2. Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly<br>3. Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate (say, $14.99 with a 2-year subscription)<br>4. Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums. So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine, dining guide, etc.<br>5. Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free.</p></div></blockquote><p>6. ???<br>7. Profit!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Stop printing news on paper.2 .
Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly3 .
Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate ( say , $ 14.99 with a 2-year subscription ) 4 .
Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums .
So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine , dining guide , etc.5 .
Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free.6 .
? ? ? 7. Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Stop printing news on paper.2.
Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly3.
Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate (say, $14.99 with a 2-year subscription)4.
Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums.
So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine, dining guide, etc.5.
Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free.6.
???7. Profit!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142889</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1243630500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well you hit the dirty little secert on the head. Craigslist is really killing a lot of newspapers.<br>The free classified ads on Craigslist is taking a huge amount of revenue from newspapers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you hit the dirty little secert on the head .
Craigslist is really killing a lot of newspapers.The free classified ads on Craigslist is taking a huge amount of revenue from newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you hit the dirty little secert on the head.
Craigslist is really killing a lot of newspapers.The free classified ads on Craigslist is taking a huge amount of revenue from newspapers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142941</id>
	<title>Re:How to save the Newspaper Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243630680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$15/mo for news?  Hahahahaha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 15/mo for news ?
Hahahahaha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$15/mo for news?
Hahahahaha!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28145607</id>
	<title>24X7</title>
	<author>randy of the redwood</author>
	<datestamp>1243601580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it just me, or didn't CNN kill news?

That may sound backward, because I think they started with good intentions. However, the drive to create new content 24X7X365 has pushed all news outlets to report first, investigate later.

example: <a href="http://cbs5.com/local/huckaby.mistaken.identity.2.984162.html" title="cbs5.com" rel="nofollow">http://cbs5.com/local/huckaby.mistaken.identity.2.984162.html</a> [cbs5.com]

Perhaps the newspapers could get back to being the mainstream source of information if they went back to producing LESS news, but actual news worthy content.

Let Fox and MSNBC move all their content to Twitter - it will be closer to their users attention span anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or did n't CNN kill news ?
That may sound backward , because I think they started with good intentions .
However , the drive to create new content 24X7X365 has pushed all news outlets to report first , investigate later .
example : http : //cbs5.com/local/huckaby.mistaken.identity.2.984162.html [ cbs5.com ] Perhaps the newspapers could get back to being the mainstream source of information if they went back to producing LESS news , but actual news worthy content .
Let Fox and MSNBC move all their content to Twitter - it will be closer to their users attention span anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or didn't CNN kill news?
That may sound backward, because I think they started with good intentions.
However, the drive to create new content 24X7X365 has pushed all news outlets to report first, investigate later.
example: http://cbs5.com/local/huckaby.mistaken.identity.2.984162.html [cbs5.com]

Perhaps the newspapers could get back to being the mainstream source of information if they went back to producing LESS news, but actual news worthy content.
Let Fox and MSNBC move all their content to Twitter - it will be closer to their users attention span anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141177</id>
	<title>Who do they think they are?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243623600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Banks? Microsoft? The Telcos?</p><p>I mean where would they ever get the idea that they could get the Fed to enshrine their business model in regulation and legislation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Banks ?
Microsoft ? The Telcos ? I mean where would they ever get the idea that they could get the Fed to enshrine their business model in regulation and legislation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Banks?
Microsoft? The Telcos?I mean where would they ever get the idea that they could get the Fed to enshrine their business model in regulation and legislation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141537</id>
	<title>Already done in other industries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243625160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Posting as AC as this isn't commonly known where I live, but the shipping industry here actually has an agreement on file with the Federal Maritime Commission which allows them to sit down with their competitor to discuss rate hikes and decreases.  They can't specify exactly what they would like to charge the consumer, but they can discuss percentages.  The hikes must be approved by the FMC, but so long as they present a convincing enough argument, the new rates will be approved.  Rate decreases do not require FMC approval.

(Ie:  Competition is dead.  Same service virtually no difference in costs charging the same prices.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting as AC as this is n't commonly known where I live , but the shipping industry here actually has an agreement on file with the Federal Maritime Commission which allows them to sit down with their competitor to discuss rate hikes and decreases .
They ca n't specify exactly what they would like to charge the consumer , but they can discuss percentages .
The hikes must be approved by the FMC , but so long as they present a convincing enough argument , the new rates will be approved .
Rate decreases do not require FMC approval .
( Ie : Competition is dead .
Same service virtually no difference in costs charging the same prices .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting as AC as this isn't commonly known where I live, but the shipping industry here actually has an agreement on file with the Federal Maritime Commission which allows them to sit down with their competitor to discuss rate hikes and decreases.
They can't specify exactly what they would like to charge the consumer, but they can discuss percentages.
The hikes must be approved by the FMC, but so long as they present a convincing enough argument, the new rates will be approved.
Rate decreases do not require FMC approval.
(Ie:  Competition is dead.
Same service virtually no difference in costs charging the same prices.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144185</id>
	<title>Re:Publishers: The free Internet is over</title>
	<author>davidsyes</author>
	<datestamp>1243592940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls."</p><p>Cows cannot afford to be ripped off... But, they are bosom buddies with farmers, and that's why cows are fully abreast of the situation. They probably won't cry over a little spilt milk, hehehe....</p><p>Someone mentioned the Kindle, but imagine everyone had one of those, instead of newspapers. It might save boatloads of paper. On the other hand, it would be unlikely that anyone would share their kindle they way people leave finished newspapers on trains and buses. Sometimes, i find interesting things in papers i didn't buy, but out of boredom or lack of time picked up and read a discarded paper.</p><p>Eventually, i can see, the content distribution networks will personalize and ban the redistribution of content sent to subscribers, but on a level far more sophisticated than we even know about already today. Personalize ads with discount pricing will do more than just lure people in....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls .
" Cows can not afford to be ripped off... But , they are bosom buddies with farmers , and that 's why cows are fully abreast of the situation .
They probably wo n't cry over a little spilt milk , hehehe....Someone mentioned the Kindle , but imagine everyone had one of those , instead of newspapers .
It might save boatloads of paper .
On the other hand , it would be unlikely that anyone would share their kindle they way people leave finished newspapers on trains and buses .
Sometimes , i find interesting things in papers i did n't buy , but out of boredom or lack of time picked up and read a discarded paper.Eventually , i can see , the content distribution networks will personalize and ban the redistribution of content sent to subscribers , but on a level far more sophisticated than we even know about already today .
Personalize ads with discount pricing will do more than just lure people in... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls.
"Cows cannot afford to be ripped off... But, they are bosom buddies with farmers, and that's why cows are fully abreast of the situation.
They probably won't cry over a little spilt milk, hehehe....Someone mentioned the Kindle, but imagine everyone had one of those, instead of newspapers.
It might save boatloads of paper.
On the other hand, it would be unlikely that anyone would share their kindle they way people leave finished newspapers on trains and buses.
Sometimes, i find interesting things in papers i didn't buy, but out of boredom or lack of time picked up and read a discarded paper.Eventually, i can see, the content distribution networks will personalize and ban the redistribution of content sent to subscribers, but on a level far more sophisticated than we even know about already today.
Personalize ads with discount pricing will do more than just lure people in....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142745</id>
	<title>We have the choice</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1243629900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either we all pay them or we need to write and select the news ourselves (Wikis, Blogs, RSS feeds, and recommendation systems). If I want to read ten selected news items every day and the local community has 100,000 people, everyone would have to write at least one article every thirty years. I guess it's pretty obvious what is going to happen.</p><p>Well, I really would like to come up with an idea to update their business model, but I don't have time since I want to write some more free software today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either we all pay them or we need to write and select the news ourselves ( Wikis , Blogs , RSS feeds , and recommendation systems ) .
If I want to read ten selected news items every day and the local community has 100,000 people , everyone would have to write at least one article every thirty years .
I guess it 's pretty obvious what is going to happen.Well , I really would like to come up with an idea to update their business model , but I do n't have time since I want to write some more free software today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either we all pay them or we need to write and select the news ourselves (Wikis, Blogs, RSS feeds, and recommendation systems).
If I want to read ten selected news items every day and the local community has 100,000 people, everyone would have to write at least one article every thirty years.
I guess it's pretty obvious what is going to happen.Well, I really would like to come up with an idea to update their business model, but I don't have time since I want to write some more free software today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141999</id>
	<title>the American public...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243627020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck the American public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the American public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the American public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141559</id>
	<title>Paywalls a failed business model?  Ask Blizzard.</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1243625220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone likes the New York Times, but if it's behind a paywall, everyone will go read Yahoo News instead.  Right?</p><p>Everyone likes World of Warcraft, but since it's behind a paywall ($15/month!), everyone plays MapleStory instead.  Right?</p><p>1 million Americans pay for the New York Times, and many more than that read it for free.  2.5 million Americans *pay* for WoW.</p><p>There's nothing wrong with paywalls, so long as you can make your product attractive enough to pay for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone likes the New York Times , but if it 's behind a paywall , everyone will go read Yahoo News instead .
Right ? Everyone likes World of Warcraft , but since it 's behind a paywall ( $ 15/month !
) , everyone plays MapleStory instead .
Right ? 1 million Americans pay for the New York Times , and many more than that read it for free .
2.5 million Americans * pay * for WoW.There 's nothing wrong with paywalls , so long as you can make your product attractive enough to pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone likes the New York Times, but if it's behind a paywall, everyone will go read Yahoo News instead.
Right?Everyone likes World of Warcraft, but since it's behind a paywall ($15/month!
), everyone plays MapleStory instead.
Right?1 million Americans pay for the New York Times, and many more than that read it for free.
2.5 million Americans *pay* for WoW.There's nothing wrong with paywalls, so long as you can make your product attractive enough to pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141527</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243625100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>now sites like Craigslist and Google <b>are doing a better job</b> at what makes newspapers money</p></div><p>Bingo!  In the early days of the Internet, the newspapers could have used their brands and audience to build successful geographically-targeted hubs (e.g. classified ads, online dating, find a restaurant, etc.) but they failed to adapt and ceded all of that turf and mindshare to sites like Craigslist and Match.com.  Now, after over a decade of doing pretty much nothing, their big idea is "we'll charge more for the same old thing" (i.e. paywall instead of ads).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>now sites like Craigslist and Google are doing a better job at what makes newspapers moneyBingo !
In the early days of the Internet , the newspapers could have used their brands and audience to build successful geographically-targeted hubs ( e.g .
classified ads , online dating , find a restaurant , etc .
) but they failed to adapt and ceded all of that turf and mindshare to sites like Craigslist and Match.com .
Now , after over a decade of doing pretty much nothing , their big idea is " we 'll charge more for the same old thing " ( i.e .
paywall instead of ads ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now sites like Craigslist and Google are doing a better job at what makes newspapers moneyBingo!
In the early days of the Internet, the newspapers could have used their brands and audience to build successful geographically-targeted hubs (e.g.
classified ads, online dating, find a restaurant, etc.
) but they failed to adapt and ceded all of that turf and mindshare to sites like Craigslist and Match.com.
Now, after over a decade of doing pretty much nothing, their big idea is "we'll charge more for the same old thing" (i.e.
paywall instead of ads).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143571</id>
	<title>Beware RICO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243590420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard the publisher for Belo (Dallas News, et al) on NPR a few weeks.  He had some interesting things to say.  First was the atrocious terms that Amazon wanted to include his content on the Kindle.  I forget the percentage but I believe Amazon wanted either 70\% or 80\% of the deal.  That's just plain greed but that wasn't what Belo took issue with.  What bothered them was the other clause that granted Amazon rights to reuse the content in other places as they saw fit.  Can you imagine a television production company not only giving ABC most of the profit and THEN allowing them to reuse the content in other places?</p><p>He also mentioned the paywall.  As he correctly stated, such a system would not work if only one publisher instituted such a system.  However, getting all publishers together to agree on such a system is dangerously close to price fixing under U.S. law.</p><p>The publishers are in a hard place.  I hope they find resolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard the publisher for Belo ( Dallas News , et al ) on NPR a few weeks .
He had some interesting things to say .
First was the atrocious terms that Amazon wanted to include his content on the Kindle .
I forget the percentage but I believe Amazon wanted either 70 \ % or 80 \ % of the deal .
That 's just plain greed but that was n't what Belo took issue with .
What bothered them was the other clause that granted Amazon rights to reuse the content in other places as they saw fit .
Can you imagine a television production company not only giving ABC most of the profit and THEN allowing them to reuse the content in other places ? He also mentioned the paywall .
As he correctly stated , such a system would not work if only one publisher instituted such a system .
However , getting all publishers together to agree on such a system is dangerously close to price fixing under U.S. law.The publishers are in a hard place .
I hope they find resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard the publisher for Belo (Dallas News, et al) on NPR a few weeks.
He had some interesting things to say.
First was the atrocious terms that Amazon wanted to include his content on the Kindle.
I forget the percentage but I believe Amazon wanted either 70\% or 80\% of the deal.
That's just plain greed but that wasn't what Belo took issue with.
What bothered them was the other clause that granted Amazon rights to reuse the content in other places as they saw fit.
Can you imagine a television production company not only giving ABC most of the profit and THEN allowing them to reuse the content in other places?He also mentioned the paywall.
As he correctly stated, such a system would not work if only one publisher instituted such a system.
However, getting all publishers together to agree on such a system is dangerously close to price fixing under U.S. law.The publishers are in a hard place.
I hope they find resolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142735</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>psignosis69</author>
	<datestamp>1243629840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The change from Centralised Newspapers to De-centralised Internet is a fairly big one.

This problem has many sides to it. The Internet is free, un-regulated, un-censored and essentially anarchy of information.

Lets say for a second, I dont care about Newspapers. Eventually, we are going to see wider use of Intellectual Piracy, Distribution of anti-social content (porn/home made weapons/peoples personal details listed without consent) and eventually, National Security problems. Nobody cares right now because nothing motivates our way of thinking. We just want free stuff and to ensure the internet is un-filtered and remains free.

What happens if a Company goes too far? Lets suppose Google stores information that a Countries military finds dangerous. That Country might choose to Regulate its interned or impose Information Sanctions to protect itself from harm. It might censor national interest content, anti-social content, protect earnings by taking crap websites offline (defamation), create jobs by promoting local regional websites or criminally prosecute the illegal file downloaders. You might say the Internets too big and this isnt possible. Actually, the regional profits would boost your country. Im not saying this is great, just giving an alternative.

The question is, how long will the Internet remain Un-Regulated for. My guess is until a really large Corporation does something stupid to force a countries hand.

Google Maps was risky, Google Street View was extremely risky and really invaded peoples privacy. You see, stuff like this will turn heads if Google goes too far. On the other hand, perhaps Google isnt the threat, maybe there are other Companies?

Whats stopping me from posting all my ex-girlfriends name/address/phone nos on some website overseas where this country cant prosecute? There may have to be a time when we have some type of authoritarian / regulation.

Im not sure really. Just putting that out there for debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The change from Centralised Newspapers to De-centralised Internet is a fairly big one .
This problem has many sides to it .
The Internet is free , un-regulated , un-censored and essentially anarchy of information .
Lets say for a second , I dont care about Newspapers .
Eventually , we are going to see wider use of Intellectual Piracy , Distribution of anti-social content ( porn/home made weapons/peoples personal details listed without consent ) and eventually , National Security problems .
Nobody cares right now because nothing motivates our way of thinking .
We just want free stuff and to ensure the internet is un-filtered and remains free .
What happens if a Company goes too far ?
Lets suppose Google stores information that a Countries military finds dangerous .
That Country might choose to Regulate its interned or impose Information Sanctions to protect itself from harm .
It might censor national interest content , anti-social content , protect earnings by taking crap websites offline ( defamation ) , create jobs by promoting local regional websites or criminally prosecute the illegal file downloaders .
You might say the Internets too big and this isnt possible .
Actually , the regional profits would boost your country .
Im not saying this is great , just giving an alternative .
The question is , how long will the Internet remain Un-Regulated for .
My guess is until a really large Corporation does something stupid to force a countries hand .
Google Maps was risky , Google Street View was extremely risky and really invaded peoples privacy .
You see , stuff like this will turn heads if Google goes too far .
On the other hand , perhaps Google isnt the threat , maybe there are other Companies ?
Whats stopping me from posting all my ex-girlfriends name/address/phone nos on some website overseas where this country cant prosecute ?
There may have to be a time when we have some type of authoritarian / regulation .
Im not sure really .
Just putting that out there for debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The change from Centralised Newspapers to De-centralised Internet is a fairly big one.
This problem has many sides to it.
The Internet is free, un-regulated, un-censored and essentially anarchy of information.
Lets say for a second, I dont care about Newspapers.
Eventually, we are going to see wider use of Intellectual Piracy, Distribution of anti-social content (porn/home made weapons/peoples personal details listed without consent) and eventually, National Security problems.
Nobody cares right now because nothing motivates our way of thinking.
We just want free stuff and to ensure the internet is un-filtered and remains free.
What happens if a Company goes too far?
Lets suppose Google stores information that a Countries military finds dangerous.
That Country might choose to Regulate its interned or impose Information Sanctions to protect itself from harm.
It might censor national interest content, anti-social content, protect earnings by taking crap websites offline (defamation), create jobs by promoting local regional websites or criminally prosecute the illegal file downloaders.
You might say the Internets too big and this isnt possible.
Actually, the regional profits would boost your country.
Im not saying this is great, just giving an alternative.
The question is, how long will the Internet remain Un-Regulated for.
My guess is until a really large Corporation does something stupid to force a countries hand.
Google Maps was risky, Google Street View was extremely risky and really invaded peoples privacy.
You see, stuff like this will turn heads if Google goes too far.
On the other hand, perhaps Google isnt the threat, maybe there are other Companies?
Whats stopping me from posting all my ex-girlfriends name/address/phone nos on some website overseas where this country cant prosecute?
There may have to be a time when we have some type of authoritarian / regulation.
Im not sure really.
Just putting that out there for debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140927</id>
	<title>1999 just called</title>
	<author>rodrigoandrade</author>
	<datestamp>1243622640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They want their failed business model back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They want their failed business model back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want their failed business model back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140963</id>
	<title>So What?</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1243622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...and they had anti-trust lawyers "</p><p>So what?</p><p>Since when does holding an illegal meeting make it justified simply because lawyers are under advice?</p><p>Lots of criminal activity is sanctioned by lawyers even because congress has made it legal to do criminal activity.</p><p>Such as allowing the banks to steal every single American citizens tax dollars for the next 5 generations under the guise of "Tarp".</p><p>So what this isn't news, its business as usual.   I am wondering why they even bothered to do it in secret, nobody cares!</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...and they had anti-trust lawyers " So what ? Since when does holding an illegal meeting make it justified simply because lawyers are under advice ? Lots of criminal activity is sanctioned by lawyers even because congress has made it legal to do criminal activity.Such as allowing the banks to steal every single American citizens tax dollars for the next 5 generations under the guise of " Tarp " .So what this is n't news , its business as usual .
I am wondering why they even bothered to do it in secret , nobody cares ! -Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...and they had anti-trust lawyers "So what?Since when does holding an illegal meeting make it justified simply because lawyers are under advice?Lots of criminal activity is sanctioned by lawyers even because congress has made it legal to do criminal activity.Such as allowing the banks to steal every single American citizens tax dollars for the next 5 generations under the guise of "Tarp".So what this isn't news, its business as usual.
I am wondering why they even bothered to do it in secret, nobody cares!-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141769</id>
	<title>Re:Ooh... "secret" meetings?</title>
	<author>Beryllium Sphere(tm)</author>
	<datestamp>1243626000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One place I worked, we were all briefed not to discuss pricing, because doing so within a competitor's earshot could be considered illegal.</p><p>I'm surprised that an antitrust lawyer would be involved in a meeting among competitors to discuss simultaneous price hikes.</p><p>Anyway, newspapers have never charged for content: they've charged for advertising, with subscription charges being barely or not at all enough to pay for putting ink on newsprint and delivering it. They're dying because advertisers are leaving. Look at how thick the classified ads sections are today versus what they used to be like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One place I worked , we were all briefed not to discuss pricing , because doing so within a competitor 's earshot could be considered illegal.I 'm surprised that an antitrust lawyer would be involved in a meeting among competitors to discuss simultaneous price hikes.Anyway , newspapers have never charged for content : they 've charged for advertising , with subscription charges being barely or not at all enough to pay for putting ink on newsprint and delivering it .
They 're dying because advertisers are leaving .
Look at how thick the classified ads sections are today versus what they used to be like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One place I worked, we were all briefed not to discuss pricing, because doing so within a competitor's earshot could be considered illegal.I'm surprised that an antitrust lawyer would be involved in a meeting among competitors to discuss simultaneous price hikes.Anyway, newspapers have never charged for content: they've charged for advertising, with subscription charges being barely or not at all enough to pay for putting ink on newsprint and delivering it.
They're dying because advertisers are leaving.
Look at how thick the classified ads sections are today versus what they used to be like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140907</id>
	<title>Such fail</title>
	<author>Deosyne</author>
	<datestamp>1243622580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not for trying to collude in secret with one another, because that's been the status quo of business since some better-than-thou jackass decide that "manager" should be synonymous with "boss" rather than with "secretary." No, this fail because they just illustrated just how irrelevant they've become. I can't get a lick of investigative journalism out of these crusty old outlets other than that spoon-fed to them by their chosen benefactors in government or industry, but I heard about this little gathering of goofballs just fine using these silly Intarwebs.</p><p>Why should I pay a bunch of jokers to hunt down sources when those sources are having a grand old time posting everything they see direct to the world, often with full color photos or even video from the convenient little cameras that so many people carry in their pockets these days. Sorry Jimmy Olsen, I know you dream of roaming the streets capturing your Pulitzer, but most of us have found a nifty way to pass information to one another without needing you to play middleman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not for trying to collude in secret with one another , because that 's been the status quo of business since some better-than-thou jackass decide that " manager " should be synonymous with " boss " rather than with " secretary .
" No , this fail because they just illustrated just how irrelevant they 've become .
I ca n't get a lick of investigative journalism out of these crusty old outlets other than that spoon-fed to them by their chosen benefactors in government or industry , but I heard about this little gathering of goofballs just fine using these silly Intarwebs.Why should I pay a bunch of jokers to hunt down sources when those sources are having a grand old time posting everything they see direct to the world , often with full color photos or even video from the convenient little cameras that so many people carry in their pockets these days .
Sorry Jimmy Olsen , I know you dream of roaming the streets capturing your Pulitzer , but most of us have found a nifty way to pass information to one another without needing you to play middleman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not for trying to collude in secret with one another, because that's been the status quo of business since some better-than-thou jackass decide that "manager" should be synonymous with "boss" rather than with "secretary.
" No, this fail because they just illustrated just how irrelevant they've become.
I can't get a lick of investigative journalism out of these crusty old outlets other than that spoon-fed to them by their chosen benefactors in government or industry, but I heard about this little gathering of goofballs just fine using these silly Intarwebs.Why should I pay a bunch of jokers to hunt down sources when those sources are having a grand old time posting everything they see direct to the world, often with full color photos or even video from the convenient little cameras that so many people carry in their pockets these days.
Sorry Jimmy Olsen, I know you dream of roaming the streets capturing your Pulitzer, but most of us have found a nifty way to pass information to one another without needing you to play middleman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28145639</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243601940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?</p><p>Why does it have to be profitable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable ? Why does it have to be profitable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?Why does it have to be profitable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28148307</id>
	<title>News is not like other businesses...</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1243683000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the problem with news in the age of the internet, is that people want all their news in ONE PLACE.  This is why sites like digg, reddit and slashdot flourish posting links to other sites stories.  People do not want to have to visit many sites for their news, they would rather have a 2-10 news sites the visit, any more then that and it gets tedious for the end user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the problem with news in the age of the internet , is that people want all their news in ONE PLACE .
This is why sites like digg , reddit and slashdot flourish posting links to other sites stories .
People do not want to have to visit many sites for their news , they would rather have a 2-10 news sites the visit , any more then that and it gets tedious for the end user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the problem with news in the age of the internet, is that people want all their news in ONE PLACE.
This is why sites like digg, reddit and slashdot flourish posting links to other sites stories.
People do not want to have to visit many sites for their news, they would rather have a 2-10 news sites the visit, any more then that and it gets tedious for the end user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141199</id>
	<title>Paywalls</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1243623720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure why we need a term like paywall, but if anyone was wondering it's a subscription-based content delivery business model.  I didn't see anyone in the summary or article bother to define it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why we need a term like paywall , but if anyone was wondering it 's a subscription-based content delivery business model .
I did n't see anyone in the summary or article bother to define it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why we need a term like paywall, but if anyone was wondering it's a subscription-based content delivery business model.
I didn't see anyone in the summary or article bother to define it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142977</id>
	<title>Re:How to save the Newspaper Business</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1243587660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, newspapers aren't technology companies. They barely have functioning websites. The LA Times once tried to publish their stories online in a wiki so they can solicit comments from readers. Imagine how well that went.</p><p>So instead, they pay Amazon and other major technology companies to do the work for them. Except, well, those other technology companies take a major cut.</p><p>What they should do is get together with e-book reader manufacturers like Sony et al., and wireless carriers like AT&amp;T et al., and come up with a standard for doing push publications. People buy the e-book devices, they pay for a monthly subscription to the wireless service (or it comes with their data plan on their phone bill), and they pay for a subscription to the content. Or the wireless companies can subsidize the subscriptions, up to <i>n</i> participating periodicals depending on the plan. And the format of the content should be standardized (I'm thinking pdf), so that not only e-book readers, but any smartphone or MID could read the content.</p><p>But newspapers make the majority of their revenue on ads. It's not too far-fetched to push advertisements with the content, not in the sense of ads on a webpage, but ads in a newspaper or magazine: whole or half pages of ads that be present, but would disappear with a touch of the "next page" button. That's probably far more effective than banners or flash road blocks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , newspapers are n't technology companies .
They barely have functioning websites .
The LA Times once tried to publish their stories online in a wiki so they can solicit comments from readers .
Imagine how well that went.So instead , they pay Amazon and other major technology companies to do the work for them .
Except , well , those other technology companies take a major cut.What they should do is get together with e-book reader manufacturers like Sony et al. , and wireless carriers like AT&amp;T et al. , and come up with a standard for doing push publications .
People buy the e-book devices , they pay for a monthly subscription to the wireless service ( or it comes with their data plan on their phone bill ) , and they pay for a subscription to the content .
Or the wireless companies can subsidize the subscriptions , up to n participating periodicals depending on the plan .
And the format of the content should be standardized ( I 'm thinking pdf ) , so that not only e-book readers , but any smartphone or MID could read the content.But newspapers make the majority of their revenue on ads .
It 's not too far-fetched to push advertisements with the content , not in the sense of ads on a webpage , but ads in a newspaper or magazine : whole or half pages of ads that be present , but would disappear with a touch of the " next page " button .
That 's probably far more effective than banners or flash road blocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, newspapers aren't technology companies.
They barely have functioning websites.
The LA Times once tried to publish their stories online in a wiki so they can solicit comments from readers.
Imagine how well that went.So instead, they pay Amazon and other major technology companies to do the work for them.
Except, well, those other technology companies take a major cut.What they should do is get together with e-book reader manufacturers like Sony et al., and wireless carriers like AT&amp;T et al., and come up with a standard for doing push publications.
People buy the e-book devices, they pay for a monthly subscription to the wireless service (or it comes with their data plan on their phone bill), and they pay for a subscription to the content.
Or the wireless companies can subsidize the subscriptions, up to n participating periodicals depending on the plan.
And the format of the content should be standardized (I'm thinking pdf), so that not only e-book readers, but any smartphone or MID could read the content.But newspapers make the majority of their revenue on ads.
It's not too far-fetched to push advertisements with the content, not in the sense of ads on a webpage, but ads in a newspaper or magazine: whole or half pages of ads that be present, but would disappear with a touch of the "next page" button.
That's probably far more effective than banners or flash road blocks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28148735</id>
	<title>Re:Publishers: The free Internet is over</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1243690920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Publishers hold that it is natural for readers to pay what advertisers once did, just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls.</p></div><p>They don't have pockets.</p><p>Instead you kill them and sell their meat (and other parts too)!</p><p>Thank God I have pockets, now all I need is some money to put in them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Publishers hold that it is natural for readers to pay what advertisers once did , just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls.They do n't have pockets.Instead you kill them and sell their meat ( and other parts too ) ! Thank God I have pockets , now all I need is some money to put in them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publishers hold that it is natural for readers to pay what advertisers once did, just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls.They don't have pockets.Instead you kill them and sell their meat (and other parts too)!Thank God I have pockets, now all I need is some money to put in them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142347</id>
	<title>Re:How to save the Newspaper Business</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1243628340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Just had to say I think that's a great idea!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just had to say I think that 's a great idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Just had to say I think that's a great idea!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141725</id>
	<title>Re:They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1243625820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageous</p></div><p>Paywalls break the web. Even if they are valid and necessary to fund the kind of high-quality journalistic content we all love and want to see more of... they will still annoy people. Someone will send you a link, but when you click on it you'll get a "Please Pay" unless it happens to be one of the sites you pay for. When you sit down at a friend's computer, your favorite sites are not accessible anymore (and/or you end up fumbling with passwords). When you search for content on search engines, you can't find it. The web is based on links, and paywalls break those links. This is one of the main reasons why pay-sites have suffered: when looking for a link to support a point or discuss a story, most people will prefer a free link to a pay-based link, even if the pay-based link has a slightly better article. The reason is that you know everyone will be able to read it.<br> <br>

The newspapers know this, which is why their only hope is to collude so that <b>all</b> sites become paywall at the same time. So that no site can grab all the marketshare by offering the same content for free (read: ad supported). But will this really work? How will they prevent small-time papers from offering free content? How will they prevent bloggers with subscriptions from blogging about articles to audiences who don't bother paying for the subscriptions? Ubiquitous paywalls will just mean that a dedicated group of people will pay for access (basically the people who already pay for a few subscriptions), whereas the mass of people who don't worry about journalism day-to-day (but who on occasion do read this article or that) will just be content with second-hand accounts. This doesn't sound like a sustainable ecosystem.<br> <br>

Even the blanket subscriptions that you describe won't help much. The problem isn't just that people are not willing to pay some money for good journalism. The problem is that (most) people don't care enough to go through the hassle of paying; they don't care enough to keep paying when money is tight; they don't care enough to remember silly passwords... they want the web to be fast and easy and ubiquitous. (I also worry that blanket subscriptions, like other forms of collusion, will kill what little competition we have now; if there is one monopoly-like de-facto news subscription, what reason is there for a member newspaper to work hard to provide good content?)<br> <br>

I don't have an alternative, mind you. But I'm just pretty sure that subscriptions are going to fail in a big way. People don't like hassle and don't like spending money... and there are just not enough high-minded people who will actively recognize the need to fund journalism. One could imagine alternatives like mandatory charges on Internet access, or tax-funded journalism bursaries... but all these proposals have major drawbacks, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageousPaywalls break the web .
Even if they are valid and necessary to fund the kind of high-quality journalistic content we all love and want to see more of... they will still annoy people .
Someone will send you a link , but when you click on it you 'll get a " Please Pay " unless it happens to be one of the sites you pay for .
When you sit down at a friend 's computer , your favorite sites are not accessible anymore ( and/or you end up fumbling with passwords ) .
When you search for content on search engines , you ca n't find it .
The web is based on links , and paywalls break those links .
This is one of the main reasons why pay-sites have suffered : when looking for a link to support a point or discuss a story , most people will prefer a free link to a pay-based link , even if the pay-based link has a slightly better article .
The reason is that you know everyone will be able to read it .
The newspapers know this , which is why their only hope is to collude so that all sites become paywall at the same time .
So that no site can grab all the marketshare by offering the same content for free ( read : ad supported ) .
But will this really work ?
How will they prevent small-time papers from offering free content ?
How will they prevent bloggers with subscriptions from blogging about articles to audiences who do n't bother paying for the subscriptions ?
Ubiquitous paywalls will just mean that a dedicated group of people will pay for access ( basically the people who already pay for a few subscriptions ) , whereas the mass of people who do n't worry about journalism day-to-day ( but who on occasion do read this article or that ) will just be content with second-hand accounts .
This does n't sound like a sustainable ecosystem .
Even the blanket subscriptions that you describe wo n't help much .
The problem is n't just that people are not willing to pay some money for good journalism .
The problem is that ( most ) people do n't care enough to go through the hassle of paying ; they do n't care enough to keep paying when money is tight ; they do n't care enough to remember silly passwords... they want the web to be fast and easy and ubiquitous .
( I also worry that blanket subscriptions , like other forms of collusion , will kill what little competition we have now ; if there is one monopoly-like de-facto news subscription , what reason is there for a member newspaper to work hard to provide good content ?
) I do n't have an alternative , mind you .
But I 'm just pretty sure that subscriptions are going to fail in a big way .
People do n't like hassle and do n't like spending money... and there are just not enough high-minded people who will actively recognize the need to fund journalism .
One could imagine alternatives like mandatory charges on Internet access , or tax-funded journalism bursaries... but all these proposals have major drawbacks , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageousPaywalls break the web.
Even if they are valid and necessary to fund the kind of high-quality journalistic content we all love and want to see more of... they will still annoy people.
Someone will send you a link, but when you click on it you'll get a "Please Pay" unless it happens to be one of the sites you pay for.
When you sit down at a friend's computer, your favorite sites are not accessible anymore (and/or you end up fumbling with passwords).
When you search for content on search engines, you can't find it.
The web is based on links, and paywalls break those links.
This is one of the main reasons why pay-sites have suffered: when looking for a link to support a point or discuss a story, most people will prefer a free link to a pay-based link, even if the pay-based link has a slightly better article.
The reason is that you know everyone will be able to read it.
The newspapers know this, which is why their only hope is to collude so that all sites become paywall at the same time.
So that no site can grab all the marketshare by offering the same content for free (read: ad supported).
But will this really work?
How will they prevent small-time papers from offering free content?
How will they prevent bloggers with subscriptions from blogging about articles to audiences who don't bother paying for the subscriptions?
Ubiquitous paywalls will just mean that a dedicated group of people will pay for access (basically the people who already pay for a few subscriptions), whereas the mass of people who don't worry about journalism day-to-day (but who on occasion do read this article or that) will just be content with second-hand accounts.
This doesn't sound like a sustainable ecosystem.
Even the blanket subscriptions that you describe won't help much.
The problem isn't just that people are not willing to pay some money for good journalism.
The problem is that (most) people don't care enough to go through the hassle of paying; they don't care enough to keep paying when money is tight; they don't care enough to remember silly passwords... they want the web to be fast and easy and ubiquitous.
(I also worry that blanket subscriptions, like other forms of collusion, will kill what little competition we have now; if there is one monopoly-like de-facto news subscription, what reason is there for a member newspaper to work hard to provide good content?
) 

I don't have an alternative, mind you.
But I'm just pretty sure that subscriptions are going to fail in a big way.
People don't like hassle and don't like spending money... and there are just not enough high-minded people who will actively recognize the need to fund journalism.
One could imagine alternatives like mandatory charges on Internet access, or tax-funded journalism bursaries... but all these proposals have major drawbacks, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142107</id>
	<title>I am sorry to say this</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1243627500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but some newspapers will die. The world is changing, and what made lots of money in the past, makes less money today. Some news outlets will still find a way to be profitable, but it's a shrinking pie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but some newspapers will die .
The world is changing , and what made lots of money in the past , makes less money today .
Some news outlets will still find a way to be profitable , but it 's a shrinking pie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but some newspapers will die.
The world is changing, and what made lots of money in the past, makes less money today.
Some news outlets will still find a way to be profitable, but it's a shrinking pie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144229</id>
	<title>Why I Canceled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243593240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I canceled my subscription to the local paper in 2006. Here's the letter I wrote to them:</p><p>I have decided not to renew my N&amp;O subscription. I have been wavering for a few weeks. After having been a subscriber for many years, my "automatic" renewal came into question because of a number of factors:</p><p>- A change in delivery person a few months ago has resulted in late deliveries, wet paper deliveries, and no delivery in one case. I do not care to wonder when, if, or in what condition my paper is to arrive each day.</p><p>- Your "innovative" use of stick-on ads on the front page is offensive.</p><p>- Your lack of editorial or other coverage of the president's willful and systematic destruction of constitutional checks and balances, with congressional complicity, leads me to believe that you are asleep, don't care,  or otherwise not doing your job.</p><p>- In contrast, the ink spent on the local hockey team was huge - massively excessive in comparison to the many ways in which this nation is destroying itself.</p><p>- Your paper's increasingly tabloid look and feel is unbecoming a serious newspaper. You seem to be descending to the level of the failed Durham Herald, or USA Today ("News Lite").</p><p>- The daily changes in how things are collated makes it harder to identify and discard the many parts of your paper I don't care to peruse, mainly classified and inserted ads and sports.</p><p>- Finally, the long-standing placement of tear-off ads running the length of the comic pages most Sundays has been a source of continuing irritation.</p><p>In short, my message to you is that if you want my business, you would do well to stop annoying me. If you make substantive changes in any of the above areas, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I hope you can make a living from your happy hockey fans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I canceled my subscription to the local paper in 2006 .
Here 's the letter I wrote to them : I have decided not to renew my N&amp;O subscription .
I have been wavering for a few weeks .
After having been a subscriber for many years , my " automatic " renewal came into question because of a number of factors : - A change in delivery person a few months ago has resulted in late deliveries , wet paper deliveries , and no delivery in one case .
I do not care to wonder when , if , or in what condition my paper is to arrive each day.- Your " innovative " use of stick-on ads on the front page is offensive.- Your lack of editorial or other coverage of the president 's willful and systematic destruction of constitutional checks and balances , with congressional complicity , leads me to believe that you are asleep , do n't care , or otherwise not doing your job.- In contrast , the ink spent on the local hockey team was huge - massively excessive in comparison to the many ways in which this nation is destroying itself.- Your paper 's increasingly tabloid look and feel is unbecoming a serious newspaper .
You seem to be descending to the level of the failed Durham Herald , or USA Today ( " News Lite " ) .- The daily changes in how things are collated makes it harder to identify and discard the many parts of your paper I do n't care to peruse , mainly classified and inserted ads and sports.- Finally , the long-standing placement of tear-off ads running the length of the comic pages most Sundays has been a source of continuing irritation.In short , my message to you is that if you want my business , you would do well to stop annoying me .
If you make substantive changes in any of the above areas , feel free to let me know .
Otherwise , I hope you can make a living from your happy hockey fans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I canceled my subscription to the local paper in 2006.
Here's the letter I wrote to them:I have decided not to renew my N&amp;O subscription.
I have been wavering for a few weeks.
After having been a subscriber for many years, my "automatic" renewal came into question because of a number of factors:- A change in delivery person a few months ago has resulted in late deliveries, wet paper deliveries, and no delivery in one case.
I do not care to wonder when, if, or in what condition my paper is to arrive each day.- Your "innovative" use of stick-on ads on the front page is offensive.- Your lack of editorial or other coverage of the president's willful and systematic destruction of constitutional checks and balances, with congressional complicity, leads me to believe that you are asleep, don't care,  or otherwise not doing your job.- In contrast, the ink spent on the local hockey team was huge - massively excessive in comparison to the many ways in which this nation is destroying itself.- Your paper's increasingly tabloid look and feel is unbecoming a serious newspaper.
You seem to be descending to the level of the failed Durham Herald, or USA Today ("News Lite").- The daily changes in how things are collated makes it harder to identify and discard the many parts of your paper I don't care to peruse, mainly classified and inserted ads and sports.- Finally, the long-standing placement of tear-off ads running the length of the comic pages most Sundays has been a source of continuing irritation.In short, my message to you is that if you want my business, you would do well to stop annoying me.
If you make substantive changes in any of the above areas, feel free to let me know.
Otherwise, I hope you can make a living from your happy hockey fans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142483</id>
	<title>Pay for what?</title>
	<author>Evets</author>
	<datestamp>1243628760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AP Content is all over the place.  Most people weren't aware of how much of their daily news was filled by AP until the internet made it apparent.  The WSJ has been successful as a pay model because 1) they create a significant amount of their own content, and 2) People want to read it.  When you look online, the local newspapers aren't just competing with each other - they are competing with the TV news as well.  With 4 sources coming up with the same stories, the reader will turn to the source they are most familiar with.  When that source turns out to be too noisy (either with bad content, too many ads, poor layout), people will leave.  There are other places to go.  The papers aren't losing money because they can't make money online - they are losing money because they don't understand the marketplace they are attacking.  They want "more revenue, more visitors" so they put up more ads, shock articles, and spam (pardon me, astroturf) other sites.  Instead they should be thinking about things like visitor retention and how to attract long term customers.</p><p>The internet in the beginning was about how to make information more accessible.  Too big a focus on commerce is bad.</p><p>If, say, the LA Times - with their vast library of news from the last 100 years made their archives publicly accessible from day 1, they would be one of the most popular sites on the web.  They would be consistently cited, consistently searched, consistently visited.  Instead they decided to charge a few bucks an article for their archives - and while they made a few dollars - the focus on monetizing rather than informing resulted in a lost opportunity to increase their company value by 20,000\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AP Content is all over the place .
Most people were n't aware of how much of their daily news was filled by AP until the internet made it apparent .
The WSJ has been successful as a pay model because 1 ) they create a significant amount of their own content , and 2 ) People want to read it .
When you look online , the local newspapers are n't just competing with each other - they are competing with the TV news as well .
With 4 sources coming up with the same stories , the reader will turn to the source they are most familiar with .
When that source turns out to be too noisy ( either with bad content , too many ads , poor layout ) , people will leave .
There are other places to go .
The papers are n't losing money because they ca n't make money online - they are losing money because they do n't understand the marketplace they are attacking .
They want " more revenue , more visitors " so they put up more ads , shock articles , and spam ( pardon me , astroturf ) other sites .
Instead they should be thinking about things like visitor retention and how to attract long term customers.The internet in the beginning was about how to make information more accessible .
Too big a focus on commerce is bad.If , say , the LA Times - with their vast library of news from the last 100 years made their archives publicly accessible from day 1 , they would be one of the most popular sites on the web .
They would be consistently cited , consistently searched , consistently visited .
Instead they decided to charge a few bucks an article for their archives - and while they made a few dollars - the focus on monetizing rather than informing resulted in a lost opportunity to increase their company value by 20,000 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AP Content is all over the place.
Most people weren't aware of how much of their daily news was filled by AP until the internet made it apparent.
The WSJ has been successful as a pay model because 1) they create a significant amount of their own content, and 2) People want to read it.
When you look online, the local newspapers aren't just competing with each other - they are competing with the TV news as well.
With 4 sources coming up with the same stories, the reader will turn to the source they are most familiar with.
When that source turns out to be too noisy (either with bad content, too many ads, poor layout), people will leave.
There are other places to go.
The papers aren't losing money because they can't make money online - they are losing money because they don't understand the marketplace they are attacking.
They want "more revenue, more visitors" so they put up more ads, shock articles, and spam (pardon me, astroturf) other sites.
Instead they should be thinking about things like visitor retention and how to attract long term customers.The internet in the beginning was about how to make information more accessible.
Too big a focus on commerce is bad.If, say, the LA Times - with their vast library of news from the last 100 years made their archives publicly accessible from day 1, they would be one of the most popular sites on the web.
They would be consistently cited, consistently searched, consistently visited.
Instead they decided to charge a few bucks an article for their archives - and while they made a few dollars - the focus on monetizing rather than informing resulted in a lost opportunity to increase their company value by 20,000\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28146613</id>
	<title>Re:BBC as a model for newspapers?</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1243612140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see, news organizations paid for by the government. What could possibly go wrong?</p><p>No need to worry about censorship! All the reporters want their business, the gov't, to get bigger and more powerful, so that they get more money and power. Never report corruption and bribery; that would reflect poorly on the people who pay your salary.</p><p>Nope, no problem here. Like the BBC. Like Pravda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , news organizations paid for by the government .
What could possibly go wrong ? No need to worry about censorship !
All the reporters want their business , the gov't , to get bigger and more powerful , so that they get more money and power .
Never report corruption and bribery ; that would reflect poorly on the people who pay your salary.Nope , no problem here .
Like the BBC .
Like Pravda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, news organizations paid for by the government.
What could possibly go wrong?No need to worry about censorship!
All the reporters want their business, the gov't, to get bigger and more powerful, so that they get more money and power.
Never report corruption and bribery; that would reflect poorly on the people who pay your salary.Nope, no problem here.
Like the BBC.
Like Pravda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141557</id>
	<title>Re:They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>Spyder0101</author>
	<datestamp>1243625220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As enjoyable as it is to bash the newspapers for all of their real flaws, I don't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageous.  I really don't.  The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is (in the best cases) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources, fact checking, having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy (as much as that's suffered in the past decade) and generally putting out a "report" on a subject (that's why we call them reporters).  That's a lot of hard, often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it.  And frankly we should all want to pay for that kind of good content to be made, even when we disagree with it.</p></div><p>
What newspapers are you reading.  None I've ever seen offer anything close to your "best cases" on even a semi-regular basis.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's become trendy to say that bloggers do much of the work of the media and that is simply delusion.  First of all, nearly all blog entries (including a large fraction of those on this site) are built around a link of a publication which employs its writers.  Bloggers do a great job adding bits, contextualize and bringing together info, but they are most often not the generators of solid base information they work with.  So if we really do lose newspapers we are not going to have the People's Republic of Blogistan stand up and replace them with real reporting, we're just going to have gasbaggery in its place.</p></div><p>
Again, what blogs are you reading?  Of course there are a lot that are simply trash.  They cost nothing to put up and lets any idiot bask in an imagined sense of self-importance.  However, there are some that are simply amazing.  Try looking for some and your opinion will change quickly.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...<br> <br>
My hope is that the newspapers will force the issue on micropayments.  I would gladly pay $1, maybe $2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post, NYT, LA Times, my local newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger.  I absolutely will not pay $20/mo to each of those.  So if they can figure out a joint payment scheme that makes sense, I'm all for that.  Double bonus points if they can use it to make their archives affordable and not priced for company and institutiional use.</p></div><p>

MICROPAYMENTS SUCK!!!  They are a huge inefficiency (the mental transaction cost) to the process of getting news because before reading each article you need to consider if the article is worth the 5c or whatever the cost is.  However, the solution you propose is call a subscription, which is better but only marginally so.  Newspapers have never made money selling subscriptions.  The cost of a paper barely covers printing and delivery, if even that.  Newspapers made money on advertisements, or more specifically, selling their readers attention.  I sincerely hope a bunch of papers start charging.  When they go bankrupt soon after, it will put this silly debate to rest.  If they all do, they will all go bankrupt and then you will see the smart journalists starting blogs (the good kind, not the bads ones you use to soil the word) and make their money that way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As enjoyable as it is to bash the newspapers for all of their real flaws , I do n't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageous .
I really do n't .
The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is ( in the best cases ) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources , fact checking , having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy ( as much as that 's suffered in the past decade ) and generally putting out a " report " on a subject ( that 's why we call them reporters ) .
That 's a lot of hard , often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it .
And frankly we should all want to pay for that kind of good content to be made , even when we disagree with it .
What newspapers are you reading .
None I 've ever seen offer anything close to your " best cases " on even a semi-regular basis.It 's become trendy to say that bloggers do much of the work of the media and that is simply delusion .
First of all , nearly all blog entries ( including a large fraction of those on this site ) are built around a link of a publication which employs its writers .
Bloggers do a great job adding bits , contextualize and bringing together info , but they are most often not the generators of solid base information they work with .
So if we really do lose newspapers we are not going to have the People 's Republic of Blogistan stand up and replace them with real reporting , we 're just going to have gasbaggery in its place .
Again , what blogs are you reading ?
Of course there are a lot that are simply trash .
They cost nothing to put up and lets any idiot bask in an imagined sense of self-importance .
However , there are some that are simply amazing .
Try looking for some and your opinion will change quickly .
.. . My hope is that the newspapers will force the issue on micropayments .
I would gladly pay $ 1 , maybe $ 2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post , NYT , LA Times , my local newspaper , the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger .
I absolutely will not pay $ 20/mo to each of those .
So if they can figure out a joint payment scheme that makes sense , I 'm all for that .
Double bonus points if they can use it to make their archives affordable and not priced for company and institutiional use .
MICROPAYMENTS SUCK ! ! !
They are a huge inefficiency ( the mental transaction cost ) to the process of getting news because before reading each article you need to consider if the article is worth the 5c or whatever the cost is .
However , the solution you propose is call a subscription , which is better but only marginally so .
Newspapers have never made money selling subscriptions .
The cost of a paper barely covers printing and delivery , if even that .
Newspapers made money on advertisements , or more specifically , selling their readers attention .
I sincerely hope a bunch of papers start charging .
When they go bankrupt soon after , it will put this silly debate to rest .
If they all do , they will all go bankrupt and then you will see the smart journalists starting blogs ( the good kind , not the bads ones you use to soil the word ) and make their money that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As enjoyable as it is to bash the newspapers for all of their real flaws, I don't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageous.
I really don't.
The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is (in the best cases) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources, fact checking, having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy (as much as that's suffered in the past decade) and generally putting out a "report" on a subject (that's why we call them reporters).
That's a lot of hard, often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it.
And frankly we should all want to pay for that kind of good content to be made, even when we disagree with it.
What newspapers are you reading.
None I've ever seen offer anything close to your "best cases" on even a semi-regular basis.It's become trendy to say that bloggers do much of the work of the media and that is simply delusion.
First of all, nearly all blog entries (including a large fraction of those on this site) are built around a link of a publication which employs its writers.
Bloggers do a great job adding bits, contextualize and bringing together info, but they are most often not the generators of solid base information they work with.
So if we really do lose newspapers we are not going to have the People's Republic of Blogistan stand up and replace them with real reporting, we're just going to have gasbaggery in its place.
Again, what blogs are you reading?
Of course there are a lot that are simply trash.
They cost nothing to put up and lets any idiot bask in an imagined sense of self-importance.
However, there are some that are simply amazing.
Try looking for some and your opinion will change quickly.
... 
My hope is that the newspapers will force the issue on micropayments.
I would gladly pay $1, maybe $2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post, NYT, LA Times, my local newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger.
I absolutely will not pay $20/mo to each of those.
So if they can figure out a joint payment scheme that makes sense, I'm all for that.
Double bonus points if they can use it to make their archives affordable and not priced for company and institutiional use.
MICROPAYMENTS SUCK!!!
They are a huge inefficiency (the mental transaction cost) to the process of getting news because before reading each article you need to consider if the article is worth the 5c or whatever the cost is.
However, the solution you propose is call a subscription, which is better but only marginally so.
Newspapers have never made money selling subscriptions.
The cost of a paper barely covers printing and delivery, if even that.
Newspapers made money on advertisements, or more specifically, selling their readers attention.
I sincerely hope a bunch of papers start charging.
When they go bankrupt soon after, it will put this silly debate to rest.
If they all do, they will all go bankrupt and then you will see the smart journalists starting blogs (the good kind, not the bads ones you use to soil the word) and make their money that way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28147267</id>
	<title>Re:The Benefits of Subscription</title>
	<author>kaos07</author>
	<datestamp>1243620540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good comment.</p><p>I'm a subscriber to the independent Australia media service Crikey. It costs me more than $100 a year so why do I do it? Pretty much all the reasons you've listed.</p><p>Dozens and dozens of articles everyday on politics, media, culture, lifestyle, the environment and sport. Some really good quality journalism, often by ex-mainstream media journalists and opinion pieces from well known individuals. A lot of the time they break stories as well, which the papers then play catch up with the next day.</p><p>Convenient access! I'll say. All the stories emailed to your inbox (on your computer or phone) as a digest every day and links to the stories progressively twittered as they are published.</p><p>When I signed up I got a free t-shirt designed by the resident cartoonist. Lots of merch available as well.</p><p>I feel absolutely no sympathy for the Murdoch press or anyone else in the old model of media. This is the way the new media should be run. It's great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good comment.I 'm a subscriber to the independent Australia media service Crikey .
It costs me more than $ 100 a year so why do I do it ?
Pretty much all the reasons you 've listed.Dozens and dozens of articles everyday on politics , media , culture , lifestyle , the environment and sport .
Some really good quality journalism , often by ex-mainstream media journalists and opinion pieces from well known individuals .
A lot of the time they break stories as well , which the papers then play catch up with the next day.Convenient access !
I 'll say .
All the stories emailed to your inbox ( on your computer or phone ) as a digest every day and links to the stories progressively twittered as they are published.When I signed up I got a free t-shirt designed by the resident cartoonist .
Lots of merch available as well.I feel absolutely no sympathy for the Murdoch press or anyone else in the old model of media .
This is the way the new media should be run .
It 's great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good comment.I'm a subscriber to the independent Australia media service Crikey.
It costs me more than $100 a year so why do I do it?
Pretty much all the reasons you've listed.Dozens and dozens of articles everyday on politics, media, culture, lifestyle, the environment and sport.
Some really good quality journalism, often by ex-mainstream media journalists and opinion pieces from well known individuals.
A lot of the time they break stories as well, which the papers then play catch up with the next day.Convenient access!
I'll say.
All the stories emailed to your inbox (on your computer or phone) as a digest every day and links to the stories progressively twittered as they are published.When I signed up I got a free t-shirt designed by the resident cartoonist.
Lots of merch available as well.I feel absolutely no sympathy for the Murdoch press or anyone else in the old model of media.
This is the way the new media should be run.
It's great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141701</id>
	<title>Re:They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1243625760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. Paywalls are under consideration by the print media (newspapers) because they can' t figure out how to make their business model work anymore, in an age when a key thing has changed; the barriers to publishing "news" (the other-than-advertising stuff in newspapers) are virtually gone now. It might be argued that fewer and fewer people are willing to actually <i>read</i> something to gain knowledge, the success of Fox News is sad evidence of that, but I think it's largely the fact that one can get the same information, in fact a better stream of it, on the web. Newspaper publishers expecting that they can enjoy a revenue stream and business model that is anything like what worked in the good old days is indeed outrageous.</p><p>Look, I read content from about a dozen news sources a day, all on the web, and all via links that Google News has aggregated for me. I might pay for access to the stories that interest me, but what I will pay is nowhere near what the local paper was able to squeeze out of me when they were the only game in town. I do <i>not</i>give a shit about stick and ball games. Same goes for "society" news and the folksy home-garden-kitchen section. Figure that out and move forward, publishers.  Dump the printing plant and all that overhead. Take what you have left and focus on delivering enough value that people (subscribers and advertisers) will pay <i>something</i> for it. Do that because we really do need professional news gatherers as much as, if not more than, ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but that dog do n't hunt .
Paywalls are under consideration by the print media ( newspapers ) because they can ' t figure out how to make their business model work anymore , in an age when a key thing has changed ; the barriers to publishing " news " ( the other-than-advertising stuff in newspapers ) are virtually gone now .
It might be argued that fewer and fewer people are willing to actually read something to gain knowledge , the success of Fox News is sad evidence of that , but I think it 's largely the fact that one can get the same information , in fact a better stream of it , on the web .
Newspaper publishers expecting that they can enjoy a revenue stream and business model that is anything like what worked in the good old days is indeed outrageous.Look , I read content from about a dozen news sources a day , all on the web , and all via links that Google News has aggregated for me .
I might pay for access to the stories that interest me , but what I will pay is nowhere near what the local paper was able to squeeze out of me when they were the only game in town .
I do notgive a shit about stick and ball games .
Same goes for " society " news and the folksy home-garden-kitchen section .
Figure that out and move forward , publishers .
Dump the printing plant and all that overhead .
Take what you have left and focus on delivering enough value that people ( subscribers and advertisers ) will pay something for it .
Do that because we really do need professional news gatherers as much as , if not more than , ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.
Paywalls are under consideration by the print media (newspapers) because they can' t figure out how to make their business model work anymore, in an age when a key thing has changed; the barriers to publishing "news" (the other-than-advertising stuff in newspapers) are virtually gone now.
It might be argued that fewer and fewer people are willing to actually read something to gain knowledge, the success of Fox News is sad evidence of that, but I think it's largely the fact that one can get the same information, in fact a better stream of it, on the web.
Newspaper publishers expecting that they can enjoy a revenue stream and business model that is anything like what worked in the good old days is indeed outrageous.Look, I read content from about a dozen news sources a day, all on the web, and all via links that Google News has aggregated for me.
I might pay for access to the stories that interest me, but what I will pay is nowhere near what the local paper was able to squeeze out of me when they were the only game in town.
I do notgive a shit about stick and ball games.
Same goes for "society" news and the folksy home-garden-kitchen section.
Figure that out and move forward, publishers.
Dump the printing plant and all that overhead.
Take what you have left and focus on delivering enough value that people (subscribers and advertisers) will pay something for it.
Do that because we really do need professional news gatherers as much as, if not more than, ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141225</id>
	<title>Publishers: The free Internet is over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243623780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rupert Murdoch, <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/05/12/murdoch-free-internet-is-over/" title="today.com">speaking out on the news business</a> [today.com], stated today that "the Internet free access model is clearly malfunctioning, as I don't make enough money from it. We have to educate people that free doesn't work, particularly for us."

</p><p>Media commentators fear for the future of investigative journalism. "How can we hold governments' feet to the fire without money to pay our great reporters? Where would you get your recycled wire feeds, your Garfield cartoons?" Publishers hold that it is natural for readers to pay what advertisers once did, just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls.

</p><p>Newspapers have suffered badly since the collapse of their previous business model of selling readers to advertisers on a local monopoly basis. The replacement models appear to involve phlogiston, caloric and luminiferous aether.

</p><p>Publishers have also explored the notion of getting Google to pay its "fair share" for so parasitically leading people to newspapers' websites. The Wikimedia Foundation promptly started billing journalists for their reprints from Wikipedia. "We feel this is completely unfair," said Tom Curley of the Associated Press, "as real news stories spring forth from the heads of accredited reporters in an immaculate creation from nothingness. My <i>preciousss</i>." Maurice Jarre was unavailable for comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rupert Murdoch , speaking out on the news business [ today.com ] , stated today that " the Internet free access model is clearly malfunctioning , as I do n't make enough money from it .
We have to educate people that free does n't work , particularly for us .
" Media commentators fear for the future of investigative journalism .
" How can we hold governments ' feet to the fire without money to pay our great reporters ?
Where would you get your recycled wire feeds , your Garfield cartoons ?
" Publishers hold that it is natural for readers to pay what advertisers once did , just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls .
Newspapers have suffered badly since the collapse of their previous business model of selling readers to advertisers on a local monopoly basis .
The replacement models appear to involve phlogiston , caloric and luminiferous aether .
Publishers have also explored the notion of getting Google to pay its " fair share " for so parasitically leading people to newspapers ' websites .
The Wikimedia Foundation promptly started billing journalists for their reprints from Wikipedia .
" We feel this is completely unfair , " said Tom Curley of the Associated Press , " as real news stories spring forth from the heads of accredited reporters in an immaculate creation from nothingness .
My preciousss .
" Maurice Jarre was unavailable for comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rupert Murdoch, speaking out on the news business [today.com], stated today that "the Internet free access model is clearly malfunctioning, as I don't make enough money from it.
We have to educate people that free doesn't work, particularly for us.
"

