Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010
 |  Follow Newser on Twitter   Friend Newser on Facebook   Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds   Subscribe to Newser emails Newsletters

OFF THE GRID

Mark Cuban Is a Big Fat Idiot—News Will Stay Free

Aug 12, 09 | 7:33 AM   byMichael Wolff
Get posts from Michael Wolff via email (Sample)

Follow him on Twitter @MichaelWolffNYC

Share
I actually like Mark Cuban. In my experience almost nobody else does—they find him to be bumptious and arrogant and to have gotten rich by an unfair fluke (he had a company called Broadcast.com, which he sold at the top of the dot.com craze to Yahoo, and which fizzled shortly thereafter). But I find Mark—who has gone on to buy the Dallas Mavericks—to be a man who is living the life and clearly enjoying himself.

He is also a man of snappy, attention-deficit sort of opinions (some of which, for all I know, may be wise). His opinion the other day, to which, I assume, he gave his usual amount of consideration, involved Newser.

His position in the great debate about paid news versus free news is that one of the major enemies of news-gathering organizations is Newser and other aggregators. He flatly rejects the idea that aggregators often espouse: We’re doing a service to news organizations because a portion of our our readers click through to the original story. He does a bit of quick math to show that news organizations that have created the content make, in essence, nothing from aggregators. His solution is that official news sites should block aggregators—and that this will ultimately undermine our credibility. “When someone is sent from the site, let them fall on a page that lets them know that you don’t consider Newser.com a valid news or reference site,” he advises news organizations to remonstrate. “Newser.com has chosen to front end our content and we don’t appreciate it. As a result, we are blocking access,” he wants these mainstream news organizations to say.


(Mark Cuban, AP Photo)


He is right in one regard: People who go to aggregator sites don’t really click through to the original story. But he misses the profound and game-changing aspect of that fact: They don’t want to read the original story. Habits have changed on the Internet, where information comes faster and from many more sources. Hence, news needs to be short and it needs to be aggregated, which is precisely what brand-specific news sites lack: News from diverse outlets that can be consumed quickly. Here’s the rub: People don’t want news (there’s too much of that), they want aggregation (ie, efficiency and ease), which there isn’t enough of.

Oh, yes, and free.

Cuban misunderstands this, too—but he is hardly the only one.

The rap is that the Internet has committed some horrible evil by somehow turning news free—and, worse, getting news consumers to expect that it will be free.

Somebody’s smoking something: News has never been paid for. Practically speaking, it’s always been free. It may be that no one has ever in the history of time charged for anything other than the cost of production and delivery of news and usually not even that. The deal has been penny newspapers and free broadcast. News, Mark, has, is, and shall remain, an ad-sponsored form of media.

UPDATE: Mark Cuban responds.

More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com.

24 comments
VIEWING:
 
