NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century

This is just bizarre. As NBC continues its screwed up process of broadcasting the Olympics by delaying the actual telecast of important events until prime time, apparently a bunch of folks are pissed off that real news sources are reporting on what’s actually happened. They’re targeting the wrong thing, of course. If they’re upset that the news is being reported before it’s being shown on TV, the real problem is NBC’s decision not to show stuff live on TV or to webcast it for those who would prefer to see it live. But people are taking out their anger on newspapers who are giving live reports of what’s actually happening:

“Could you please ask the editor of the front Web page to not name the winners within the headlines/sub-headlines?” asked Ken Waters of Phoenix. Matt Gooch of Harrisonburg, Va. said he was disappointed when The Times reported the results of the men’s downhill before NBC showed the event. “This is not Taliban news, nor TARP news, or even Paula Jones type news,” Gooch said. “There is no meaning to this except the anticipation and suspense that sports viewers feel watching the event live. Please help me understand why your organization needs to spoil the experience.”

Other news organizations are hearing similar complaints. Liz Spayd, managing editor of The Washington Post, told a reader who asked for a spoiler alert yesterday that, “It’s an issue we’re trying to evaluate right now.” She said that it’s a tricky question “for a news site whose greatest value is to break news. We don’t want to be the game spoilers, but when big news happens — an unexpected gold for the U.S., for example, we want it prominently visible on the site.”

Thankfully, the NY Times “has no intention of changing its approach,” recognizing that it’s a news organization, rather than a business to prop up NBC’s ridiculous broadcast scheduling choices.

(Continue reading on TechDirt)

Source: techdirt.com

Dear newspapers: I will pay for your content, once

I am a willing subscriber to The Wall Street Journal’s online edition. It’s $100 a year, which is a lot for online content, especially considering that you can generally find a way to get for free. But I’m a professional writer, and times are hard for all of us. I consider it a professional courtesy to pay, even handsomely, for excellent work. What I won’t do is pay for twice. Unfortunately, that’s what the WSJ wants me to do:

I recently downloaded the iPhone app for the WSJ, and discovered that getting access to the stories that I’m paying for already on the Web was going to cost me another $52 a year. And that’s the discounted rate for existing subscribers. iPhone and BlackBerry app access is $78 a year if you don’t already have either a Web or print subscription. It’s only if you subscribe to both the Web and print editions of the WSJ that you get iPhone app access for “free.”

This is madness. I’m paying for online access to the stories. Why on earth should the publication charge me for it twice, or differently, just because I want to view that content, sometimes, on another connected device?

A Dow Jones spokesperson replied, “Each platform or device provides a different experience, and our model reflects that.”

By this logic, I’m surprised the WSJ doesn’t try to charge me an additional fee for reading stories on a second computer. At least a WSJ Web password can be used on any browser, including the browser on the iPhone.

But what if I want to read on yet another device, like an e-book? Actually, and sadly, Amazon’s Kindle content delivery system seems to take a play from the Journal’s book. If you’re already a subscriber to the WSJ in any form, don’t ask about the Kindle version of it. You don’t want to know. The Kindle system is so divorced from its content producers that people who subscribe to electronic editions of one service, such as The New York Times’ Electronic Edition at $175 a year, must pay again to get that same content delivered to their e-readers. In the case of the Times, that’s another $167 a year. For the same stories, except stripped of color.

Granted, for most papers so far there are no corresponding non-Kindle payment plans. You only have to pay for USA Today if you want it on your Kindle ($144 a year), but it’s still completely free over the Web; even the iPhone app gives you the content for nothing, save the crossword, which is a paid app.

Here’s a better idea for Amazon, the Journal, and the Times: Set up a way for users to subscribe to a content service, and let them get that content electronically wherever they want. Kindle, iPhone, Web, whatever. It should be a right: if you have to pay for content, it should follow you around like a devoted puppy. (To be fair, let’s let newspapers charge extra for actually delivering newspapers, since printing and distribution does incur non-trivial additional expenses.)

(Via Rafe’s Radar on CNet)

Google to Start Selling Own Phone Next Year

Google Inc. has designed a cellphone it plans to sell directly to consumers as soon as next year, according to people familiar with the matter.

The phone is called the Nexus One and is being manufactured for Google by HTC Corp., these people said. It runs Android, the operating system for mobile phones that Google developed, they added.

But unlike the more than half-dozen Android phones made by phone manufacturers today, Google designed virtually the entire software experience behind the phone, from the applications that run on it to the look and feel of each screen.

The Internet giant is taking a new, and potentially risky, approach to selling the device. Rather than selling the phone through a wireless carrier—the way the bulk of phones are sold in the U.S. today—Google plans to sell the Nexus One itself online. Users will have to buy cellular service for the device separately.

(Continue reading on The Wall Street Journal)

Top