Media commentators fear for the future of investigative journalism.
"How can we hold governments' feet to the fire without money to pay our great reporters?
Where would you get your recycled wire feeds, your Garfield cartoons?
" Publishers hold that it is natural for readers to pay what advertisers once did, just as cows have to make up the difference out of their own pockets when the price of milk falls.
Newspapers have suffered badly since the collapse of their previous business model of selling readers to advertisers on a local monopoly basis.
The replacement models appear to involve phlogiston, caloric and luminiferous aether.
Publishers have also explored the notion of getting Google to pay its "fair share" for so parasitically leading people to newspapers' websites.
The Wikimedia Foundation promptly started billing journalists for their reprints from Wikipedia.
"We feel this is completely unfair," said Tom Curley of the Associated Press, "as real news stories spring forth from the heads of accredited reporters in an immaculate creation from nothingness.
My preciousss.
" Maurice Jarre was unavailable for comment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143365</id>
	<title>Local news crisis?</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1243589520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of people here are taking a capitalist "let the best media win and the worst media fail" point of view, which I can totally get behind, in terms of national news.  Between nytimes.com, fox news, cnn, washington post, la times, and direct feeds from AP and Reuters, there's no shortage of sources for national and international news.  If a few of those sources can't figure out how to make a profit off the Web and go bust, hey, who cares?</p><p>But my worry is about local news.  Many of the papers in question are the *only* source of serious investigative news in their region.  If the New York Times and the Boston Globe go bust, who's going to investigate City Hall and State Capitol political shenanigans, state police brutality, or local corporate fraud?  The Post and the Herald?  Not likely.  Random bloggers?  They're too diffuse to have the power to be taken seriously by the government.  TV channels?  The only investigative journalism they have time or money for is "Are Pokemon Killing Our Kids?!"</p><p>I'm seriously worried that if these papers go under, nobody will be watching the local authorities.   As I see it, scandal and corruption are already a much much bigger problem at the local level than nationally, because at the local level, not many people are paying attention.  Get rid of the local paper, and it'll be party central at the city hall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people here are taking a capitalist " let the best media win and the worst media fail " point of view , which I can totally get behind , in terms of national news .
Between nytimes.com , fox news , cnn , washington post , la times , and direct feeds from AP and Reuters , there 's no shortage of sources for national and international news .
If a few of those sources ca n't figure out how to make a profit off the Web and go bust , hey , who cares ? But my worry is about local news .
Many of the papers in question are the * only * source of serious investigative news in their region .
If the New York Times and the Boston Globe go bust , who 's going to investigate City Hall and State Capitol political shenanigans , state police brutality , or local corporate fraud ?
The Post and the Herald ?
Not likely .
Random bloggers ?
They 're too diffuse to have the power to be taken seriously by the government .
TV channels ?
The only investigative journalism they have time or money for is " Are Pokemon Killing Our Kids ? !
" I 'm seriously worried that if these papers go under , nobody will be watching the local authorities .
As I see it , scandal and corruption are already a much much bigger problem at the local level than nationally , because at the local level , not many people are paying attention .
Get rid of the local paper , and it 'll be party central at the city hall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people here are taking a capitalist "let the best media win and the worst media fail" point of view, which I can totally get behind, in terms of national news.
Between nytimes.com, fox news, cnn, washington post, la times, and direct feeds from AP and Reuters, there's no shortage of sources for national and international news.
If a few of those sources can't figure out how to make a profit off the Web and go bust, hey, who cares?But my worry is about local news.
Many of the papers in question are the *only* source of serious investigative news in their region.
If the New York Times and the Boston Globe go bust, who's going to investigate City Hall and State Capitol political shenanigans, state police brutality, or local corporate fraud?
The Post and the Herald?
Not likely.
Random bloggers?
They're too diffuse to have the power to be taken seriously by the government.
TV channels?
The only investigative journalism they have time or money for is "Are Pokemon Killing Our Kids?!
"I'm seriously worried that if these papers go under, nobody will be watching the local authorities.
As I see it, scandal and corruption are already a much much bigger problem at the local level than nationally, because at the local level, not many people are paying attention.
Get rid of the local paper, and it'll be party central at the city hall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142205</id>
	<title>Sad</title>
	<author>idiotnot</author>
	<datestamp>1243627800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And, yes, they apparently had an antitrust lawyer or two involved</i></p><p>If any other industry was doing this, the newspapers would be killing tens of thousands of trees, and spending a ton of ink talking about another evil capitalist industry's greed.</p><p>Imagine, for a second, if your local birdcage liner found out about local gas stations getting together to coordinate prices.....</p><p>No, they shouldn't get an exemption.  But considering the sweet deal that other ancient organizations are getting (hello, UAW!), they probably will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , yes , they apparently had an antitrust lawyer or two involvedIf any other industry was doing this , the newspapers would be killing tens of thousands of trees , and spending a ton of ink talking about another evil capitalist industry 's greed.Imagine , for a second , if your local birdcage liner found out about local gas stations getting together to coordinate prices.....No , they should n't get an exemption .
But considering the sweet deal that other ancient organizations are getting ( hello , UAW !
) , they probably will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, yes, they apparently had an antitrust lawyer or two involvedIf any other industry was doing this, the newspapers would be killing tens of thousands of trees, and spending a ton of ink talking about another evil capitalist industry's greed.Imagine, for a second, if your local birdcage liner found out about local gas stations getting together to coordinate prices.....No, they shouldn't get an exemption.
But considering the sweet deal that other ancient organizations are getting (hello, UAW!
), they probably will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140961</id>
	<title>Newspapers Barely Compete</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1243622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how antitrust is necessary in this case. In the dense suburban area I grew up in, there was only one newspaper my family ever considered - the large, liberal, city newspaper. Our neighbors also only considered one newspaper - the local, conservative newspaper. There were only two newspapers that served out region, and everyone knew which they wanted. There was no true competition.</p><p>As I understand it, most of the US is like this. I don't know the history of the industry, and I'm sure there was competition at some point, but I can't think of any cities that are served by multiple large newspapers (and no, I don't count the New York Post!). Perhaps the industry already colluded at a regional level, and now they need to do something similar at a national or international level.</p><p>Frankly, I think it's a bit dangerous. I come from a city that has a terrible large newspaper (San Diego Tribune), and it sucks that we don't have more choice. If this happened at a national level, the entire print industry would die in one fell swoop. This "paywall" also sounds dangerous. I already get most of my news for free, and I know the demand for paid news has fallen. Perhaps this last ditch effort indicates the industry is already dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how antitrust is necessary in this case .
In the dense suburban area I grew up in , there was only one newspaper my family ever considered - the large , liberal , city newspaper .
Our neighbors also only considered one newspaper - the local , conservative newspaper .
There were only two newspapers that served out region , and everyone knew which they wanted .
There was no true competition.As I understand it , most of the US is like this .
I do n't know the history of the industry , and I 'm sure there was competition at some point , but I ca n't think of any cities that are served by multiple large newspapers ( and no , I do n't count the New York Post ! ) .
Perhaps the industry already colluded at a regional level , and now they need to do something similar at a national or international level.Frankly , I think it 's a bit dangerous .
I come from a city that has a terrible large newspaper ( San Diego Tribune ) , and it sucks that we do n't have more choice .
If this happened at a national level , the entire print industry would die in one fell swoop .
This " paywall " also sounds dangerous .
I already get most of my news for free , and I know the demand for paid news has fallen .
Perhaps this last ditch effort indicates the industry is already dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how antitrust is necessary in this case.
In the dense suburban area I grew up in, there was only one newspaper my family ever considered - the large, liberal, city newspaper.
Our neighbors also only considered one newspaper - the local, conservative newspaper.
There were only two newspapers that served out region, and everyone knew which they wanted.
There was no true competition.As I understand it, most of the US is like this.
I don't know the history of the industry, and I'm sure there was competition at some point, but I can't think of any cities that are served by multiple large newspapers (and no, I don't count the New York Post!).
Perhaps the industry already colluded at a regional level, and now they need to do something similar at a national or international level.Frankly, I think it's a bit dangerous.
I come from a city that has a terrible large newspaper (San Diego Tribune), and it sucks that we don't have more choice.
If this happened at a national level, the entire print industry would die in one fell swoop.
This "paywall" also sounds dangerous.
I already get most of my news for free, and I know the demand for paid news has fallen.
Perhaps this last ditch effort indicates the industry is already dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141201</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243623720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Radio and television?  Donation supported media (we have three radio stations that use this model successfully in my area as is)?  I'm getting sick of people confusing the media for its content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Radio and television ?
Donation supported media ( we have three radio stations that use this model successfully in my area as is ) ?
I 'm getting sick of people confusing the media for its content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radio and television?
Donation supported media (we have three radio stations that use this model successfully in my area as is)?
I'm getting sick of people confusing the media for its content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142271</id>
	<title>Re:Ooh... "secret" meetings?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243628040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or does the article submitter imply that [...] they should invite the press [..] ?</p></div><p>I think the press was there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or does the article submitter imply that [ ... ] they should invite the press [ .. ] ? I think the press was there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or does the article submitter imply that [...] they should invite the press [..] ?I think the press was there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141215</id>
	<title>The Benefits of Subscription</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243623780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an longtime consumer of printed media, I really have no problem paying for a subscription to a daily newspaper and a few magazines on subjects I care about. Back in the day, the primary benefit of a subscription was home delivery ("Never miss an issue!") and a discount off of what it would cost to buy the publication on the street.</p><p>So what are the possible benefits now? I can think of a few things that would make subscribing worthwhile:</p><p>- Access to articles -- this is the porn/academic journal approach where you can only see the good stuff if you pay. This only works if what you offer is REALLY good and not available elsewhere.</p><p>- Freedom from advertising -- I would pay $10/mo to NYTime Company today if they would stop putting animated ads and buttons on their pages.</p><p>- Convenient access -- this is the Kindle approach, where your subscription grants you access to well-formatted content from mobile or dedicated devices. This only works if the content is truly well-formatted, which it is often not on the Kindle. This is more or less the iTunes model, too, because you pay a small premium for the tight integration of content and device.</p><p>- Affiliation -- this is the public radio approach: you support the station, they send you t-shirts and other crap that allow you to identify in public as a supporter. Commercial media are kind of blind to this, but it has worked really well for some organizations for a long time.</p><p>Can a room full of newspaper execs come up with actual reasons why we should subscribe like this? I dunno. I doubt it. I suspect they will put up paywalls, but then continue to show annoying ads, ignore mobile devices, and botch the affiliation angle like they always have. Bankruptcy comes to all dinosaurs sooner or later. If they could learn from Slashdot (which has an *excellent* subscription scheme) they already would have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an longtime consumer of printed media , I really have no problem paying for a subscription to a daily newspaper and a few magazines on subjects I care about .
Back in the day , the primary benefit of a subscription was home delivery ( " Never miss an issue !
" ) and a discount off of what it would cost to buy the publication on the street.So what are the possible benefits now ?
I can think of a few things that would make subscribing worthwhile : - Access to articles -- this is the porn/academic journal approach where you can only see the good stuff if you pay .
This only works if what you offer is REALLY good and not available elsewhere.- Freedom from advertising -- I would pay $ 10/mo to NYTime Company today if they would stop putting animated ads and buttons on their pages.- Convenient access -- this is the Kindle approach , where your subscription grants you access to well-formatted content from mobile or dedicated devices .
This only works if the content is truly well-formatted , which it is often not on the Kindle .
This is more or less the iTunes model , too , because you pay a small premium for the tight integration of content and device.- Affiliation -- this is the public radio approach : you support the station , they send you t-shirts and other crap that allow you to identify in public as a supporter .
Commercial media are kind of blind to this , but it has worked really well for some organizations for a long time.Can a room full of newspaper execs come up with actual reasons why we should subscribe like this ?
I dunno .
I doubt it .
I suspect they will put up paywalls , but then continue to show annoying ads , ignore mobile devices , and botch the affiliation angle like they always have .
Bankruptcy comes to all dinosaurs sooner or later .
If they could learn from Slashdot ( which has an * excellent * subscription scheme ) they already would have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an longtime consumer of printed media, I really have no problem paying for a subscription to a daily newspaper and a few magazines on subjects I care about.
Back in the day, the primary benefit of a subscription was home delivery ("Never miss an issue!
") and a discount off of what it would cost to buy the publication on the street.So what are the possible benefits now?
I can think of a few things that would make subscribing worthwhile:- Access to articles -- this is the porn/academic journal approach where you can only see the good stuff if you pay.
This only works if what you offer is REALLY good and not available elsewhere.- Freedom from advertising -- I would pay $10/mo to NYTime Company today if they would stop putting animated ads and buttons on their pages.- Convenient access -- this is the Kindle approach, where your subscription grants you access to well-formatted content from mobile or dedicated devices.
This only works if the content is truly well-formatted, which it is often not on the Kindle.
This is more or less the iTunes model, too, because you pay a small premium for the tight integration of content and device.- Affiliation -- this is the public radio approach: you support the station, they send you t-shirts and other crap that allow you to identify in public as a supporter.
Commercial media are kind of blind to this, but it has worked really well for some organizations for a long time.Can a room full of newspaper execs come up with actual reasons why we should subscribe like this?
I dunno.
I doubt it.
I suspect they will put up paywalls, but then continue to show annoying ads, ignore mobile devices, and botch the affiliation angle like they always have.
Bankruptcy comes to all dinosaurs sooner or later.
If they could learn from Slashdot (which has an *excellent* subscription scheme) they already would have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141195</id>
	<title>Picking from who now?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1243623660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, because great journalism talent will put their work on the web for free.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm<br>Remember, journalists have bills to pay and need to eat just like you. You wouldn't work for free, and neither will they. If they can't make money as journalists, they will get jobs doing something else. Seeing as great journalism is a full time job, there will be a major reduction in the quantity of quality journalism. But, crappy journalism with continue unabated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter.Yes , because great journalism talent will put their work on the web for free .
/sarcasmRemember , journalists have bills to pay and need to eat just like you .
You would n't work for free , and neither will they .
If they ca n't make money as journalists , they will get jobs doing something else .
Seeing as great journalism is a full time job , there will be a major reduction in the quantity of quality journalism .
But , crappy journalism with continue unabated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter.Yes, because great journalism talent will put their work on the web for free.
/sarcasmRemember, journalists have bills to pay and need to eat just like you.
You wouldn't work for free, and neither will they.
If they can't make money as journalists, they will get jobs doing something else.
Seeing as great journalism is a full time job, there will be a major reduction in the quantity of quality journalism.
But, crappy journalism with continue unabated.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141391</id>
	<title>Re:Ads pay for the papers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243624500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The classifieds were the golden goose for newspapers, and the internet has killed those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The classifieds were the golden goose for newspapers , and the internet has killed those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The classifieds were the golden goose for newspapers, and the internet has killed those.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140915</id>
	<title>News corps have nothing to do with 1st Amendment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243622580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just goes to show you that they are in the business of maintenance through limited liability. They only print that which is in their interest or was explicitly granted to them without recourse to any suit that may incur.</p><p>Take away the paycheck, take away the maintenance.  1st Amendment is not maintained by the people, it is only acknowledged for the purposes of the debt charters known as the united States of America.  Next thing you know, they'll be trying to convince us that the united States of America exists as a single entity titled "The United States" that creates "U.S. States" rather than confederated states of America.</p><p>This message brought to you by North Carolina American Republic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just goes to show you that they are in the business of maintenance through limited liability .
They only print that which is in their interest or was explicitly granted to them without recourse to any suit that may incur.Take away the paycheck , take away the maintenance .
1st Amendment is not maintained by the people , it is only acknowledged for the purposes of the debt charters known as the united States of America .
Next thing you know , they 'll be trying to convince us that the united States of America exists as a single entity titled " The United States " that creates " U.S. States " rather than confederated states of America.This message brought to you by North Carolina American Republic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just goes to show you that they are in the business of maintenance through limited liability.
They only print that which is in their interest or was explicitly granted to them without recourse to any suit that may incur.Take away the paycheck, take away the maintenance.
1st Amendment is not maintained by the people, it is only acknowledged for the purposes of the debt charters known as the united States of America.
Next thing you know, they'll be trying to convince us that the united States of America exists as a single entity titled "The United States" that creates "U.S. States" rather than confederated states of America.This message brought to you by North Carolina American Republic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142285</id>
	<title>Figure out who will pay for what ...</title>
	<author>oneiros27</author>
	<datestamp>1243628040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a simple capitalistic endeavor -- determine who is willing to pay for what (and how much).</p><p>Craigslist isn't free -- they charge for real estate ads in some markets.  Then there's the requirement for government entities to publish announcements and bids for contracts.  I'm guessing there's other legal requirements for people to post some types of information (death notices?).</p><p>The newspapers just need to figure out which parts of the paper can be used to subsidize other parts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as general ads are down, they can either try lowering the price (in an attempt to get more total money), or find other ways to capitalize on what they have.  (I used to work at an ISP that was co-located at a small newspaper (they got free bandwidth, we got free space) -- they printed some specialty newspapers when the state government was in session and some other stuff that wasn't just their normal business<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they also saved money by switching to VoIP back in 1998 to link themselves to the other papers the company owned)</p><p>Our local newspaper (different area now) would take advertisements for events based on column inches / color / etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but they haven't yet put up a calendar system so I could pay to have them list my event for a given number of weeks and have people easily find it on their website.  Newspapers could easily re-invent themselves as local portal sites and possibly charge for combined membership / subscription or access to some 'premium' sections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a simple capitalistic endeavor -- determine who is willing to pay for what ( and how much ) .Craigslist is n't free -- they charge for real estate ads in some markets .
Then there 's the requirement for government entities to publish announcements and bids for contracts .
I 'm guessing there 's other legal requirements for people to post some types of information ( death notices ?
) .The newspapers just need to figure out which parts of the paper can be used to subsidize other parts ... as general ads are down , they can either try lowering the price ( in an attempt to get more total money ) , or find other ways to capitalize on what they have .
( I used to work at an ISP that was co-located at a small newspaper ( they got free bandwidth , we got free space ) -- they printed some specialty newspapers when the state government was in session and some other stuff that was n't just their normal business ... they also saved money by switching to VoIP back in 1998 to link themselves to the other papers the company owned ) Our local newspaper ( different area now ) would take advertisements for events based on column inches / color / etc ... but they have n't yet put up a calendar system so I could pay to have them list my event for a given number of weeks and have people easily find it on their website .
Newspapers could easily re-invent themselves as local portal sites and possibly charge for combined membership / subscription or access to some 'premium ' sections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a simple capitalistic endeavor -- determine who is willing to pay for what (and how much).Craigslist isn't free -- they charge for real estate ads in some markets.
Then there's the requirement for government entities to publish announcements and bids for contracts.
I'm guessing there's other legal requirements for people to post some types of information (death notices?
).The newspapers just need to figure out which parts of the paper can be used to subsidize other parts ... as general ads are down, they can either try lowering the price (in an attempt to get more total money), or find other ways to capitalize on what they have.
(I used to work at an ISP that was co-located at a small newspaper (they got free bandwidth, we got free space) -- they printed some specialty newspapers when the state government was in session and some other stuff that wasn't just their normal business ... they also saved money by switching to VoIP back in 1998 to link themselves to the other papers the company owned)Our local newspaper (different area now) would take advertisements for events based on column inches / color / etc ... but they haven't yet put up a calendar system so I could pay to have them list my event for a given number of weeks and have people easily find it on their website.
Newspapers could easily re-invent themselves as local portal sites and possibly charge for combined membership / subscription or access to some 'premium' sections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28150307</id>
	<title>Re:BBC as a model for newspapers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243706400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, you mean, instead of an entrenched oligarchy controlling all the major press outlets, an entrenched oligarchy could control all the major press outlets. Yep, that would be a vast improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , you mean , instead of an entrenched oligarchy controlling all the major press outlets , an entrenched oligarchy could control all the major press outlets .
Yep , that would be a vast improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, you mean, instead of an entrenched oligarchy controlling all the major press outlets, an entrenched oligarchy could control all the major press outlets.
Yep, that would be a vast improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142035</id>
	<title>Re:How to save the Newspaper Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243627140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be silly, it's far easier to just try to extort a dollar out of everybody and change nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be silly , it 's far easier to just try to extort a dollar out of everybody and change nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be silly, it's far easier to just try to extort a dollar out of everybody and change nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28150143</id>
	<title>Free as in speech</title>
	<author>jbdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1243705140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't mind paying $19.95 or so a month if it included full search and retrieval from the archives. $20 is worth the convenience of  kibo'ing or hypertexting back to the antebellum era. Abstracts suck. All they're good for is knowing which microfiche to request when you go to reference room at the library. That's extra work, time, and expense, but mainly, you could miss something important. $5-10 per full text  retrieved is sheer larceny, though, when you can print it for 25 cents per page from a microfiche reader.. Many if not most papers that maintain comprehensive online morgues charge these kinds of outrageous fees for fair use and research. That's their privilige, but as we all know, information wants to be free. Now, one-time reprint rights for a single article might be worth $5 (Yes, or more. That's negotiable), but the information is and should be priceless. $20/mo.  is reasonable fee for the service of providing easy online access, though. That's negotiable, too, of course, but I'd consider it a reasonable figure.  ~$49/mo. might be reasonable for a bundle of all the major dailies in the country, or all the newspapers of record in a single state. And so on and so forth.</p><p>Remeber, Mr. Publisher, despite the name, copyright is a privilege, not a right, and there's more than one way to skin a cat. So play nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't mind paying $ 19.95 or so a month if it included full search and retrieval from the archives .
$ 20 is worth the convenience of kibo'ing or hypertexting back to the antebellum era .
Abstracts suck .
All they 're good for is knowing which microfiche to request when you go to reference room at the library .
That 's extra work , time , and expense , but mainly , you could miss something important .
$ 5-10 per full text retrieved is sheer larceny , though , when you can print it for 25 cents per page from a microfiche reader.. Many if not most papers that maintain comprehensive online morgues charge these kinds of outrageous fees for fair use and research .
That 's their privilige , but as we all know , information wants to be free .
Now , one-time reprint rights for a single article might be worth $ 5 ( Yes , or more .
That 's negotiable ) , but the information is and should be priceless .
$ 20/mo. is reasonable fee for the service of providing easy online access , though .
That 's negotiable , too , of course , but I 'd consider it a reasonable figure .
~ $ 49/mo. might be reasonable for a bundle of all the major dailies in the country , or all the newspapers of record in a single state .
And so on and so forth.Remeber , Mr. Publisher , despite the name , copyright is a privilege , not a right , and there 's more than one way to skin a cat .
So play nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't mind paying $19.95 or so a month if it included full search and retrieval from the archives.
$20 is worth the convenience of  kibo'ing or hypertexting back to the antebellum era.
Abstracts suck.
All they're good for is knowing which microfiche to request when you go to reference room at the library.
That's extra work, time, and expense, but mainly, you could miss something important.
$5-10 per full text  retrieved is sheer larceny, though, when you can print it for 25 cents per page from a microfiche reader.. Many if not most papers that maintain comprehensive online morgues charge these kinds of outrageous fees for fair use and research.
That's their privilige, but as we all know, information wants to be free.
Now, one-time reprint rights for a single article might be worth $5 (Yes, or more.
That's negotiable), but the information is and should be priceless.
$20/mo.  is reasonable fee for the service of providing easy online access, though.
That's negotiable, too, of course, but I'd consider it a reasonable figure.
~$49/mo. might be reasonable for a bundle of all the major dailies in the country, or all the newspapers of record in a single state.
And so on and so forth.Remeber, Mr. Publisher, despite the name, copyright is a privilege, not a right, and there's more than one way to skin a cat.
So play nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143011</id>
	<title>Great talent...</title>
	<author>uarch</author>
	<datestamp>1243587840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Of course, if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter."</p><p>Perhaps you haven't read a newspaper for the last several years.  Nearly everyone with talent is already long gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Of course , if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter .
" Perhaps you have n't read a newspaper for the last several years .
Nearly everyone with talent is already long gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Of course, if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter.
"Perhaps you haven't read a newspaper for the last several years.
Nearly everyone with talent is already long gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141259</id>
	<title>Important to have a news media</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1243623960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually think the idea of newspapers having a single national registration and payment system that would allow news subscribers to pay once, which would go to their local newspaper, to access news all over the country, would be good for consumers since it allows for them to continue to access news from all over the country from anywhere, without having to make seperate payments to each newspaper, and allows newspapers to continue to survive in this economy. For those who oppose this, how do you expect for newspapers to survive when advertising revenue does not make ends meet? Furthermore, blogs and part time journalists dont really have the resources to do some of the things that larger news organisations do, such as going into foreign countries which can require a lot of resources and security, and other investigations that require resources. This would bode poorly for american society which already is woefully ignorant about the world and international news. The smaller newspapers are often the ones most endangered and failing to act to prevent dissappearance of them would mean fewer independant voices and more media consolidation.</p><p>Lets stop demonising all of the newspapers here. We are talking about our ability of our society to have full time, paid reporters who act as independant watchdogs which play a critical role in our society as a check and balance against corruption. Making sure the newspapers can survive is in the best interests of consumers who rely upon and benefit from the research, investigation and reporting of news investigators and journalists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually think the idea of newspapers having a single national registration and payment system that would allow news subscribers to pay once , which would go to their local newspaper , to access news all over the country , would be good for consumers since it allows for them to continue to access news from all over the country from anywhere , without having to make seperate payments to each newspaper , and allows newspapers to continue to survive in this economy .
For those who oppose this , how do you expect for newspapers to survive when advertising revenue does not make ends meet ?
Furthermore , blogs and part time journalists dont really have the resources to do some of the things that larger news organisations do , such as going into foreign countries which can require a lot of resources and security , and other investigations that require resources .
This would bode poorly for american society which already is woefully ignorant about the world and international news .
The smaller newspapers are often the ones most endangered and failing to act to prevent dissappearance of them would mean fewer independant voices and more media consolidation.Lets stop demonising all of the newspapers here .
We are talking about our ability of our society to have full time , paid reporters who act as independant watchdogs which play a critical role in our society as a check and balance against corruption .
Making sure the newspapers can survive is in the best interests of consumers who rely upon and benefit from the research , investigation and reporting of news investigators and journalists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually think the idea of newspapers having a single national registration and payment system that would allow news subscribers to pay once, which would go to their local newspaper, to access news all over the country, would be good for consumers since it allows for them to continue to access news from all over the country from anywhere, without having to make seperate payments to each newspaper, and allows newspapers to continue to survive in this economy.
For those who oppose this, how do you expect for newspapers to survive when advertising revenue does not make ends meet?
Furthermore, blogs and part time journalists dont really have the resources to do some of the things that larger news organisations do, such as going into foreign countries which can require a lot of resources and security, and other investigations that require resources.
This would bode poorly for american society which already is woefully ignorant about the world and international news.
The smaller newspapers are often the ones most endangered and failing to act to prevent dissappearance of them would mean fewer independant voices and more media consolidation.Lets stop demonising all of the newspapers here.
We are talking about our ability of our society to have full time, paid reporters who act as independant watchdogs which play a critical role in our society as a check and balance against corruption.
Making sure the newspapers can survive is in the best interests of consumers who rely upon and benefit from the research, investigation and reporting of news investigators and journalists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141381</id>
	<title>Re:Newspapers Barely Compete</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1243624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There were only two newspapers that served out [sic] region, and everyone knew which they wanted. There was no true competition.</p></div></blockquote><p>Apparently, you don't know the meaning of the word "competition". There was competition. It was between the large city newspaper and the small local papers. There was not a lot of competition, but there was not enough of a market to support more competition.</p><p>The reason there are generally one large are newspaper and a few local papers is because of declining readership because of competition from television and now the internet as well as declining reading time and declining interest in reading.</p><p>Oh, and I live in an area with 2 major papers: The Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times. Soon there may only be one because of declining revenue and readership. There just aren't enough people reading the paper to support two newspapers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There were only two newspapers that served out [ sic ] region , and everyone knew which they wanted .
There was no true competition.Apparently , you do n't know the meaning of the word " competition " .
There was competition .
It was between the large city newspaper and the small local papers .
There was not a lot of competition , but there was not enough of a market to support more competition.The reason there are generally one large are newspaper and a few local papers is because of declining readership because of competition from television and now the internet as well as declining reading time and declining interest in reading.Oh , and I live in an area with 2 major papers : The Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times .
Soon there may only be one because of declining revenue and readership .
There just are n't enough people reading the paper to support two newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were only two newspapers that served out [sic] region, and everyone knew which they wanted.
There was no true competition.Apparently, you don't know the meaning of the word "competition".
There was competition.
It was between the large city newspaper and the small local papers.
There was not a lot of competition, but there was not enough of a market to support more competition.The reason there are generally one large are newspaper and a few local papers is because of declining readership because of competition from television and now the internet as well as declining reading time and declining interest in reading.Oh, and I live in an area with 2 major papers: The Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times.
Soon there may only be one because of declining revenue and readership.
There just aren't enough people reading the paper to support two newspapers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142147</id>
	<title>Re:They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>Thomasje</author>
	<datestamp>1243627620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now that news can freely travel across the country and the world, there's no need for every paper to have Washington bureau and foreign correspondents, and consolidation is much needed there.</p></div><p>Careful with that logic! Having multiple reporters chasing the same stories can be a very <b>good</b> thing -- it makes it harder to get away with lying, and makes it more likely that obscure facts get discovered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that news can freely travel across the country and the world , there 's no need for every paper to have Washington bureau and foreign correspondents , and consolidation is much needed there.Careful with that logic !
Having multiple reporters chasing the same stories can be a very good thing -- it makes it harder to get away with lying , and makes it more likely that obscure facts get discovered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that news can freely travel across the country and the world, there's no need for every paper to have Washington bureau and foreign correspondents, and consolidation is much needed there.Careful with that logic!
Having multiple reporters chasing the same stories can be a very good thing -- it makes it harder to get away with lying, and makes it more likely that obscure facts get discovered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142247</id>
	<title>Re:How to save the Newspaper Business</title>
	<author>TinBromide</author>
	<datestamp>1243627980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>do you read LICD?<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20090507" title="leasticoulddo.com">cause i think they beat you to it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</a> [leasticoulddo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>do you read LICD ?
cause i think they beat you to it : ) [ leasticoulddo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do you read LICD?
cause i think they beat you to it :) [leasticoulddo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141137</id>
	<title>EMBRACE the Craigslist Model</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1243623420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One approach appears to be relatively obvious:  Use journalistic content to persuade people to come to your Craigslist-style site, rather than the Craigslist-style site that has no journalism.</p><p>Value-Added Craigslistism!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One approach appears to be relatively obvious : Use journalistic content to persuade people to come to your Craigslist-style site , rather than the Craigslist-style site that has no journalism.Value-Added Craigslistism !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One approach appears to be relatively obvious:  Use journalistic content to persuade people to come to your Craigslist-style site, rather than the Craigslist-style site that has no journalism.Value-Added Craigslistism!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28145227</id>
	<title>Bring down the hammer!</title>
	<author>Anenome</author>
	<datestamp>1243598880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want DA's sicked on their asses, I want congressional hearings, I want antitrust investigations, allegations about cover-ups, reporters swamping newspaper owners and CEOs asking them impossible questions. No one else could get away with this BS. For once the antitrust legislation could be put to actual productive use.</p><p>But, despite the outrage, what's really hilarious about all of this is that even with colluding on prices, the newspapers don't have a chance of making this scheme work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want DA 's sicked on their asses , I want congressional hearings , I want antitrust investigations , allegations about cover-ups , reporters swamping newspaper owners and CEOs asking them impossible questions .
No one else could get away with this BS .
For once the antitrust legislation could be put to actual productive use.But , despite the outrage , what 's really hilarious about all of this is that even with colluding on prices , the newspapers do n't have a chance of making this scheme work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want DA's sicked on their asses, I want congressional hearings, I want antitrust investigations, allegations about cover-ups, reporters swamping newspaper owners and CEOs asking them impossible questions.
No one else could get away with this BS.
For once the antitrust legislation could be put to actual productive use.But, despite the outrage, what's really hilarious about all of this is that even with colluding on prices, the newspapers don't have a chance of making this scheme work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142705</id>
	<title>Show me valuable content</title>
	<author>Phoenix666</author>
	<datestamp>1243629720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I'll show you the money.  Frankly, American media stopped reporting a long time ago.  Because it was too costly and burdensome to think about what you're publishing.  Thus all American papers and broadcasts became carbon copies of each other and the great, vapid echo chamber was born.</p><p>There are, however, other online news operations that DO provide value, and those I pay for.  Stratfor is the prime example.  There are really smart analysts there doing deep thinking and cogent writing on geopolitical topics that do matter, and I benefit from reading what they have to say.  Crain's New York Business is another such example, and they're still a print publication.  They provide useful local reporting, the kind all the other papers long since stopped doing, and I pay for what they produce.</p><p>So I firmly maintain that the medium that the media uses is not the challenge, but the quality of their output.  If they don't fix that, and remember that they really are supposed to provide a public good, then no amount of paywalls or micropayments or other schemes in the universe will save them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I 'll show you the money .
Frankly , American media stopped reporting a long time ago .
Because it was too costly and burdensome to think about what you 're publishing .
Thus all American papers and broadcasts became carbon copies of each other and the great , vapid echo chamber was born.There are , however , other online news operations that DO provide value , and those I pay for .
Stratfor is the prime example .
There are really smart analysts there doing deep thinking and cogent writing on geopolitical topics that do matter , and I benefit from reading what they have to say .
Crain 's New York Business is another such example , and they 're still a print publication .
They provide useful local reporting , the kind all the other papers long since stopped doing , and I pay for what they produce.So I firmly maintain that the medium that the media uses is not the challenge , but the quality of their output .
If they do n't fix that , and remember that they really are supposed to provide a public good , then no amount of paywalls or micropayments or other schemes in the universe will save them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I'll show you the money.
Frankly, American media stopped reporting a long time ago.
Because it was too costly and burdensome to think about what you're publishing.
Thus all American papers and broadcasts became carbon copies of each other and the great, vapid echo chamber was born.There are, however, other online news operations that DO provide value, and those I pay for.
Stratfor is the prime example.
There are really smart analysts there doing deep thinking and cogent writing on geopolitical topics that do matter, and I benefit from reading what they have to say.
Crain's New York Business is another such example, and they're still a print publication.
They provide useful local reporting, the kind all the other papers long since stopped doing, and I pay for what they produce.So I firmly maintain that the medium that the media uses is not the challenge, but the quality of their output.
If they don't fix that, and remember that they really are supposed to provide a public good, then no amount of paywalls or micropayments or other schemes in the universe will save them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141533</id>
	<title>Re:They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>Eponymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1243625100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with pay walls is that it greatly decreases the value of the content. When something is available and can be freely linked to and talked about by everybody, it is much more valuable than being hidden to most people.</p><p>Why are newspapers sacred? Should the tv networks get together and stop broadcasting the nightly news for free? Personally, I think the current generation of newspapers should be allowed to die. Let somebody else come along and buy the assets for pennies on the dollar. If they are smart enough not to take on massive debt, they will likely do quite well.</p><p>Telemarketers from the local paper call me once in a while and ask if I would like to get the paper for free. Even for free I don't want it. Why would I want to pay even a micropayment for it? If they can drive a paper out to my house every day for free, why the hell can't they survive from their website?</p><p>-ec</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with pay walls is that it greatly decreases the value of the content .
When something is available and can be freely linked to and talked about by everybody , it is much more valuable than being hidden to most people.Why are newspapers sacred ?
Should the tv networks get together and stop broadcasting the nightly news for free ?
Personally , I think the current generation of newspapers should be allowed to die .
Let somebody else come along and buy the assets for pennies on the dollar .
If they are smart enough not to take on massive debt , they will likely do quite well.Telemarketers from the local paper call me once in a while and ask if I would like to get the paper for free .
Even for free I do n't want it .
Why would I want to pay even a micropayment for it ?
If they can drive a paper out to my house every day for free , why the hell ca n't they survive from their website ? -ec</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with pay walls is that it greatly decreases the value of the content.
When something is available and can be freely linked to and talked about by everybody, it is much more valuable than being hidden to most people.Why are newspapers sacred?
Should the tv networks get together and stop broadcasting the nightly news for free?
Personally, I think the current generation of newspapers should be allowed to die.
Let somebody else come along and buy the assets for pennies on the dollar.
If they are smart enough not to take on massive debt, they will likely do quite well.Telemarketers from the local paper call me once in a while and ask if I would like to get the paper for free.
Even for free I don't want it.
Why would I want to pay even a micropayment for it?
If they can drive a paper out to my house every day for free, why the hell can't they survive from their website?-ec</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143019</id>
	<title>Re:Paywalls a failed business model? Ask Blizzard.</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1243587900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b> <i>There's nothing wrong with paywalls, so long as you can make your product attractive enough to pay for.</i> </b> <p>

Exactly. The problem that mass media is facing right now is how many stories about Octo-Mom do we actually ***want*** to pay for?!?! Who wants to pay to read the latest ***breaking news*** about some missing white chick from B.F.E.? How much are people willing to pay to be constantly scared about Swine Flu? Maybe if MSM actually produced some worthwhile stories that we'd actually want to read, they wouldn't be in this problem in the first place. But lately, 90\% of the garbage they produce isn't exactly worth reading in the first place. So it seems like we're seeing Darwin's Natural Selection process at work in the journalism industry right now,...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing wrong with paywalls , so long as you can make your product attractive enough to pay for .
Exactly. The problem that mass media is facing right now is how many stories about Octo-Mom do we actually * * * want * * * to pay for ? ! ? !
Who wants to pay to read the latest * * * breaking news * * * about some missing white chick from B.F.E. ?
How much are people willing to pay to be constantly scared about Swine Flu ?
Maybe if MSM actually produced some worthwhile stories that we 'd actually want to read , they would n't be in this problem in the first place .
But lately , 90 \ % of the garbage they produce is n't exactly worth reading in the first place .
So it seems like we 're seeing Darwin 's Natural Selection process at work in the journalism industry right now,.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There's nothing wrong with paywalls, so long as you can make your product attractive enough to pay for.
Exactly. The problem that mass media is facing right now is how many stories about Octo-Mom do we actually ***want*** to pay for?!?!
Who wants to pay to read the latest ***breaking news*** about some missing white chick from B.F.E.?
How much are people willing to pay to be constantly scared about Swine Flu?
Maybe if MSM actually produced some worthwhile stories that we'd actually want to read, they wouldn't be in this problem in the first place.
But lately, 90\% of the garbage they produce isn't exactly worth reading in the first place.
So it seems like we're seeing Darwin's Natural Selection process at work in the journalism industry right now,...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141723</id>
	<title>How about fewer Newspapers ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243625820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do we need two newspapers in every city ?</p><p>The cost of acquiring, processes and distributing news has gone down dramatically.  Thus we are seeing major pressure on revenues (even without the recession we would have seen this, but not to such extent).   Even after the recession, there will not be enough ad dollars left to support all of these newspapers.  Let 5 or so national newspapers survive trough attrition and consolidation, problem solved.</p><p>Local news (if people want it) can still be provided by a smaller local office in each of those 5 national papers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we need two newspapers in every city ? The cost of acquiring , processes and distributing news has gone down dramatically .
Thus we are seeing major pressure on revenues ( even without the recession we would have seen this , but not to such extent ) .
Even after the recession , there will not be enough ad dollars left to support all of these newspapers .
Let 5 or so national newspapers survive trough attrition and consolidation , problem solved.Local news ( if people want it ) can still be provided by a smaller local office in each of those 5 national papers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we need two newspapers in every city ?The cost of acquiring, processes and distributing news has gone down dramatically.
Thus we are seeing major pressure on revenues (even without the recession we would have seen this, but not to such extent).
Even after the recession, there will not be enough ad dollars left to support all of these newspapers.
Let 5 or so national newspapers survive trough attrition and consolidation, problem solved.Local news (if people want it) can still be provided by a smaller local office in each of those 5 national papers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144499</id>
	<title>Re:Um... So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243594680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You would quickly loose subscribers thus losing money, leading to the newspaper going out of business<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because you want your news for free.</p><p>I happen to work at a small(ish) rural newspaper that has an online edition</p></div><p>i hope you're not an editor!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would quickly loose subscribers thus losing money , leading to the newspaper going out of business ... because you want your news for free.I happen to work at a small ( ish ) rural newspaper that has an online editioni hope you 're not an editor !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would quickly loose subscribers thus losing money, leading to the newspaper going out of business ... because you want your news for free.I happen to work at a small(ish) rural newspaper that has an online editioni hope you're not an editor!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141663</id>
	<title>Re:They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>wonderboss</author>
	<datestamp>1243625580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is (in the best cases) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources, fact checking, having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy (as much as that's suffered in the past decade) and generally putting out a "report" on a subject (that's why we call them reporters)."

What newspaper(s) do you read?  I think this description covers a few newspapers.
It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the local papers where I lived for
the past twenty years.

I remember an example of bloggers doing the job you describe above when
all mainstream media had failed to do so.  Here is a link to a mainstream media
report on the incident:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14148-2005Feb10.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14148-2005Feb10.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]

I think the few newspapers that produce quality content can switch to
on-line models that will allow them to make money.  Since most produce
nothing of value (they may regurgitate politicians nonsense or AP reports)
they will not be able to extract revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is ( in the best cases ) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources , fact checking , having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy ( as much as that 's suffered in the past decade ) and generally putting out a " report " on a subject ( that 's why we call them reporters ) .
" What newspaper ( s ) do you read ?
I think this description covers a few newspapers .
It certainly does n't have anything to do with the local papers where I lived for the past twenty years .
I remember an example of bloggers doing the job you describe above when all mainstream media had failed to do so .
Here is a link to a mainstream media report on the incident : http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14148-2005Feb10.html [ washingtonpost.com ] I think the few newspapers that produce quality content can switch to on-line models that will allow them to make money .
Since most produce nothing of value ( they may regurgitate politicians nonsense or AP reports ) they will not be able to extract revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is (in the best cases) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources, fact checking, having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy (as much as that's suffered in the past decade) and generally putting out a "report" on a subject (that's why we call them reporters).
"

What newspaper(s) do you read?
I think this description covers a few newspapers.
It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the local papers where I lived for
the past twenty years.
I remember an example of bloggers doing the job you describe above when
all mainstream media had failed to do so.
Here is a link to a mainstream media
report on the incident:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14148-2005Feb10.html [washingtonpost.com]

I think the few newspapers that produce quality content can switch to
on-line models that will allow them to make money.
Since most produce
nothing of value (they may regurgitate politicians nonsense or AP reports)
they will not be able to extract revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141273</id>
	<title>Um... So?</title>
	<author>AnswerIs42</author>
	<datestamp>1243624020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess the readers do not realize just how many newspapers that have an online edition, charge for accessing said edition.  It does not make financial sense to have a print news paper that you have to buy, and an online edition of the same thing for free.  You would quickly loose subscribers thus losing money, leading to the newspaper going out of business<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because you want your news for free.
<p>
I happen to work at a small(ish) rural newspaper that has an online edition.  You can get the edition free if you pay by the year or have a 3 month auto-pay account.  Otherwise you have to pay to either also get the online edition, or just get the online edition.  It has been fine that way for seven years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the readers do not realize just how many newspapers that have an online edition , charge for accessing said edition .
It does not make financial sense to have a print news paper that you have to buy , and an online edition of the same thing for free .
You would quickly loose subscribers thus losing money , leading to the newspaper going out of business ... because you want your news for free .
I happen to work at a small ( ish ) rural newspaper that has an online edition .
You can get the edition free if you pay by the year or have a 3 month auto-pay account .
Otherwise you have to pay to either also get the online edition , or just get the online edition .
It has been fine that way for seven years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the readers do not realize just how many newspapers that have an online edition, charge for accessing said edition.
It does not make financial sense to have a print news paper that you have to buy, and an online edition of the same thing for free.
You would quickly loose subscribers thus losing money, leading to the newspaper going out of business ... because you want your news for free.
I happen to work at a small(ish) rural newspaper that has an online edition.
You can get the edition free if you pay by the year or have a 3 month auto-pay account.
Otherwise you have to pay to either also get the online edition, or just get the online edition.
It has been fine that way for seven years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142325</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243628220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?</p></div><p>Look back to the roots of news journalism.</p><p>Reporters had to hustle and compete for stories.  The paper with the big scoop won the day.  Now its all shared crap regurgitated form a hundred different mouths via the AP.</p><p>You want to survive?  You want people to buy your stories?  Go out and get something unique.  Be the first on the scene... get a story that isn't already on every newspaper in the country.  Find something and report it.</p><p>Compete for my interest instead of colluding to divide it up "fairly".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable ? Look back to the roots of news journalism.Reporters had to hustle and compete for stories .
The paper with the big scoop won the day .
Now its all shared crap regurgitated form a hundred different mouths via the AP.You want to survive ?
You want people to buy your stories ?
Go out and get something unique .
Be the first on the scene... get a story that is n't already on every newspaper in the country .
Find something and report it.Compete for my interest instead of colluding to divide it up " fairly " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?Look back to the roots of news journalism.Reporters had to hustle and compete for stories.
The paper with the big scoop won the day.
Now its all shared crap regurgitated form a hundred different mouths via the AP.You want to survive?
You want people to buy your stories?
Go out and get something unique.
Be the first on the scene... get a story that isn't already on every newspaper in the country.
Find something and report it.Compete for my interest instead of colluding to divide it up "fairly".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141677</id>
	<title>Frankly</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1243625640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the news industry was always simply a distribution channel for information. Some papers may have done a better job then other papers but the reality all news papers must face today is the distribution channel is now the internet which is global, nearly instantaneous and more or less free. If every employed journalist disappeared today, journalism would continue. Sharing information would continue and I have no doubt that even quality journalism would continue. News papers are to the internet the same thing peer reviewed journals might be to the internet, theoretically a source of available information which has been professionally reviewed. But quality varies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the news industry was always simply a distribution channel for information .
Some papers may have done a better job then other papers but the reality all news papers must face today is the distribution channel is now the internet which is global , nearly instantaneous and more or less free .
If every employed journalist disappeared today , journalism would continue .
Sharing information would continue and I have no doubt that even quality journalism would continue .
News papers are to the internet the same thing peer reviewed journals might be to the internet , theoretically a source of available information which has been professionally reviewed .
But quality varies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the news industry was always simply a distribution channel for information.
Some papers may have done a better job then other papers but the reality all news papers must face today is the distribution channel is now the internet which is global, nearly instantaneous and more or less free.
If every employed journalist disappeared today, journalism would continue.
Sharing information would continue and I have no doubt that even quality journalism would continue.
News papers are to the internet the same thing peer reviewed journals might be to the internet, theoretically a source of available information which has been professionally reviewed.
But quality varies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28148707</id>
	<title>Re:How to save the Newspaper Business</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1243690560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I call it "The Kindle does Cable:"</p><p>1. Stop printing news on paper.<br>2. Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly<br>3. Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate (say, $14.99 with a 2-year subscription)<br>4. Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums. So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine, dining guide, etc.<br>5. Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free.</p></div><p>Which sounds great but brings to mind those companies (all gone) that handed out free PCs with advertising systems embedded.</p><p>Once the "kindle" gets cracked and users stop paying what do you do then? The device is still valuable without the service, eg for book reading.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I call it " The Kindle does Cable : " 1 .
Stop printing news on paper.2 .
Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly3 .
Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate ( say , $ 14.99 with a 2-year subscription ) 4 .
Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums .
So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine , dining guide , etc.5 .
Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free.Which sounds great but brings to mind those companies ( all gone ) that handed out free PCs with advertising systems embedded.Once the " kindle " gets cracked and users stop paying what do you do then ?
The device is still valuable without the service , eg for book reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call it "The Kindle does Cable:"1.
Stop printing news on paper.2.
Give out electronic devices that update automatically and wirelessly3.
Bill the users of those electronic devices a small but non-trivial monthly rate (say, $14.99 with a 2-year subscription)4.
Offer other publishers access to your platform for much larger sums.
So a subscription to your paper also includes a subscription to the local sports magazine, dining guide, etc.5.
Work out a deal with Craigslist to deliver local classified ads for free.Which sounds great but brings to mind those companies (all gone) that handed out free PCs with advertising systems embedded.Once the "kindle" gets cracked and users stop paying what do you do then?
The device is still valuable without the service, eg for book reading.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140847</id>
	<title>Meeting agenda, item 1:</title>
	<author>E. Edward Grey</author>
	<datestamp>1243622280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How can we make ourselves even more irrelevant than we are now?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How can we make ourselves even more irrelevant than we are now ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How can we make ourselves even more irrelevant than we are now?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142475</id>
	<title>Re:Paywalls a failed business model? Ask Blizzard.</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1243628760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1 million Americans pay for the New York Times...... 2.5 million Americans *pay* for WoW.</p></div><p>That's the most depressing statistic I've heard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 million Americans pay for the New York Times...... 2.5 million Americans * pay * for WoW.That 's the most depressing statistic I 've heard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 million Americans pay for the New York Times...... 2.5 million Americans *pay* for WoW.That's the most depressing statistic I've heard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142261</id>
	<title>One Word for This Story: Bullshit</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1243627980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story is nonsense from start to finish.  Yes, some newspaper execs got together and discussed paywalls.  Big deal.</p><p>There is nothing illegal about that.  I realize everyone on Slashdot thinks of himself as an antitrust expert, but industry people do this all the time.  Credit card companies have trade associations, and so do banks, car dealers, fast food franchisees, and book publishers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Models to Monetize Content" is the subject of a gathering at a hotel which is actually located in drab and sterile suburban Rosemont, Illinois; slabs of concrete, exhibition halls and mostly chain restaurants, whose prime reason for being is O'Hare International Airport. It's perfect for quickie, in-and-out conclaves.</p></div><p>Omigosh!  An industry conference!  But if we call it a "quickie conclave" it sounds sinister...</p><p>In which they discussed ways their members might adapt to the market!  Stop the presses!  Wait - they apparently had some legal counsel to make sure they weren't breaking the law!  Wow!</p><p>This story is sensationalist nonsense.  There is truly nothing to see here.  The best part is <a href="http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/james\_warren/2009/05/shhhh\_newspaper\_publishers\_are\_quietly\_holding\_a\_very\_very\_important\_conclave\_today\_will\_you\_soon\_be.php" title="theatlantic.com">the guy from the Atlantic</a> [theatlantic.com] whining about the decline of journalism, while simultaneously providing an example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This story is nonsense from start to finish .
Yes , some newspaper execs got together and discussed paywalls .
Big deal.There is nothing illegal about that .
I realize everyone on Slashdot thinks of himself as an antitrust expert , but industry people do this all the time .
Credit card companies have trade associations , and so do banks , car dealers , fast food franchisees , and book publishers .
" Models to Monetize Content " is the subject of a gathering at a hotel which is actually located in drab and sterile suburban Rosemont , Illinois ; slabs of concrete , exhibition halls and mostly chain restaurants , whose prime reason for being is O'Hare International Airport .
It 's perfect for quickie , in-and-out conclaves.Omigosh !
An industry conference !
But if we call it a " quickie conclave " it sounds sinister...In which they discussed ways their members might adapt to the market !
Stop the presses !
Wait - they apparently had some legal counsel to make sure they were n't breaking the law !
Wow ! This story is sensationalist nonsense .
There is truly nothing to see here .
The best part is the guy from the Atlantic [ theatlantic.com ] whining about the decline of journalism , while simultaneously providing an example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story is nonsense from start to finish.
Yes, some newspaper execs got together and discussed paywalls.
Big deal.There is nothing illegal about that.
I realize everyone on Slashdot thinks of himself as an antitrust expert, but industry people do this all the time.
Credit card companies have trade associations, and so do banks, car dealers, fast food franchisees, and book publishers.
"Models to Monetize Content" is the subject of a gathering at a hotel which is actually located in drab and sterile suburban Rosemont, Illinois; slabs of concrete, exhibition halls and mostly chain restaurants, whose prime reason for being is O'Hare International Airport.
It's perfect for quickie, in-and-out conclaves.Omigosh!
An industry conference!
But if we call it a "quickie conclave" it sounds sinister...In which they discussed ways their members might adapt to the market!
Stop the presses!
Wait - they apparently had some legal counsel to make sure they weren't breaking the law!
Wow!This story is sensationalist nonsense.
There is truly nothing to see here.
The best part is the guy from the Atlantic [theatlantic.com] whining about the decline of journalism, while simultaneously providing an example.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142871</id>
	<title>A few things that need to happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243630380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Online subscription(s) to newspapers available at about 20\% of the cost of having the dead tree edition delivered.  The online version will have ALL  of the content, but NONE of the advertising except for the classified section.  NO effort must be made to include ANY DRM. Subscribers must be able to print out any part of the online edition, just as they could keep any part of the dead tree edition, for their own personal use of course.</p><p>The biggest thing that needs to happen is that the full and complete story must be told every time.  No spin, no omissions.  Of course we know that will never happen!  Large conglomerate corporations that own many local newspapers need to be broken up/disbanded.  Same with the mega-corporations that own almost all of the radio and TV stations.</p><p>Just a few of my thoughts... .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Online subscription ( s ) to newspapers available at about 20 \ % of the cost of having the dead tree edition delivered .
The online version will have ALL of the content , but NONE of the advertising except for the classified section .
NO effort must be made to include ANY DRM .
Subscribers must be able to print out any part of the online edition , just as they could keep any part of the dead tree edition , for their own personal use of course.The biggest thing that needs to happen is that the full and complete story must be told every time .
No spin , no omissions .
Of course we know that will never happen !
Large conglomerate corporations that own many local newspapers need to be broken up/disbanded .
Same with the mega-corporations that own almost all of the radio and TV stations.Just a few of my thoughts... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online subscription(s) to newspapers available at about 20\% of the cost of having the dead tree edition delivered.
The online version will have ALL  of the content, but NONE of the advertising except for the classified section.
NO effort must be made to include ANY DRM.
Subscribers must be able to print out any part of the online edition, just as they could keep any part of the dead tree edition, for their own personal use of course.The biggest thing that needs to happen is that the full and complete story must be told every time.
No spin, no omissions.
Of course we know that will never happen!
Large conglomerate corporations that own many local newspapers need to be broken up/disbanded.
Same with the mega-corporations that own almost all of the radio and TV stations.Just a few of my thoughts... .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143253</id>
	<title>Learn to write to your region</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1243588980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because the one thing I noticed about most papers is their decidedly opposite in their politics from what the area they serve.  Some papers like the AJC are so extreme to one side it is obvious why few subscribe anymore.  We need papers to keep government in check, but when they become just mouth pieces for one side or another they serve no one but the government.  Worse are those whose editors are infatuated with certain leaders.  The AJC was so bad their infatuated editor created a position in Washington just to be closer to her idol.</p><p>and they wonder why...</p><p>it was really hilarious when they were soliciting for a conservative editorial columnist and kept rejecting the ideas submitted because it didn't fit their mindset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because the one thing I noticed about most papers is their decidedly opposite in their politics from what the area they serve .
Some papers like the AJC are so extreme to one side it is obvious why few subscribe anymore .
We need papers to keep government in check , but when they become just mouth pieces for one side or another they serve no one but the government .
Worse are those whose editors are infatuated with certain leaders .
The AJC was so bad their infatuated editor created a position in Washington just to be closer to her idol.and they wonder why...it was really hilarious when they were soliciting for a conservative editorial columnist and kept rejecting the ideas submitted because it did n't fit their mindset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because the one thing I noticed about most papers is their decidedly opposite in their politics from what the area they serve.
Some papers like the AJC are so extreme to one side it is obvious why few subscribe anymore.
We need papers to keep government in check, but when they become just mouth pieces for one side or another they serve no one but the government.
Worse are those whose editors are infatuated with certain leaders.
The AJC was so bad their infatuated editor created a position in Washington just to be closer to her idol.and they wonder why...it was really hilarious when they were soliciting for a conservative editorial columnist and kept rejecting the ideas submitted because it didn't fit their mindset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142693</id>
	<title>Re:Google bot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243629660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then again for the most part I listen to NPR and read the articles on their website. Support public broadcasting!</p></div><p>Do *you* support public broadcasting by making donations to NPR?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again for the most part I listen to NPR and read the articles on their website .
Support public broadcasting ! Do * you * support public broadcasting by making donations to NPR ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again for the most part I listen to NPR and read the articles on their website.
Support public broadcasting!Do *you* support public broadcasting by making donations to NPR?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141101</id>
	<title>Someone still has to gather the news</title>
	<author>Hoi Polloi</author>
	<datestamp>1243623300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter.</p></div><p>"Hi, I'm with dailyblog.com.  I hear you used to work for the Global Blabber.  I'd love for you to work for us."</p><p>"That sounds great.  I was one of their best local investigative journalists.  How much would you pay?"</p><p>"Ummmm, pay?  We are a blog.  You'd work for fun right?"</p><p>*click*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter .
" Hi , I 'm with dailyblog.com .
I hear you used to work for the Global Blabber .
I 'd love for you to work for us .
" " That sounds great .
I was one of their best local investigative journalists .
How much would you pay ?
" " Ummmm , pay ?
We are a blog .
You 'd work for fun right ?
" * click *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter.
"Hi, I'm with dailyblog.com.
I hear you used to work for the Global Blabber.
I'd love for you to work for us.
""That sounds great.
I was one of their best local investigative journalists.
How much would you pay?
""Ummmm, pay?
We are a blog.
You'd work for fun right?
"*click*
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140971</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1243622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the exact barrier to micropayments? Is it the credit card companies? The whole concept is so logical and would solve so many problems, so what is preventing it from being implemented?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the exact barrier to micropayments ?
Is it the credit card companies ?
The whole concept is so logical and would solve so many problems , so what is preventing it from being implemented ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the exact barrier to micropayments?
Is it the credit card companies?
The whole concept is so logical and would solve so many problems, so what is preventing it from being implemented?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142169</id>
	<title>the consumerist</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1243627680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's your investigative journalism replacement</p><p><a href="http://consumerist.com/" title="consumerist.com">http://consumerist.com/</a> [consumerist.com]</p><p>if you are a journalist, start your own blog if you have enough star power, or join a collective of investigative reporters and if the site is useful enough that it generates huge traffic, enjoy your  adsense income</p><p>the traditional newspaper is fractionating into its various columns, sections, and star power reporters, each developing their own pioneering site on the web. the internet IS the newspaper</p><p>money will still be made, power will still exist, influence will still be felt, trust will still be earned. but the traditional forms of the mass media news- not just newspapers but also television, will be blended into a puree and new mutant forms will grow into being</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's your investigative journalism replacementhttp : //consumerist.com/ [ consumerist.com ] if you are a journalist , start your own blog if you have enough star power , or join a collective of investigative reporters and if the site is useful enough that it generates huge traffic , enjoy your adsense incomethe traditional newspaper is fractionating into its various columns , sections , and star power reporters , each developing their own pioneering site on the web .
the internet IS the newspapermoney will still be made , power will still exist , influence will still be felt , trust will still be earned .
but the traditional forms of the mass media news- not just newspapers but also television , will be blended into a puree and new mutant forms will grow into being</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's your investigative journalism replacementhttp://consumerist.com/ [consumerist.com]if you are a journalist, start your own blog if you have enough star power, or join a collective of investigative reporters and if the site is useful enough that it generates huge traffic, enjoy your  adsense incomethe traditional newspaper is fractionating into its various columns, sections, and star power reporters, each developing their own pioneering site on the web.
the internet IS the newspapermoney will still be made, power will still exist, influence will still be felt, trust will still be earned.
but the traditional forms of the mass media news- not just newspapers but also television, will be blended into a puree and new mutant forms will grow into being</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141183</id>
	<title>Ads pay for the papers</title>
	<author>madbavarian</author>
	<datestamp>1243623660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever happened to the claim that the ads paid for the hardcopy papers and the cover price was just a token fee to assure the advertisers that the papers weren't likely to just be taken and thrown out unread?  If that is true, why would they need to charge anything in order to deliver the paper electronically?  Don't the ads more than cover the delivery costs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to the claim that the ads paid for the hardcopy papers and the cover price was just a token fee to assure the advertisers that the papers were n't likely to just be taken and thrown out unread ?
If that is true , why would they need to charge anything in order to deliver the paper electronically ?
Do n't the ads more than cover the delivery costs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to the claim that the ads paid for the hardcopy papers and the cover price was just a token fee to assure the advertisers that the papers weren't likely to just be taken and thrown out unread?
If that is true, why would they need to charge anything in order to deliver the paper electronically?
Don't the ads more than cover the delivery costs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142047</id>
	<title>news is a commodity</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1243627200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>like gasoline or rice</p><p>something like WoW is a luxury, like jewelry or yachts</p><p>the economics of why people buy luxuries versus commodities and whats motivates them to buy these things is completely different</p><p>comparing purchasing the news to purchasing WoW is completely bogus</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>like gasoline or ricesomething like WoW is a luxury , like jewelry or yachtsthe economics of why people buy luxuries versus commodities and whats motivates them to buy these things is completely differentcomparing purchasing the news to purchasing WoW is completely bogus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like gasoline or ricesomething like WoW is a luxury, like jewelry or yachtsthe economics of why people buy luxuries versus commodities and whats motivates them to buy these things is completely differentcomparing purchasing the news to purchasing WoW is completely bogus</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141519</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments</title>
	<author>xmod2</author>
	<datestamp>1243625100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I do not want to have to wear a fur suit to read the NY Times online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I do not want to have to wear a fur suit to read the NY Times online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I do not want to have to wear a fur suit to read the NY Times online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144069</id>
	<title>iGoogle</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1243592340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get all my news aggregated on my iGoogle page.  Basically it is all free in the sense that I don't have to pay for it.  One assumes that once I click through the link that the advertising on the pages would provide revenue to the various sources (assuming I then clicked through to an ad).  In fact I just clicked through to a NYTimes page and I got two targeted google ads and one static ad for Nokia.
<br> <br>
I'm not sure why that isn't a sufficient revenue source.  Might newspapers have to get somewhat leaner?  Sure but that isn't the same thing as drying up and dying.  Most of the companies mentioned are, in fact, still profitable.  They simply want to be MORE profitable by colluding and extracting some kind of payment from...someone.  That is, IMO, a surefire way to drive people (and aggregators) away from them and toward "free" news of lower and lower quality.  In short, I'm sure Fox News will step up if NYT steps down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get all my news aggregated on my iGoogle page .
Basically it is all free in the sense that I do n't have to pay for it .
One assumes that once I click through the link that the advertising on the pages would provide revenue to the various sources ( assuming I then clicked through to an ad ) .
In fact I just clicked through to a NYTimes page and I got two targeted google ads and one static ad for Nokia .
I 'm not sure why that is n't a sufficient revenue source .
Might newspapers have to get somewhat leaner ?
Sure but that is n't the same thing as drying up and dying .
Most of the companies mentioned are , in fact , still profitable .
They simply want to be MORE profitable by colluding and extracting some kind of payment from...someone .
That is , IMO , a surefire way to drive people ( and aggregators ) away from them and toward " free " news of lower and lower quality .
In short , I 'm sure Fox News will step up if NYT steps down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get all my news aggregated on my iGoogle page.
Basically it is all free in the sense that I don't have to pay for it.
One assumes that once I click through the link that the advertising on the pages would provide revenue to the various sources (assuming I then clicked through to an ad).
In fact I just clicked through to a NYTimes page and I got two targeted google ads and one static ad for Nokia.
I'm not sure why that isn't a sufficient revenue source.
Might newspapers have to get somewhat leaner?
Sure but that isn't the same thing as drying up and dying.
Most of the companies mentioned are, in fact, still profitable.
They simply want to be MORE profitable by colluding and extracting some kind of payment from...someone.
That is, IMO, a surefire way to drive people (and aggregators) away from them and toward "free" news of lower and lower quality.
In short, I'm sure Fox News will step up if NYT steps down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142367</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1243628400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I work for a newspaper company and we are going through this exact thing right now.  The newspaper industry has gotten used to seemingly endless financing and now sites like Craigslist and Google are doing a better job at what makes newspapers money.</p><p>There is no money in journalism.  The money comes from classifieds and sponsorship.  Now that people can easily get their news from just about anywhere companies are not as willing to shell out major payments for newspaper ads.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, a paywall is a TERRIBLE idea but the news industry isn't cheap and people take it for granted.  What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?</p></div><p>I've often thought that providing newspaper subscribers (people who get the physical paper delivered to their door, like me) the option of NOT getting the classified, automotive, and home listings would be a huge win.  It would (a) save money on printing costs, (b) deliver the advertisements to only those people who use them, allowing the paper to charge higher advertising rates, (c) allow the newspapers to charge opt-out subscribers a premium for having their paper delivered in a custom-tailored way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a newspaper company and we are going through this exact thing right now .
The newspaper industry has gotten used to seemingly endless financing and now sites like Craigslist and Google are doing a better job at what makes newspapers money.There is no money in journalism .
The money comes from classifieds and sponsorship .
Now that people can easily get their news from just about anywhere companies are not as willing to shell out major payments for newspaper ads.Do n't get me wrong , a paywall is a TERRIBLE idea but the news industry is n't cheap and people take it for granted .
What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable ? I 've often thought that providing newspaper subscribers ( people who get the physical paper delivered to their door , like me ) the option of NOT getting the classified , automotive , and home listings would be a huge win .
It would ( a ) save money on printing costs , ( b ) deliver the advertisements to only those people who use them , allowing the paper to charge higher advertising rates , ( c ) allow the newspapers to charge opt-out subscribers a premium for having their paper delivered in a custom-tailored way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a newspaper company and we are going through this exact thing right now.
The newspaper industry has gotten used to seemingly endless financing and now sites like Craigslist and Google are doing a better job at what makes newspapers money.There is no money in journalism.
The money comes from classifieds and sponsorship.
Now that people can easily get their news from just about anywhere companies are not as willing to shell out major payments for newspaper ads.Don't get me wrong, a paywall is a TERRIBLE idea but the news industry isn't cheap and people take it for granted.
What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?I've often thought that providing newspaper subscribers (people who get the physical paper delivered to their door, like me) the option of NOT getting the classified, automotive, and home listings would be a huge win.
It would (a) save money on printing costs, (b) deliver the advertisements to only those people who use them, allowing the paper to charge higher advertising rates, (c) allow the newspapers to charge opt-out subscribers a premium for having their paper delivered in a custom-tailored way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141881</id>
	<title>Re:Google bot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243626480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hold on, I think you blew my mind.  How do you reconcile this:<p><div class="quote"><p>Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages? If so I see nothing wrong with changing my user agent.</p> </div><p> with this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Then again for the most part I listen to NPR and read the articles on their website. Support public broadcasting!</p></div><p>I'm assuming you actually *support* public broadcasting financially, which implies you feel an obligation to pay something for content consumed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hold on , I think you blew my mind .
How do you reconcile this : Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages ?
If so I see nothing wrong with changing my user agent .
with this : Then again for the most part I listen to NPR and read the articles on their website .
Support public broadcasting ! I 'm assuming you actually * support * public broadcasting financially , which implies you feel an obligation to pay something for content consumed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hold on, I think you blew my mind.
How do you reconcile this:Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages?
If so I see nothing wrong with changing my user agent.
with this:Then again for the most part I listen to NPR and read the articles on their website.
Support public broadcasting!I'm assuming you actually *support* public broadcasting financially, which implies you feel an obligation to pay something for content consumed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143003</id>
	<title>This is a good thing</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1243587780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many sectors of the news world are simply conduits for dissiminating propanda.  I don't understand why people would want to pay.  There are plenty of information sources on the internet that are free.  At this point in my life, I have already found sources for the majority of the information that I want to consume.  By the time the major news organizations pick up on the story and publish it, they are just rehashing information that I had days ago.  The only difference seems to be that they tend to have eyewitness accounts, and it shows that they have interviewed people as opposed to just repeating the facts.