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 12, 09 1:52 PM CDT
If you're going to say something nice, always good to do it twice.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Mikey_nyc
Aug 12, 09 2:55 PM CDT
I found this comment really funny. First there's this: "I find Newser to be something different from all other news sites. There's lots of news and it's fun to get it. You feel good afterwards."......and then this: "Of course, I wouldn't pay for this" Of course! Ouch. That pretty well sums up why news sites are doomed. Congratulations Michael, you've got a product that's different, has a lot of news, is fun, and makes the user feel good....and no way will they pay for it.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 12, 09 3:03 PM CDT
And, judging from your post, they won't (or at least you won't) read it either. But to recap: nobody has ever paid for news. Nowhere, nohow. News has always been supported by advertising. Period.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
thibaud
Aug 12, 09 5:06 PM CDT
Not completely true, Michael. Agree about political and general-interest news, but *trade* news concerning fast-changing industries and markets-- financial, fashion, computer/hi-tech-- doesn't need to rely solely on advertising. I believe the paid online model is working fine for the FT and WSJ, and I suspect it could work well for Vogue or Variety or a specialized trade mag focused on high-tech-- not junk like cNet but expert reporting on market activity.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
sarahmurthi
Aug 12, 09 10:37 AM CDT
I do click through and bought a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, because I wanted to read Noonan's op-eds during the election. My husband loves the print version which was included in the price. I may be rare but in our case the WSJ directly benefited from Newser. We never would have subscribed on our own. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
ahoving
Aug 12, 09 10:55 AM CDT
Michael, as a purely academic exercise, why don't you imagine yourself on the other side of the pay-wall argument and see whether you'd be better off. Then go look at www.PayCheckr.com. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 12, 09 3:21 PM CDT
Everybody would be better off if they got paid. This is not the point. The point is not to base your future on outcomes or business models that are unlikely to happen (in spite of paycheckr.com).
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
brianb
Aug 14, 09 3:57 PM CDT
Will you please stop spamming your PayCheckr site on all these blogs? There are a hundred micro-payment services out there and NONE of them will ever work for news content. Will I ever pay $0.02 to read a blog post? Article on WP? NO.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
critter
Aug 12, 09 11:06 AM CDT
Michael Wolff and Newser have nailed the Value Proposition for me. I want the ease, efficiency and speed. When there is a story I want to dive into, I will click through to the source. This probably happens 2-3 times a day. But I never would have known (or cared) about the source without Newser delivering it up to me. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
EmilyWSussman
Aug 12, 09 11:22 AM CDT
I HEARTILY agree. Thanks, Michael! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Reader3181
Aug 12, 09 11:31 AM CDT
I find Newser to be something different from all other news sites. There's lots of news and it's fun to get it. You feel good afterwards--not angry or riled up or confused or bored or mad at yourself for even looking, as you feel with lots of other news-related sites. Of course, I wouldn't pay for this, but I'm grateful for it. As for Mark Cuban--he's really not fat. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
rottenpeter
Aug 12, 09 1:57 PM CDT
This is simply the news value chain as it is today. All the way at the left of it is the raw production of news, followed by numerous value-adding steps to achieve quality, deliverability, and profitability in multiple venues and with multiple players engaged, all somewhat dependent on each other. Why people still object to news aggregation, two decades after it became commonplace baffles me. Do they find museums objectionable as art aggregators? Do they object to supermarkets as food aggregators? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
thibaud
Aug 12, 09 3:01 PM CDT
I don't read much original news reportage because very little of it is actually *news*, and of that, not very much has any real significance. Not for nothing was the newspaper known as "fish and chips paper." However, there's a great deal of online content that, while lacking in time-sensitivity or urgency, nonetheless fits the Crichton formula of "true stuff I didn't know before." THAT stuff-- for me, it's most anything written by Michael Kinsley, James Fallows, Joel Kotkin on land use/development, Jon Cohen of TNR on health, and maybe a few dozen others-- is worth paying for. And yeah, I'd pay for Michael Wolff's refreshingly independent commentary, too. Paid content shall rise again. All that's lacking is the technology platform (working on it, more later....) Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
mricheson
Aug 12, 09 6:30 PM CDT
"News has always been paid for by advertising." That's exactly what is wrong with the news. I would happily pay for well-written news that is free from small-minded publishers who are more worried about schmoozing with companies than giving people valuable content. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
C Bayers
Aug 12, 09 7:32 PM CDT
Aggregation is of course nothing new; colonial and early U.S. newspapers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries depended heavily on stories clipped from out-of-town publications. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
BMcC
Aug 12, 09 9:07 PM CDT
Michael- you can both be right here, cash is going to change hands, how many middle men or companies are involved will determine the profit level at the content creator's end. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Kenneth
Aug 12, 09 9:38 PM CDT
News aggregation is a perfectly serviceable pursuit, particularly, as Newser's founder points out, in a world where there is too much news for any working professional to sort through. But justifying the mission of aggregators doesn't seem to solve the economic riddle of the sources of original reporting. After all, whose news is Newser aggregating? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Darian
Aug 12, 09 11:13 PM CDT
So, essentially you're saying that Mark Cuban's thesis (taken to its logical conclusion) is to block Google or any company that aggregates content from either offering search results and/or taking people to the resulting page of those search results. In essence, your surmise that Mark's premise is that there is no value in aggregation or in providing a structure to other people's content that allows a user to more easily find and consume some form of that content. I don't buy it. Cuban is too smart for that. I'll go back and read his post... Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
EmilyWSussman
Aug 13, 09 7:42 AM CDT
Team AggreGREATors! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Swifty
Aug 13, 09 11:52 AM CDT
Newser has really changed the way I consume news. I feel like I'm not missing anything important and I scan the worlds events in a logical and chronological way. And I do click through occassionally to sources that I never would have visited otherwise. In addition I would happily pay Newser $3.95 a month if that's what it takes for them to license content from news sources that go towards a pay model in the future. I, for one, hope that Newser survives and thrives in the future. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
@comradity
Aug 13, 09 1:38 PM CDT
Cuban and Wolff are both wrong. Aggregation is worth paying for when value is added. For example, analyzing all sides of the issue, or, posting and responding to comments from both sides of the issue. When aggregation is biased and comments filtered to reflect only those that support one point of view, aggregators like newser.com add no value. But you get what you pay for. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
bewilderbeast
Aug 14, 09 9:28 AM CDT
So far it seems the AggreGators are leading the Mavericks by, oh about 10 to 1? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
@comradity
Aug 15, 09 5:02 AM CDT
So Michael, what do you think about Al Neuharth's call for "All the News that's Fit to Buy"? http://twurl.nl/ppckup Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
ahoving
Aug 17, 09 8:13 AM CDT
Again, there's only one way to settle this argument: just do it. Why don't you try it, Michael, put a short post each day behind a PayCheckr button and see what happens? (and I'll stop spamming when folks start talking about the specifics of my model instead of just insisting it won't work) Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Feb 9, 10 | 7:46 AM

It’s the Sex, Stupid   

Feb 8, 10 | 7:10 AM

For Me, Palin Scores

Feb 5, 10 | 8:39 AM

Politics Has Lost Its Power. That’s Why There’s Gridlock

Feb 4, 10 | 8:07 AM

Rupert Murdoch Is Mad as Hell

Feb 3, 10 | 8:00 AM

Sarah Palin, Inc. Has a Problem

Feb 2, 10 | 12:14 PM

Obama’s Deficit Faux-Hawk

Feb 2, 10 | 8:32 AM

Jenny Sanford, Andrew Young, Gayle Haggard Tell Everything You Always Want to Know About Sex—Other People's

Feb 1, 10 | 8:12 AM

James O’Keefe: What Did Glenn Beck Know, and When Did He Know It?

Jan 29, 10 | 7:02 AM

JD Salinger, and His Way, Are Dead

Jan 28, 10 | 6:57 AM

The iPad Is Political

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS