Thanks for bringing the report to surface — I’ve also only skimmed thus far but one thing in particular I’m in agreement with are the terms for the divisions of media, in particular, Legacy and Participatory. They are descriptive without being derogatory, something I hadn’t considered until I had a colleague carp that “what, so I only work with old media” in response to my own title of “new media.”

BTW — happy holidays

Bill

I had a look at your paper as well. All interesting stuff, but, as always, I think your next step is to try and produce data beyond your assertions.

You say that readers should assign negative credibility to anonymous commenters. But is there any research behind this as to what the average reader thinks?

Ditto for the “echo chamber” and the “lens” effect — what do we really know? Do smart people really read every story from multiple angles? How about the people who refuse to read source X because they’d rather not work at untangling the biases?

As for NewsTrust, I have a lot of respect for Fabrice and the data he’s gleaning. But I’m just unsold on the premise (that I wanted to believe 4 years ago) that the data from an aggregated data service *drives quality improvements.* My sense is that media executives look to win awards and avoid scandals. If there’s a publisher who says “Yeah, we check NewsTrust’s numbers right after we review the web log stats…” I’ll start to believe it.

Jon

That’s disheartening.

As I’ve said (futilely, not getting myself any points), it’s a risk-shifting viewpoint, which places the greatest burdens on the weakest and least powerful .