Two examples are Stratfor and The Long War Journal.  Between those two sources I am up to date on what is happening in Afghanistan, and what the major (political / economic / military) stories are.

Earlier in the week, there was a bit of griping going on from journalists about the way the Obama administration handled releasing details about the President's Supreme Court nomination.  The journalists were upset that the administration officials releasing the information wanted to remain anonymous, and they were only giving the details to a select group of journalists, instead of the entire press pool.  The thought that went through my mind was, "What would the White House do if all of the journalists suddenly said, 'We really don't care who you are nominating for the Supreme Court.  Find some other way to let the American people know what you're up to.'"

We are really getting to the point where the major news sources are less and less relevent.  Who wants to pay to consume propaganda?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many sectors of the news world are simply conduits for dissiminating propanda .
I do n't understand why people would want to pay .
There are plenty of information sources on the internet that are free .
At this point in my life , I have already found sources for the majority of the information that I want to consume .
By the time the major news organizations pick up on the story and publish it , they are just rehashing information that I had days ago .
The only difference seems to be that they tend to have eyewitness accounts , and it shows that they have interviewed people as opposed to just repeating the facts .
Two examples are Stratfor and The Long War Journal .
Between those two sources I am up to date on what is happening in Afghanistan , and what the major ( political / economic / military ) stories are .
Earlier in the week , there was a bit of griping going on from journalists about the way the Obama administration handled releasing details about the President 's Supreme Court nomination .
The journalists were upset that the administration officials releasing the information wanted to remain anonymous , and they were only giving the details to a select group of journalists , instead of the entire press pool .
The thought that went through my mind was , " What would the White House do if all of the journalists suddenly said , 'We really do n't care who you are nominating for the Supreme Court .
Find some other way to let the American people know what you 're up to .
' " We are really getting to the point where the major news sources are less and less relevent .
Who wants to pay to consume propaganda ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many sectors of the news world are simply conduits for dissiminating propanda.
I don't understand why people would want to pay.
There are plenty of information sources on the internet that are free.
At this point in my life, I have already found sources for the majority of the information that I want to consume.
By the time the major news organizations pick up on the story and publish it, they are just rehashing information that I had days ago.
The only difference seems to be that they tend to have eyewitness accounts, and it shows that they have interviewed people as opposed to just repeating the facts.
Two examples are Stratfor and The Long War Journal.
Between those two sources I am up to date on what is happening in Afghanistan, and what the major (political / economic / military) stories are.
Earlier in the week, there was a bit of griping going on from journalists about the way the Obama administration handled releasing details about the President's Supreme Court nomination.
The journalists were upset that the administration officials releasing the information wanted to remain anonymous, and they were only giving the details to a select group of journalists, instead of the entire press pool.
The thought that went through my mind was, "What would the White House do if all of the journalists suddenly said, 'We really don't care who you are nominating for the Supreme Court.
Find some other way to let the American people know what you're up to.
'"

We are really getting to the point where the major news sources are less and less relevent.
Who wants to pay to consume propaganda?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140879</id>
	<title>Google bot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243622400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages? If so I see nothing wrong with changing my user agent. Then again for the most part I listen to NPR and read the articles on their website. Support public broadcasting!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages ?
If so I see nothing wrong with changing my user agent .
Then again for the most part I listen to NPR and read the articles on their website .
Support public broadcasting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages?
If so I see nothing wrong with changing my user agent.
Then again for the most part I listen to NPR and read the articles on their website.
Support public broadcasting!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142703</id>
	<title>They need a new business model, of course</title>
	<author>Rastl</author>
	<datestamp>1243629720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been suggested before but the only way the 'traditional' news media can compete is if they use technology to their advantage.  By the time the newspaper is printed most of the information is stale.  The perils of a connected society.</p><p>Now a subscription to a Kindle-like device that provides current information and also has investigative stories would be a winner.  Timely information, serious reporting, targeted advertising, the whole deal.  Publication costs would be minimal and they could expand on what they already do.</p><p>The old model is broken and will continue to be broken as long as there's instant access to information.  Notice I didn't say news because newspapers aren't about news any more.  They're about information.  Angelina Jolie's latest shoe purchase isn't news.  It's information but there's no way it should be on the front cover of anything that calls itself a newspaper.</p><p>If the price was right I'd get a subscription to my local paper using a Kindle.  There's lots of things in there that I'd like to know and it would be darn handy to have a classified ad with me when I had time to call or a list of the yard sales I want to visit.</p><p>But they can't get their heads out of the business model that worked 100 years ago nor do they see the opportunities for this kind of change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been suggested before but the only way the 'traditional ' news media can compete is if they use technology to their advantage .
By the time the newspaper is printed most of the information is stale .
The perils of a connected society.Now a subscription to a Kindle-like device that provides current information and also has investigative stories would be a winner .
Timely information , serious reporting , targeted advertising , the whole deal .
Publication costs would be minimal and they could expand on what they already do.The old model is broken and will continue to be broken as long as there 's instant access to information .
Notice I did n't say news because newspapers are n't about news any more .
They 're about information .
Angelina Jolie 's latest shoe purchase is n't news .
It 's information but there 's no way it should be on the front cover of anything that calls itself a newspaper.If the price was right I 'd get a subscription to my local paper using a Kindle .
There 's lots of things in there that I 'd like to know and it would be darn handy to have a classified ad with me when I had time to call or a list of the yard sales I want to visit.But they ca n't get their heads out of the business model that worked 100 years ago nor do they see the opportunities for this kind of change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been suggested before but the only way the 'traditional' news media can compete is if they use technology to their advantage.
By the time the newspaper is printed most of the information is stale.
The perils of a connected society.Now a subscription to a Kindle-like device that provides current information and also has investigative stories would be a winner.
Timely information, serious reporting, targeted advertising, the whole deal.
Publication costs would be minimal and they could expand on what they already do.The old model is broken and will continue to be broken as long as there's instant access to information.
Notice I didn't say news because newspapers aren't about news any more.
They're about information.
Angelina Jolie's latest shoe purchase isn't news.
It's information but there's no way it should be on the front cover of anything that calls itself a newspaper.If the price was right I'd get a subscription to my local paper using a Kindle.
There's lots of things in there that I'd like to know and it would be darn handy to have a classified ad with me when I had time to call or a list of the yard sales I want to visit.But they can't get their heads out of the business model that worked 100 years ago nor do they see the opportunities for this kind of change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143467</id>
	<title>BBC as a model for newspapers?</title>
	<author>Fractal Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1243589940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about treating news like a public service?  Have it publicly funded and held accountable with a model similar to how the BBC news operates in the UK?</p><p>The problem I see is that most newspapers are just glorified repackaging of newswire services with the odd local story and some opinion pieces that serve the owner's political agenda.   That was all fine and well in the past, but the culture and technology has moved on and old business model is as dead as a downtown blacksmith ranting about how cars are damaging his horseshoe repair business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about treating news like a public service ?
Have it publicly funded and held accountable with a model similar to how the BBC news operates in the UK ? The problem I see is that most newspapers are just glorified repackaging of newswire services with the odd local story and some opinion pieces that serve the owner 's political agenda .
That was all fine and well in the past , but the culture and technology has moved on and old business model is as dead as a downtown blacksmith ranting about how cars are damaging his horseshoe repair business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about treating news like a public service?
Have it publicly funded and held accountable with a model similar to how the BBC news operates in the UK?The problem I see is that most newspapers are just glorified repackaging of newswire services with the odd local story and some opinion pieces that serve the owner's political agenda.
That was all fine and well in the past, but the culture and technology has moved on and old business model is as dead as a downtown blacksmith ranting about how cars are damaging his horseshoe repair business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141825</id>
	<title>Minority Opinion - Why Not Pay For This Content?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243626240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may get modded down for this opinion.  And I am to an extent playing Devil's advocate here.</p><p>Maybe monetizing this content isn't such a bad idea.  One of the biggest problems with "big media" is that they answer to their advertisers and sponsors.  These are the folks that pay the bills.  With content being distributed free (beer), there is absolutely NO incentive for these organizations to put out a product that is anything more than a vehicle for advertising revenue.</p><p>So, fine.  Monetize it.  I'm willing to pay for a truly independent press.  If the newspapers continue to spew crap, then people won't buy it.  But maybe, just maybe, if these so-called professionals actually put their mind to it, they could publish material worth paying for.  I pay for content all the time.  The Economist, WSJ, New Yorker, Harpers.  I do so because it is worth it to me.  And these are writers that put out good work and they deserve to get paid.  Maybe the newspapers could put out content worth paying for.</p><p>If there is anything I'm worried about its not monetization of newspaper content.  It is whether these organizations have the vision to actually execute a transition to an Internet world.  The whole buzz about Kindles and the NYT indicates they may be --starting-- to get it.  But one beauty of free markets is that if they don't do it, someone else will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may get modded down for this opinion .
And I am to an extent playing Devil 's advocate here.Maybe monetizing this content is n't such a bad idea .
One of the biggest problems with " big media " is that they answer to their advertisers and sponsors .
These are the folks that pay the bills .
With content being distributed free ( beer ) , there is absolutely NO incentive for these organizations to put out a product that is anything more than a vehicle for advertising revenue.So , fine .
Monetize it .
I 'm willing to pay for a truly independent press .
If the newspapers continue to spew crap , then people wo n't buy it .
But maybe , just maybe , if these so-called professionals actually put their mind to it , they could publish material worth paying for .
I pay for content all the time .
The Economist , WSJ , New Yorker , Harpers .
I do so because it is worth it to me .
And these are writers that put out good work and they deserve to get paid .
Maybe the newspapers could put out content worth paying for.If there is anything I 'm worried about its not monetization of newspaper content .
It is whether these organizations have the vision to actually execute a transition to an Internet world .
The whole buzz about Kindles and the NYT indicates they may be --starting-- to get it .
But one beauty of free markets is that if they do n't do it , someone else will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may get modded down for this opinion.
And I am to an extent playing Devil's advocate here.Maybe monetizing this content isn't such a bad idea.
One of the biggest problems with "big media" is that they answer to their advertisers and sponsors.
These are the folks that pay the bills.
With content being distributed free (beer), there is absolutely NO incentive for these organizations to put out a product that is anything more than a vehicle for advertising revenue.So, fine.
Monetize it.
I'm willing to pay for a truly independent press.
If the newspapers continue to spew crap, then people won't buy it.
But maybe, just maybe, if these so-called professionals actually put their mind to it, they could publish material worth paying for.
I pay for content all the time.
The Economist, WSJ, New Yorker, Harpers.
I do so because it is worth it to me.
And these are writers that put out good work and they deserve to get paid.
Maybe the newspapers could put out content worth paying for.If there is anything I'm worried about its not monetization of newspaper content.
It is whether these organizations have the vision to actually execute a transition to an Internet world.
The whole buzz about Kindles and the NYT indicates they may be --starting-- to get it.
But one beauty of free markets is that if they don't do it, someone else will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144323</id>
	<title>Re:Important to have a news media</title>
	<author>knorthern knight</author>
	<datestamp>1243593600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Lets stop demonising all of the newspapers here. We are talking about our<br>&gt; ability of our society to have full time, paid reporters who act as independant<br>&gt; watchdogs which play a critical role in our society as a check and balance<br>&gt; against corruption. Making sure the newspapers can survive is in the best<br>&gt; interests of consumers who rely upon and benefit from the research,<br>&gt; investigation and reporting of news investigators and journalists.</p><p>I hereby charge you with attempted murder.  I almost died laughing after reading that.  You're talking about the same left-wing rags that...</p><p>* pounded Sarah Palin about someone else's (her daughter's) indiscretions, but kept mum about John Edwards' love child while he was still a potential candidate.</p><p>* hounded Palin about her wardrobe (paid out of her own pockets), while avoiding real issues</p><p>* whined about how CitiBank's sub-prime lending helped cause a financial crisis crisis while not mentioning that CitiBank *WAS FORCED TO LEND TO SUBPRIME BORROWERS* due to a lawsuit where a certain up-and-coming Chicago lawyer by the name of Obama was co-counsel on the plaintiff's side <a href="http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.php?id=10112" title="wustl.edu">http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.php?id=10112</a> [wustl.edu]</p><p>Die, left-wing rags, die.  I will dance on your grave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Lets stop demonising all of the newspapers here .
We are talking about our &gt; ability of our society to have full time , paid reporters who act as independant &gt; watchdogs which play a critical role in our society as a check and balance &gt; against corruption .
Making sure the newspapers can survive is in the best &gt; interests of consumers who rely upon and benefit from the research , &gt; investigation and reporting of news investigators and journalists.I hereby charge you with attempted murder .
I almost died laughing after reading that .
You 're talking about the same left-wing rags that... * pounded Sarah Palin about someone else 's ( her daughter 's ) indiscretions , but kept mum about John Edwards ' love child while he was still a potential candidate .
* hounded Palin about her wardrobe ( paid out of her own pockets ) , while avoiding real issues * whined about how CitiBank 's sub-prime lending helped cause a financial crisis crisis while not mentioning that CitiBank * WAS FORCED TO LEND TO SUBPRIME BORROWERS * due to a lawsuit where a certain up-and-coming Chicago lawyer by the name of Obama was co-counsel on the plaintiff 's side http : //clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.php ? id = 10112 [ wustl.edu ] Die , left-wing rags , die .
I will dance on your grave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Lets stop demonising all of the newspapers here.
We are talking about our&gt; ability of our society to have full time, paid reporters who act as independant&gt; watchdogs which play a critical role in our society as a check and balance&gt; against corruption.
Making sure the newspapers can survive is in the best&gt; interests of consumers who rely upon and benefit from the research,&gt; investigation and reporting of news investigators and journalists.I hereby charge you with attempted murder.
I almost died laughing after reading that.
You're talking about the same left-wing rags that...* pounded Sarah Palin about someone else's (her daughter's) indiscretions, but kept mum about John Edwards' love child while he was still a potential candidate.
* hounded Palin about her wardrobe (paid out of her own pockets), while avoiding real issues* whined about how CitiBank's sub-prime lending helped cause a financial crisis crisis while not mentioning that CitiBank *WAS FORCED TO LEND TO SUBPRIME BORROWERS* due to a lawsuit where a certain up-and-coming Chicago lawyer by the name of Obama was co-counsel on the plaintiff's side http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.php?id=10112 [wustl.edu]Die, left-wing rags, die.
I will dance on your grave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142085</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1243627380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I work for a newspaper company... There is no money in journalism... What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?</i></p><p>I'm curious - one of the things I have heard said about newspapers is that they gave up journalism in the 80's when they started ripping each other's content and getting their feeds from AP, cutting their stable of beat journalists.</p><p>Do you see that as a valid criticism, or does your newspaper still invest the same amount of resources in critical, objective, investigative journalism as it used to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a newspaper company... There is no money in journalism... What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable ? I 'm curious - one of the things I have heard said about newspapers is that they gave up journalism in the 80 's when they started ripping each other 's content and getting their feeds from AP , cutting their stable of beat journalists.Do you see that as a valid criticism , or does your newspaper still invest the same amount of resources in critical , objective , investigative journalism as it used to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a newspaper company... There is no money in journalism... What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?I'm curious - one of the things I have heard said about newspapers is that they gave up journalism in the 80's when they started ripping each other's content and getting their feeds from AP, cutting their stable of beat journalists.Do you see that as a valid criticism, or does your newspaper still invest the same amount of resources in critical, objective, investigative journalism as it used to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141639</id>
	<title>Re:They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1243625520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would gladly pay $1, maybe $2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post, NYT, LA Times, my local newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger.</p></div><p>The International Herald Tribune (once independent, now owned by the NYT) was, at one point, precisely that.  It still has a far, far higher fraction of editorial content than any other paper I've seen in the US, and I gladly pay the equivalent of USD 3 per day at the news stand to read it.  That paper, in one 20-odd page section, has more information and content than almost anything else.</p><p>But I'm a luddite when it comes to on-line news.  I want my news on paper.  In an easy-to-read font.  With limited advertising and no animations.  If I'm going to pay anything close to that for on-line service without the physical object, then I want no advertising whatsoever.  None.  Clear presentation without one-click-per-paragraph layouts.  Unfortunately, I don't think that's the way the on-line news industry is headed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would gladly pay $ 1 , maybe $ 2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post , NYT , LA Times , my local newspaper , the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger.The International Herald Tribune ( once independent , now owned by the NYT ) was , at one point , precisely that .
It still has a far , far higher fraction of editorial content than any other paper I 've seen in the US , and I gladly pay the equivalent of USD 3 per day at the news stand to read it .
That paper , in one 20-odd page section , has more information and content than almost anything else.But I 'm a luddite when it comes to on-line news .
I want my news on paper .
In an easy-to-read font .
With limited advertising and no animations .
If I 'm going to pay anything close to that for on-line service without the physical object , then I want no advertising whatsoever .
None. Clear presentation without one-click-per-paragraph layouts .
Unfortunately , I do n't think that 's the way the on-line news industry is headed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would gladly pay $1, maybe $2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post, NYT, LA Times, my local newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger.The International Herald Tribune (once independent, now owned by the NYT) was, at one point, precisely that.
It still has a far, far higher fraction of editorial content than any other paper I've seen in the US, and I gladly pay the equivalent of USD 3 per day at the news stand to read it.
That paper, in one 20-odd page section, has more information and content than almost anything else.But I'm a luddite when it comes to on-line news.
I want my news on paper.
In an easy-to-read font.
With limited advertising and no animations.
If I'm going to pay anything close to that for on-line service without the physical object, then I want no advertising whatsoever.
None.  Clear presentation without one-click-per-paragraph layouts.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's the way the on-line news industry is headed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143051</id>
	<title>Re:Google bot</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1243587960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages? If so I see nothing wrong with changing my user agent.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Yeah, apart from the possibly illegal part of changing your user agent string in order to gain access that you would not otherwise have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages ?
If so I see nothing wrong with changing my user agent .
Yeah , apart from the possibly illegal part of changing your user agent string in order to gain access that you would not otherwise have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages?
If so I see nothing wrong with changing my user agent.
Yeah, apart from the possibly illegal part of changing your user agent string in order to gain access that you would not otherwise have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142555</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1243629060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Micropayments are something of a "holy grail" to the financial industry; as you say, they would solve many problems. The issue is that no one has managed to get the overhead down to the point where you don't spend more processing the transaction than you would otherwise receive in profit. Some of that cost is real enough, but a big part is due to regulations intended to ensure that every financial transaction is traceable by various governments.</p><p>Essentially, anyone who tries to set up a micropayment system ends up being shut down for "money laundering" or classified as a bank; in the latter case they end up failing at micropayments anyway, since the overhead of a fully-regulated bank is too high to support massive numbers of minuscule transactions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Micropayments are something of a " holy grail " to the financial industry ; as you say , they would solve many problems .
The issue is that no one has managed to get the overhead down to the point where you do n't spend more processing the transaction than you would otherwise receive in profit .
Some of that cost is real enough , but a big part is due to regulations intended to ensure that every financial transaction is traceable by various governments.Essentially , anyone who tries to set up a micropayment system ends up being shut down for " money laundering " or classified as a bank ; in the latter case they end up failing at micropayments anyway , since the overhead of a fully-regulated bank is too high to support massive numbers of minuscule transactions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Micropayments are something of a "holy grail" to the financial industry; as you say, they would solve many problems.
The issue is that no one has managed to get the overhead down to the point where you don't spend more processing the transaction than you would otherwise receive in profit.
Some of that cost is real enough, but a big part is due to regulations intended to ensure that every financial transaction is traceable by various governments.Essentially, anyone who tries to set up a micropayment system ends up being shut down for "money laundering" or classified as a bank; in the latter case they end up failing at micropayments anyway, since the overhead of a fully-regulated bank is too high to support massive numbers of minuscule transactions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142337</id>
	<title>Re:Something has to be done</title>
	<author>Braino420</author>
	<datestamp>1243628280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?</p></div></blockquote><p>
This is the web, it is difficult, as the newspapers are seeing, to charge your users directly. It is also hard to convince advertisers to fork over the dough that the newspapers need to sustain themselves. Instead, they need to start looking at ways of monetizing people's viewing patterns, much like google has done.
<br> <br>
You see that idea? I prob came up with it on the shitter, I wasn't even paid to think about it. That's what's so sad, these newspaper fat cats aren't thinking outside of their old paper media; they are just trying to brute force the money out of people the way they have always been doing.
<br> <br>
But they don't get it, and it's painfully obvious. It's like they have never even used the web before. I know, as a web user (and in this scenario, one that doesn't use adblock), if I visit a website and all of a sudden have nothing but a giant ad on my screen, or something following my cursor, I'm just going to leave or, at the very least, am going to be irritated. Check it out, go to the <a href="http://www.ajc.com/" title="ajc.com">ajc</a> [ajc.com] and turn off your ad block. Ya... Seriously, wtf were they thinking? Now, go have a looksie at <a href="http://www.ajcexchange.com/" title="ajcexchange.com">ajcexchange</a> [ajcexchange.com], their new craigslist knock-off. What I find hilarious is that it's free to post a classified on their site, but if you want the premium listing, the one that shows up in the paper that no one is getting anymore (they have stopped delivering in many places in GA), they charge you. They don't get it.
<br> <br>
As if that wasn't the end of their worries, they also have content issues. Many people want local news and in-depth coverage about some scam that is going on (that's why they're reading the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/local/ paper right?). Instead they get AP wire stories and other information they can get elsewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable ?
This is the web , it is difficult , as the newspapers are seeing , to charge your users directly .
It is also hard to convince advertisers to fork over the dough that the newspapers need to sustain themselves .
Instead , they need to start looking at ways of monetizing people 's viewing patterns , much like google has done .
You see that idea ?
I prob came up with it on the shitter , I was n't even paid to think about it .
That 's what 's so sad , these newspaper fat cats are n't thinking outside of their old paper media ; they are just trying to brute force the money out of people the way they have always been doing .
But they do n't get it , and it 's painfully obvious .
It 's like they have never even used the web before .
I know , as a web user ( and in this scenario , one that does n't use adblock ) , if I visit a website and all of a sudden have nothing but a giant ad on my screen , or something following my cursor , I 'm just going to leave or , at the very least , am going to be irritated .
Check it out , go to the ajc [ ajc.com ] and turn off your ad block .
Ya... Seriously , wtf were they thinking ?
Now , go have a looksie at ajcexchange [ ajcexchange.com ] , their new craigslist knock-off .
What I find hilarious is that it 's free to post a classified on their site , but if you want the premium listing , the one that shows up in the paper that no one is getting anymore ( they have stopped delivering in many places in GA ) , they charge you .
They do n't get it .
As if that was n't the end of their worries , they also have content issues .
Many people want local news and in-depth coverage about some scam that is going on ( that 's why they 're reading the /local/ paper right ? ) .
Instead they get AP wire stories and other information they can get elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?
This is the web, it is difficult, as the newspapers are seeing, to charge your users directly.
It is also hard to convince advertisers to fork over the dough that the newspapers need to sustain themselves.
Instead, they need to start looking at ways of monetizing people's viewing patterns, much like google has done.
You see that idea?
I prob came up with it on the shitter, I wasn't even paid to think about it.
That's what's so sad, these newspaper fat cats aren't thinking outside of their old paper media; they are just trying to brute force the money out of people the way they have always been doing.
But they don't get it, and it's painfully obvious.
It's like they have never even used the web before.
I know, as a web user (and in this scenario, one that doesn't use adblock), if I visit a website and all of a sudden have nothing but a giant ad on my screen, or something following my cursor, I'm just going to leave or, at the very least, am going to be irritated.
Check it out, go to the ajc [ajc.com] and turn off your ad block.
Ya... Seriously, wtf were they thinking?
Now, go have a looksie at ajcexchange [ajcexchange.com], their new craigslist knock-off.
What I find hilarious is that it's free to post a classified on their site, but if you want the premium listing, the one that shows up in the paper that no one is getting anymore (they have stopped delivering in many places in GA), they charge you.
They don't get it.
As if that wasn't the end of their worries, they also have content issues.
Many people want local news and in-depth coverage about some scam that is going on (that's why they're reading the /local/ paper right?).
Instead they get AP wire stories and other information they can get elsewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141191</id>
	<title>Adam Smith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243623660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"People of the same trade rarely meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."</p><p>-Adam Smith</p><p>There truly is nothing new under the sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" People of the same trade rarely meet together , even for merriment and diversion , but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public .
" -Adam SmithThere truly is nothing new under the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"People of the same trade rarely meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.
"-Adam SmithThere truly is nothing new under the sun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142055</id>
	<title>Match reading habits for value</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1243627260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I would gladly pay $1, maybe $2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post, NYT, LA Times, my local newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, some sort of NewsPass might work, if you could really allow free reading of news by it. There are three local papers my town is in the footprint of. I scan a few articles from two of them each morning. Then I go to news.google, which is adjusted to my prefs, and read another half-dozen stories which could be hosted <i>anywhere</i>. Then to nytimes.com for the editorials and a few more stories, if the day's tasks aren't too pressing. Later in the day, on break I'll read the blogs, and a few more stories at essentially random newspaper sites linked from there.</p><p>I'd be perfectly happy if I were paying $15 a month (the price of a subscription to a good newspaper back when there were more good, fat newspapers around), and that were distributed proportionally over the hosts of the stories I read. But I would <i>not</i> be happy if for $15 a month I could only get, say, one local paper and nytimes.com, and then had to pay more for each other story I read elsewhere. Ten years ago one of the local papers would have been enough - they had more of their own reporters, and carried a lot more NY Times copy along with more national AP coverage than presently. But now that both print and web versions of the Times, USA Today and whatever are around, the local papers are decidedly local. The equivalent product to what the good newspapers used to be needs to allow me to read anything, anywhere, without stopping to register or log in. And it should be for not more that 50 cents a day. If they can put in on newsprint for 75 cents, including the costs of delivery, they can certainly make a profit on 50 cents, where all they need is a web server to distribute it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would gladly pay $ 1 , maybe $ 2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post , NYT , LA Times , my local newspaper , the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger.Yeah , some sort of NewsPass might work , if you could really allow free reading of news by it .
There are three local papers my town is in the footprint of .
I scan a few articles from two of them each morning .
Then I go to news.google , which is adjusted to my prefs , and read another half-dozen stories which could be hosted anywhere .
Then to nytimes.com for the editorials and a few more stories , if the day 's tasks are n't too pressing .
Later in the day , on break I 'll read the blogs , and a few more stories at essentially random newspaper sites linked from there.I 'd be perfectly happy if I were paying $ 15 a month ( the price of a subscription to a good newspaper back when there were more good , fat newspapers around ) , and that were distributed proportionally over the hosts of the stories I read .
But I would not be happy if for $ 15 a month I could only get , say , one local paper and nytimes.com , and then had to pay more for each other story I read elsewhere .
Ten years ago one of the local papers would have been enough - they had more of their own reporters , and carried a lot more NY Times copy along with more national AP coverage than presently .
But now that both print and web versions of the Times , USA Today and whatever are around , the local papers are decidedly local .
The equivalent product to what the good newspapers used to be needs to allow me to read anything , anywhere , without stopping to register or log in .
And it should be for not more that 50 cents a day .
If they can put in on newsprint for 75 cents , including the costs of delivery , they can certainly make a profit on 50 cents , where all they need is a web server to distribute it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would gladly pay $1, maybe $2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post, NYT, LA Times, my local newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger.Yeah, some sort of NewsPass might work, if you could really allow free reading of news by it.
There are three local papers my town is in the footprint of.
I scan a few articles from two of them each morning.
Then I go to news.google, which is adjusted to my prefs, and read another half-dozen stories which could be hosted anywhere.
Then to nytimes.com for the editorials and a few more stories, if the day's tasks aren't too pressing.
Later in the day, on break I'll read the blogs, and a few more stories at essentially random newspaper sites linked from there.I'd be perfectly happy if I were paying $15 a month (the price of a subscription to a good newspaper back when there were more good, fat newspapers around), and that were distributed proportionally over the hosts of the stories I read.
But I would not be happy if for $15 a month I could only get, say, one local paper and nytimes.com, and then had to pay more for each other story I read elsewhere.
Ten years ago one of the local papers would have been enough - they had more of their own reporters, and carried a lot more NY Times copy along with more national AP coverage than presently.
But now that both print and web versions of the Times, USA Today and whatever are around, the local papers are decidedly local.
The equivalent product to what the good newspapers used to be needs to allow me to read anything, anywhere, without stopping to register or log in.
And it should be for not more that 50 cents a day.
If they can put in on newsprint for 75 cents, including the costs of delivery, they can certainly make a profit on 50 cents, where all they need is a web server to distribute it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045</id>
	<title>Something has to be done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243623060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a newspaper company and we are going through this exact thing right now.  The newspaper industry has gotten used to seemingly endless financing and now sites like Craigslist and Google are doing a better job at what makes newspapers money.</p><p>There is no money in journalism.  The money comes from classifieds and sponsorship.  Now that people can easily get their news from just about anywhere companies are not as willing to shell out major payments for newspaper ads.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, a paywall is a TERRIBLE idea but the news industry isn't cheap and people take it for granted.  What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a newspaper company and we are going through this exact thing right now .
The newspaper industry has gotten used to seemingly endless financing and now sites like Craigslist and Google are doing a better job at what makes newspapers money.There is no money in journalism .
The money comes from classifieds and sponsorship .
Now that people can easily get their news from just about anywhere companies are not as willing to shell out major payments for newspaper ads.Do n't get me wrong , a paywall is a TERRIBLE idea but the news industry is n't cheap and people take it for granted .
What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a newspaper company and we are going through this exact thing right now.
The newspaper industry has gotten used to seemingly endless financing and now sites like Craigslist and Google are doing a better job at what makes newspapers money.There is no money in journalism.
The money comes from classifieds and sponsorship.
Now that people can easily get their news from just about anywhere companies are not as willing to shell out major payments for newspaper ads.Don't get me wrong, a paywall is a TERRIBLE idea but the news industry isn't cheap and people take it for granted.
What other ideas are out there to keep news journalism profitable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141763</id>
	<title>Re:They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1243626000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As enjoyable as it is to bash the newspapers for all of their real flaws, I don't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageous. I really don't. The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is (in the best cases) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources, fact checking, having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy (as much as that's suffered in the past decade) and generally putting out a "report" on a subject (that's why we call them reporters). That's a lot of hard, often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it.</p></div><p>Paywalls are evil because you can't link back to something, they break the web the same way that "check the referrer and redirect to the front page if they're from off-site" does. I'd say LWN has this exactly right, articles require a subscription (for the first week), but if a subscriber wants to cite or reference an article there's a link provided to them that lets non-subscribers see it.</p><p>For larger sites this would probably require a bit of extra work, maybe just have the link encode the ID of the subscriber who posted it so you can keep an eye on abuses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As enjoyable as it is to bash the newspapers for all of their real flaws , I do n't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageous .
I really do n't .
The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is ( in the best cases ) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources , fact checking , having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy ( as much as that 's suffered in the past decade ) and generally putting out a " report " on a subject ( that 's why we call them reporters ) .
That 's a lot of hard , often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it.Paywalls are evil because you ca n't link back to something , they break the web the same way that " check the referrer and redirect to the front page if they 're from off-site " does .
I 'd say LWN has this exactly right , articles require a subscription ( for the first week ) , but if a subscriber wants to cite or reference an article there 's a link provided to them that lets non-subscribers see it.For larger sites this would probably require a bit of extra work , maybe just have the link encode the ID of the subscriber who posted it so you can keep an eye on abuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As enjoyable as it is to bash the newspapers for all of their real flaws, I don't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageous.
I really don't.
The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is (in the best cases) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources, fact checking, having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy (as much as that's suffered in the past decade) and generally putting out a "report" on a subject (that's why we call them reporters).
That's a lot of hard, often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it.Paywalls are evil because you can't link back to something, they break the web the same way that "check the referrer and redirect to the front page if they're from off-site" does.
I'd say LWN has this exactly right, articles require a subscription (for the first week), but if a subscriber wants to cite or reference an article there's a link provided to them that lets non-subscribers see it.For larger sites this would probably require a bit of extra work, maybe just have the link encode the ID of the subscriber who posted it so you can keep an eye on abuses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142121</id>
	<title>Why it won't work</title>
	<author>knorthern knight</author>
	<datestamp>1243627560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, so *ALL AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS* paywall their websites.  Now, what do you do about foreign newspapers???</p><p>And it's not just newspapers either.  What about...<br><a href="http://www.cnn.com/" title="cnn.com">http://www.cnn.com/</a> [cnn.com]<br><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/" title="foxnews.com">http://www.foxnews.com/</a> [foxnews.com]<br><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/" title="bbc.co.uk">http://www.bbc.co.uk/</a> [bbc.co.uk]<br><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/" title="www.cbc.ca">http://www.cbc.ca/</a> [www.cbc.ca]</p><p>What about websites of radio and TV networks, and their individual stations, around the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so * ALL AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS * paywall their websites .
Now , what do you do about foreign newspapers ? ?
? And it 's not just newspapers either .
What about...http : //www.cnn.com/ [ cnn.com ] http : //www.foxnews.com/ [ foxnews.com ] http : //www.bbc.co.uk/ [ bbc.co.uk ] http : //www.cbc.ca/ [ www.cbc.ca ] What about websites of radio and TV networks , and their individual stations , around the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so *ALL AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS* paywall their websites.
Now, what do you do about foreign newspapers??
?And it's not just newspapers either.
What about...http://www.cnn.com/ [cnn.com]http://www.foxnews.com/ [foxnews.com]http://www.bbc.co.uk/ [bbc.co.uk]http://www.cbc.ca/ [www.cbc.ca]What about websites of radio and TV networks, and their individual stations, around the world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142299</id>
	<title>Re:Ooh... "secret" meetings?</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1243628100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>does the article submitter imply that whenever companies get together, they should invite the press</p> </div><p>Uh... they did invite the press...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>does the article submitter imply that whenever companies get together , they should invite the press Uh... they did invite the press.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does the article submitter imply that whenever companies get together, they should invite the press Uh... they did invite the press...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142167</id>
	<title>Re:They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1243627680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is (in the best cases) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources, fact checking, having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy (as much as that's suffered in the past decade) and generally putting out a "report" on a subject (that's why we call them reporters). That's a lot of hard, often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it. And frankly we should all want to pay for that kind of good content to be made, even when we disagree with it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yes, but what do the newspapers have going for them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is ( in the best cases ) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources , fact checking , having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy ( as much as that 's suffered in the past decade ) and generally putting out a " report " on a subject ( that 's why we call them reporters ) .
That 's a lot of hard , often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it .
And frankly we should all want to pay for that kind of good content to be made , even when we disagree with it .
Yes , but what do the newspapers have going for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is (in the best cases) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources, fact checking, having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy (as much as that's suffered in the past decade) and generally putting out a "report" on a subject (that's why we call them reporters).
That's a lot of hard, often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it.
And frankly we should all want to pay for that kind of good content to be made, even when we disagree with it.
Yes, but what do the newspapers have going for them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144971</id>
	<title>How is this not collusion</title>
	<author>zymano</author>
	<datestamp>1243597320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are colluding to start charging at unison.</p><p>They don't  want a few like USA today or another to stay FREE.</p><p>Criminal.  Newspapers and Cable TV channels are about $$$ for their owners  and not providing just news.</p><p>They are making money from their websites but they will always always want more.</p><p>William Randolph Hearst - google it.  They also own TV channels across the country.  They hate the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are colluding to start charging at unison.They do n't want a few like USA today or another to stay FREE.Criminal .
Newspapers and Cable TV channels are about $ $ $ for their owners and not providing just news.They are making money from their websites but they will always always want more.William Randolph Hearst - google it .
They also own TV channels across the country .
They hate the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are colluding to start charging at unison.They don't  want a few like USA today or another to stay FREE.Criminal.
Newspapers and Cable TV channels are about $$$ for their owners  and not providing just news.They are making money from their websites but they will always always want more.William Randolph Hearst - google it.
They also own TV channels across the country.
They hate the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141181</id>
	<title>Re:Ooh... "secret" meetings?</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1243623600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they all get together to talk about "price fixing" and how they can collectively control the market - it might as well be a monopoly.  Look up collusion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they all get together to talk about " price fixing " and how they can collectively control the market - it might as well be a monopoly .
Look up collusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they all get together to talk about "price fixing" and how they can collectively control the market - it might as well be a monopoly.
Look up collusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142995</id>
	<title>Re:Paywalls a failed business model? Ask Blizzard.</title>
	<author>robertl234</author>
	<datestamp>1243587780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The New York Times ditched its paywall a couple of years ago. Apparently people would rather read Yahoo News.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The New York Times ditched its paywall a couple of years ago .
Apparently people would rather read Yahoo News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The New York Times ditched its paywall a couple of years ago.
Apparently people would rather read Yahoo News.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142725</id>
	<title>The newspapers just don't get it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243629780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My family gets the Sunday paper for the grocery ads and the coupons.  We're not quite old enough to read the obituaries to see if we're there.  It's damn rare for there to be a wire story that hasn't been covered here, on The Register, or on NPR.  It's damn rare for there to be a local story that the local TV stations haven't covered and 5 co-workers have forwarded me links to the story.  Comics... you remember how Berke Breathed and Frank Cho used to exaggerate about how much papers were shrinking the comics.  Well, this year it became reality and the online copies of the comics have higher detail.</p><p>About twice a year the paper calls us wanting to give us a free trial of the daily paper.  My response "We'd like the advertising flyers from the week day the second batch of grocery ads come out.  Just don't give us the rest of the paper.  For this we'll gladly pay you half the rate for a full week of daily papers."  The local paper still hasn't taken us up on the offer.  I've even tried suggesting "How about a special edition that is just the advertisements, classifieds, and flyers?"  Still no go.</p><p>I do know that next year instead of mulching the garden with newspaper, I'll have to call the installers for the local home improvement stores for their empty cardboard boxes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My family gets the Sunday paper for the grocery ads and the coupons .
We 're not quite old enough to read the obituaries to see if we 're there .
It 's damn rare for there to be a wire story that has n't been covered here , on The Register , or on NPR .
It 's damn rare for there to be a local story that the local TV stations have n't covered and 5 co-workers have forwarded me links to the story .
Comics... you remember how Berke Breathed and Frank Cho used to exaggerate about how much papers were shrinking the comics .
Well , this year it became reality and the online copies of the comics have higher detail.About twice a year the paper calls us wanting to give us a free trial of the daily paper .
My response " We 'd like the advertising flyers from the week day the second batch of grocery ads come out .
Just do n't give us the rest of the paper .
For this we 'll gladly pay you half the rate for a full week of daily papers .
" The local paper still has n't taken us up on the offer .
I 've even tried suggesting " How about a special edition that is just the advertisements , classifieds , and flyers ?
" Still no go.I do know that next year instead of mulching the garden with newspaper , I 'll have to call the installers for the local home improvement stores for their empty cardboard boxes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My family gets the Sunday paper for the grocery ads and the coupons.
We're not quite old enough to read the obituaries to see if we're there.
It's damn rare for there to be a wire story that hasn't been covered here, on The Register, or on NPR.
It's damn rare for there to be a local story that the local TV stations haven't covered and 5 co-workers have forwarded me links to the story.
Comics... you remember how Berke Breathed and Frank Cho used to exaggerate about how much papers were shrinking the comics.
Well, this year it became reality and the online copies of the comics have higher detail.About twice a year the paper calls us wanting to give us a free trial of the daily paper.
My response "We'd like the advertising flyers from the week day the second batch of grocery ads come out.
Just don't give us the rest of the paper.
For this we'll gladly pay you half the rate for a full week of daily papers.
"  The local paper still hasn't taken us up on the offer.
I've even tried suggesting "How about a special edition that is just the advertisements, classifieds, and flyers?
"  Still no go.I do know that next year instead of mulching the garden with newspaper, I'll have to call the installers for the local home improvement stores for their empty cardboard boxes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142143</id>
	<title>Newspapers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243627620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the US has newspapers anymore. That would require Jounalism and a Free Press. 'Free' as in not bought!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the US has newspapers anymore .
That would require Jounalism and a Free Press .
'Free ' as in not bought !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the US has newspapers anymore.
That would require Jounalism and a Free Press.
'Free' as in not bought!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142603</id>
	<title>Re:How to save the Newspaper Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243629240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6. Watch the money float away as users jailbreak the electronic devices to use as free ebook readers and Kindle sues for...you know, whatever it is people try to sue other people for.</p><p>The problem with this idea is:</p><ol><li>Not many people are going to *pay* extra for yet another piece of hardware to carry around, to read newspapers on.</li><li>Giving the devices away and only charging service fees equals throwing money away, unless you find a way to make them pretty damn cheap.</li><li>As soon as said devices are jailbroken, you're back to them just using their Wifi hotspots for free news.</li></ol><p>Which isn't to say nobody would get one, but I don't think enough would for a sustainable market. The hand-held online text-viewer market is pretty much saturated at the moment, and companies that're sliding into oblivion (through no fault of their own, of course -.-) aren't exactly in a position to try and break into that.</p><p>That said, maybe if they made an iPhone app, they could actually get somewhere. Of course they won't, because technology is bad and nothing good ever came of the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6 .
Watch the money float away as users jailbreak the electronic devices to use as free ebook readers and Kindle sues for...you know , whatever it is people try to sue other people for.The problem with this idea is : Not many people are going to * pay * extra for yet another piece of hardware to carry around , to read newspapers on.Giving the devices away and only charging service fees equals throwing money away , unless you find a way to make them pretty damn cheap.As soon as said devices are jailbroken , you 're back to them just using their Wifi hotspots for free news.Which is n't to say nobody would get one , but I do n't think enough would for a sustainable market .
The hand-held online text-viewer market is pretty much saturated at the moment , and companies that 're sliding into oblivion ( through no fault of their own , of course -.- ) are n't exactly in a position to try and break into that.That said , maybe if they made an iPhone app , they could actually get somewhere .
Of course they wo n't , because technology is bad and nothing good ever came of the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6.
Watch the money float away as users jailbreak the electronic devices to use as free ebook readers and Kindle sues for...you know, whatever it is people try to sue other people for.The problem with this idea is:Not many people are going to *pay* extra for yet another piece of hardware to carry around, to read newspapers on.Giving the devices away and only charging service fees equals throwing money away, unless you find a way to make them pretty damn cheap.As soon as said devices are jailbroken, you're back to them just using their Wifi hotspots for free news.Which isn't to say nobody would get one, but I don't think enough would for a sustainable market.
The hand-held online text-viewer market is pretty much saturated at the moment, and companies that're sliding into oblivion (through no fault of their own, of course -.-) aren't exactly in a position to try and break into that.That said, maybe if they made an iPhone app, they could actually get somewhere.
Of course they won't, because technology is bad and nothing good ever came of the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143629</id>
	<title>Re:Micropayments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243590660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b> BREAKING NEWS BULLETIN </b></p><p><b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. Sets Model for Newspapers </b></p><p>Since you read this comment, send me US$1.00.</p><p>Oh wait...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments aren't news.  Move along people, move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BREAKING NEWS BULLETIN / .
Sets Model for Newspapers Since you read this comment , send me US $ 1.00.Oh wait... /. comments are n't news .
Move along people , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> BREAKING NEWS BULLETIN  /.
Sets Model for Newspapers Since you read this comment, send me US$1.00.Oh wait... /. comments aren't news.
Move along people, move along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28156565</id>
	<title>Re:Ooh... "secret" meetings?</title>
	<author>professionalfurryele</author>
	<datestamp>1243762680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is collusion. This kind of meeting itself should be illegal under anti-trust laws. If the law was sensible these people would be arrested and sent to jail for even arranging to meet like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is collusion .
This kind of meeting itself should be illegal under anti-trust laws .
If the law was sensible these people would be arrested and sent to jail for even arranging to meet like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is collusion.
This kind of meeting itself should be illegal under anti-trust laws.
If the law was sensible these people would be arrested and sent to jail for even arranging to meet like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142855</id>
	<title>Felony, They should be prosecuted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243630320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conspiracy to commit price fixing is a felony offence.  They should be prosecuted!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conspiracy to commit price fixing is a felony offence .
They should be prosecuted !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conspiracy to commit price fixing is a felony offence.
They should be prosecuted!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957</id>
	<title>They should be adding paywalls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243622760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As enjoyable as it is to bash the newspapers for all of their real flaws, I don't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageous.  I really don't.  The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is (in the best cases) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources, fact checking, having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy (as much as that's suffered in the past decade) and generally putting out a "report" on a subject (that's why we call them reporters).  That's a lot of hard, often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it.  And frankly we should all want to pay for that kind of good content to be made, even when we disagree with it.<p>

It's become trendy to say that bloggers do much of the work of the media and that is simply delusion.  First of all, nearly all blog entries (including a large fraction of those on this site) are built around a link of a publication which employs its writers.  Bloggers do a great job adding bits, contextualize and bringing together info, but they are most often not the generators of solid base information they work with.  So if we really do lose newspapers we are not going to have the People's Republic of Blogistan stand up and replace them with real reporting, we're just going to have gasbaggery in its place.</p><p>

Now the newspaper industry as a whole needs plenty of creative destruction on top of that.  Now that news can freely travel across the country and the world, there's no need for every paper to have Washington bureau and foreign correspondents, and consolidation is much needed there.  Likewise the stupid forays of the 90s into "new media" and the debt-fueled expansions also call for some of these business to go under.  But that's about restructuring companies and an industry, not replacing paid professionals with everyone's favorite opinion.</p><p>

My hope is that the newspapers will force the issue on micropayments.  I would gladly pay $1, maybe $2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post, NYT, LA Times, my local newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger.  I absolutely will not pay $20/mo to each of those.  So if they can figure out a joint payment scheme that makes sense, I'm all for that.  Double bonus points if they can use it to make their archives affordable and not priced for company and institutiional use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As enjoyable as it is to bash the newspapers for all of their real flaws , I do n't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageous .
I really do n't .
The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is ( in the best cases ) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources , fact checking , having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy ( as much as that 's suffered in the past decade ) and generally putting out a " report " on a subject ( that 's why we call them reporters ) .
That 's a lot of hard , often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it .
And frankly we should all want to pay for that kind of good content to be made , even when we disagree with it .
It 's become trendy to say that bloggers do much of the work of the media and that is simply delusion .
First of all , nearly all blog entries ( including a large fraction of those on this site ) are built around a link of a publication which employs its writers .
Bloggers do a great job adding bits , contextualize and bringing together info , but they are most often not the generators of solid base information they work with .
So if we really do lose newspapers we are not going to have the People 's Republic of Blogistan stand up and replace them with real reporting , we 're just going to have gasbaggery in its place .
Now the newspaper industry as a whole needs plenty of creative destruction on top of that .
Now that news can freely travel across the country and the world , there 's no need for every paper to have Washington bureau and foreign correspondents , and consolidation is much needed there .
Likewise the stupid forays of the 90s into " new media " and the debt-fueled expansions also call for some of these business to go under .
But that 's about restructuring companies and an industry , not replacing paid professionals with everyone 's favorite opinion .
My hope is that the newspapers will force the issue on micropayments .
I would gladly pay $ 1 , maybe $ 2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post , NYT , LA Times , my local newspaper , the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger .
I absolutely will not pay $ 20/mo to each of those .
So if they can figure out a joint payment scheme that makes sense , I 'm all for that .
Double bonus points if they can use it to make their archives affordable and not priced for company and institutiional use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As enjoyable as it is to bash the newspapers for all of their real flaws, I don't understand how people have come to find paywalls outrageous.
I really don't.
The difference between newspapers and random hearsay is (in the best cases) a lot of effort in developing broad and balanced sources, fact checking, having an editorial process for some degree of fairness and accuracy (as much as that's suffered in the past decade) and generally putting out a "report" on a subject (that's why we call them reporters).
That's a lot of hard, often tedious work that is not going to get done well unless someone is paid to do it.
And frankly we should all want to pay for that kind of good content to be made, even when we disagree with it.
It's become trendy to say that bloggers do much of the work of the media and that is simply delusion.
First of all, nearly all blog entries (including a large fraction of those on this site) are built around a link of a publication which employs its writers.
Bloggers do a great job adding bits, contextualize and bringing together info, but they are most often not the generators of solid base information they work with.
So if we really do lose newspapers we are not going to have the People's Republic of Blogistan stand up and replace them with real reporting, we're just going to have gasbaggery in its place.
Now the newspaper industry as a whole needs plenty of creative destruction on top of that.
Now that news can freely travel across the country and the world, there's no need for every paper to have Washington bureau and foreign correspondents, and consolidation is much needed there.
Likewise the stupid forays of the 90s into "new media" and the debt-fueled expansions also call for some of these business to go under.
But that's about restructuring companies and an industry, not replacing paid professionals with everyone's favorite opinion.
My hope is that the newspapers will force the issue on micropayments.
I would gladly pay $1, maybe $2 a day for a combination of stories from the Washington Post, NYT, LA Times, my local newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and on occasion some random others that I learned about from some blogger.
I absolutely will not pay $20/mo to each of those.
So if they can figure out a joint payment scheme that makes sense, I'm all for that.
Double bonus points if they can use it to make their archives affordable and not priced for company and institutiional use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141287</id>
	<title>Re:Google bot</title>
	<author>Bill Dimm</author>
	<datestamp>1243624080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages?</p></div><p>The sad thing is that they will probably <b>only</b> allow Googlebot to crawl them, thereby disadvantaging any upstart search engines that might want to compete with Google.  As much as I like Google, the fact that they are so big creates a "we only need to worry about Googlebot" mentality among website operators that is similar to "we only need to worry about working with Internet Explorer."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages ? The sad thing is that they will probably only allow Googlebot to crawl them , thereby disadvantaging any upstart search engines that might want to compete with Google .
As much as I like Google , the fact that they are so big creates a " we only need to worry about Googlebot " mentality among website operators that is similar to " we only need to worry about working with Internet Explorer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think they will still allow Googlebot to crawl their web pages?The sad thing is that they will probably only allow Googlebot to crawl them, thereby disadvantaging any upstart search engines that might want to compete with Google.
As much as I like Google, the fact that they are so big creates a "we only need to worry about Googlebot" mentality among website operators that is similar to "we only need to worry about working with Internet Explorer.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28147129</id>
	<title>Re:Minority Opinion - Why Not Pay For This Content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243618140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Maybe the newspapers could put out content worth paying for."</p><p>They can't until they hire reporters who can produce it, and editors who can refine it. With the money they make now, they can't afford it - truly good reporters and editors can make better money doing PR or commercial freelancing.</p><p>Chicken vs. egg argument here. Magazines get away with it because their advertisers pay a premium to target a premium audience, and their reporters work weekly, even monthly - not daily, not juggling big investigative stories with daily "1 dead, 3 injured in car accident" reporting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Maybe the newspapers could put out content worth paying for .
" They ca n't until they hire reporters who can produce it , and editors who can refine it .
With the money they make now , they ca n't afford it - truly good reporters and editors can make better money doing PR or commercial freelancing.Chicken vs. egg argument here .
Magazines get away with it because their advertisers pay a premium to target a premium audience , and their reporters work weekly , even monthly - not daily , not juggling big investigative stories with daily " 1 dead , 3 injured in car accident " reporting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Maybe the newspapers could put out content worth paying for.
"They can't until they hire reporters who can produce it, and editors who can refine it.
With the money they make now, they can't afford it - truly good reporters and editors can make better money doing PR or commercial freelancing.Chicken vs. egg argument here.
Magazines get away with it because their advertisers pay a premium to target a premium audience, and their reporters work weekly, even monthly - not daily, not juggling big investigative stories with daily "1 dead, 3 injured in car accident" reporting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142809</id>
	<title>Re:How to save the Newspaper Business</title>
	<author>madajb</author>
	<datestamp>1243630140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you'd basically like me to pay more money for less functionality?</p><p>Is your mythical electronic device a decent size, like..oh, I don't know, 15 x 12 inches or so.<br>Can I rest my breakfast bowl on it while reading? How do I split it in half so I can read one section while SWMBO reads another? Can I skip the forced interstitials? What happens when the battery runs out? If I travel out of town, can I bring my own reader or will the Plain Dealer use an incompatible format?</p><p>The physical portion of a newspaper isn't broken, it's the content that's broken.<br>What I'd like is a paper with fewer generic AP stories. Stop republishing someone else's news two days late.<br>I want more stories on local politics, businesses and concerns.<br>Tell me about cost overruns, who voted how, what that business closing really means for the economy.<br>Write a story about a local mover and shaker, an educator "who made a difference", some local history, code amendment changes, etc.</p><p>Enough with the "Lifestyle" section, with generic recipes with ingredients that aren't even in season.<br>Hell, last week we had a birding article from Florida, this has relevance to me on the other coast how, again?</p><p>I'd gladly pay the same subscription fee(and maybe even a little more) for a thinner paper that only contained articles relevant to my state.<br>I've mentioned this in the past to the editors of my local paper, but they, unfortunately, are going further the other way with more outsourced pablum.<br>Being a one-paper town, there isn't much competition. so if you want to stay even minimally informed, you need to take the bad with the good, but one can dream.</p><p>Also, a 2 year contract? What are you, a cell-phone company? Give me a break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 'd basically like me to pay more money for less functionality ? Is your mythical electronic device a decent size , like..oh , I do n't know , 15 x 12 inches or so.Can I rest my breakfast bowl on it while reading ?
How do I split it in half so I can read one section while SWMBO reads another ?
Can I skip the forced interstitials ?
What happens when the battery runs out ?
If I travel out of town , can I bring my own reader or will the Plain Dealer use an incompatible format ? The physical portion of a newspaper is n't broken , it 's the content that 's broken.What I 'd like is a paper with fewer generic AP stories .
Stop republishing someone else 's news two days late.I want more stories on local politics , businesses and concerns.Tell me about cost overruns , who voted how , what that business closing really means for the economy.Write a story about a local mover and shaker , an educator " who made a difference " , some local history , code amendment changes , etc.Enough with the " Lifestyle " section , with generic recipes with ingredients that are n't even in season.Hell , last week we had a birding article from Florida , this has relevance to me on the other coast how , again ? I 'd gladly pay the same subscription fee ( and maybe even a little more ) for a thinner paper that only contained articles relevant to my state.I 've mentioned this in the past to the editors of my local paper , but they , unfortunately , are going further the other way with more outsourced pablum.Being a one-paper town , there is n't much competition .
so if you want to stay even minimally informed , you need to take the bad with the good , but one can dream.Also , a 2 year contract ?
What are you , a cell-phone company ?
Give me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you'd basically like me to pay more money for less functionality?Is your mythical electronic device a decent size, like..oh, I don't know, 15 x 12 inches or so.Can I rest my breakfast bowl on it while reading?
How do I split it in half so I can read one section while SWMBO reads another?
Can I skip the forced interstitials?
What happens when the battery runs out?
If I travel out of town, can I bring my own reader or will the Plain Dealer use an incompatible format?The physical portion of a newspaper isn't broken, it's the content that's broken.What I'd like is a paper with fewer generic AP stories.
Stop republishing someone else's news two days late.I want more stories on local politics, businesses and concerns.Tell me about cost overruns, who voted how, what that business closing really means for the economy.Write a story about a local mover and shaker, an educator "who made a difference", some local history, code amendment changes, etc.Enough with the "Lifestyle" section, with generic recipes with ingredients that aren't even in season.Hell, last week we had a birding article from Florida, this has relevance to me on the other coast how, again?I'd gladly pay the same subscription fee(and maybe even a little more) for a thinner paper that only contained articles relevant to my state.I've mentioned this in the past to the editors of my local paper, but they, unfortunately, are going further the other way with more outsourced pablum.Being a one-paper town, there isn't much competition.
so if you want to stay even minimally informed, you need to take the bad with the good, but one can dream.Also, a 2 year contract?
What are you, a cell-phone company?
Give me a break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28150307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28146613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28148735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28147129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28147071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28156565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28148707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28147267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28145639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1644240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28156565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28145639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28147267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28147129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28150307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28146613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28148707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28147071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28148735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28143715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28144185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28140961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28141381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1644240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1644240.28142483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
