Enough hate for "The Daily" already

I don't get the hate that's already cropping up for Rupert Murdoch's planned tablet-only news product tentatively titled "The Daily." 

I get that Murdoch is evil in a lot of media circles. But what's the harm in letting someone try something that goes against the grain? In an age where there are no sure things when it comes to monetizing news online, shouldn't we celebrate someone with a big bag of cash funding an experiment that might work? Nope, at least among critics postulating recently at Fast Company, "This Week in Google" and more. 

What kills me is too many of these critics are basing their hate on the idea of a "newspaper" online. In fact, Murdoch is proposing a tablet-only product, which opens up all kinds of fresh opportunities in retooling - but not mimicking - the things that make newspapers authoritative and valued. The guys at "This Week in Media" said as much this week. Oddly, none of them have print backgrounds. Hmm. 

OK, a little background on the drama for newbies. 

Media magnate Rupert Murdoch is proposing a digital "newspaper" that would serve tablet computers, including the iPad (and maybe only the iPad at this point). Rumors suggest the product will cost 99 cents per week and will be staffed by 100 reporters at launch (including some big names). 

And Murdoch is not alone. Virgin's Richard Branson, who flocks to new business opportunities like a moth to a streetlight, is planning a similar magazine venture.

We don't know much about Branson's venture, but tech geeks are already taking shots at Murdoch's concept, including:

• Questioning rumors The Daily will not be updated throughout the day.

Rupert Murdoch (photo courtesy of Monika Flueckiger, via Flickr Creative Commons license)"Oh, that's pathetic. Welcome to the Internet, Rupert," scoffed Leo LaPorte on this week's episode of "This Week in Google." "It's old wine in a new cask," piled on TWIG cohort Jeff Jarvis, author of the widely read Buzz Machine blog (which is on my blogroll to the right)

I would argue that maybe focusing on a single publishing cycle might not be a bad thing (huge news notwithstanding). In an age of many sources of breaking news, what's in short supply are digital-only news sources that offer a nicely packaged and consistently good analysis of the news of the day. Think of it as a guide through this crazy onslaught of 24-7 news. I'm tethered to some kind of news stream all day long, but I also get three newspapers delivered to my house daily because I like someone with expertise to curate relevant news for me. I'd love to get that same curation from a tablet-specific publication that's created with only tablets in mind. And that production flow is key. By focusing on tablet-only production, legacy print and packaging workflows can be left behind. It can and should be a different game. 

• Questioning whether 100 reporters is enough for a daily product targeting a large geographic scope.

 On TWIG, Jarvis made comparisons with several US dailies, including The New York Times, Washington Post and Newark Star-Ledger, all of which have larger news staffs. USA Today and Wall Street Journal, America's two other national dailies, also have much larger staffs than Murdoch is proposing. 

Of course, 200, 500, 1,000 reporters would be great, but 100 reporters focused on one platform seems like a good start, particularly if they're not trying to cover everything but are focusing on delivering thoughtful insight into the stories that really are important to us (as opposed to being important to journalists or sources). 

Om Malik, namesake of the GigaOm blog and a guest on this week's "TWIG," is relatively upbeat about Murdoch's mission but questions The Daily's rumored staffing ratio of 100 reporters and 6 engineers. "That is a model from the 20th century. Today's model is 100 engineers and six reporters ... Unfortunately, the old media people don't quite get it that they're not in the business of news, they're in the business of information, right, and information comes in many different ways and many different forms. And as long as they don't quite get it, they will continue to lose money and keep trying to bottle the old wine in a new bottle, and they won't be successful. ... but at least they're spending money and doing something new." 

And while I agree with Malik's general thinking that technologists are underrated as generators of quality and valued content, he's wearing blinders. That kind of ratio won't deliver the kind of creative pop he'll need day in, day out. 

•  Vomiting on the idea of charging for a "newspaper" online: 

"Rupert fancies himself as the savior for the newspaper business," Jarvis said on TWIG. "... I think he thinks he's going to rescue the industry by saying, "people should pay and they should do what they used to do and we're doing to prove that works. Well, good freaking luck, Rupe." Jarvis later acknowledged that 99 cents a week could be a fair price, but it's clear he's hostile to paid-subscription concepts that go against ad-supported models he's long proposed on Buzz Machine. 

TWIG contributor Gina Trapani also questioned a paywall: "So, I've got an iPad with a full web browser and thousands of services that let you put together a customized news page ... but I'm going to pay 99 cents to get The Daily?"

Maybe, maybe not. But I would pay a buck a week, if the content was different, authoritative and relevant. I think many others would too. Murdoch knows tablets are a space with rich upside. He may lose millions staking his claim but there's something to be said to be a go-to product as your market grows around you. 

• Shaking their heads at rumors Murdoch will prevent linking from outside sources.

This rumor would seem to fly in the face of conventional wisdom, given the free syndication bloggers and social media sites give recommended links to news articles. But Murdoch is a stubborn man as his battles with major search engines attest, so who knows. I suspect this will be more like the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times models, where subscription-only sites allow very limited (unless you know the tricks around the paywall) inbound access for non-subscribers. 

There are other complaints, but really, can we just let the old man launch The Daily, or whatever it will be called, then judge it on its merits then instead of casting about solely on rumors and perceptions and deep-seated biases? 

Update on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 10:11 PM by Logan Molen

The Daily debuted today amid much hullabaloo. 

There's been love and there's been hate. 

Me? I really liked some stuff (the handling of photo galleries, the sports coverage) but disliked even more (videos and feeds that wouldn't load, a series of app crashes). Murdoch is spending $500,000 per week on The Daily (on top of $30 mil in development costs), and you'd think it'd be ready to ship in light of his plans to charge for access. 

As I noted in a Tweet this afternoon:

Is it just me or is The Daily really buggy & slow? I like concept & know all about launch burps but still needs QA before paywall #thedaily

I'll give The Daily a few more days then chime in with more detailed feedback. I remain open minded and see lots of upside. There's lots to like for 99 cents per week, but the aggravation factor after one day is pretty high. 

Comments

[Rich Barnes]

I just found this preview of the Daily that was right on a lot of what you predicted. This is the best story on what The Daily can and should be that I have seen. I disagree that it's buggy but respect your reaction and look forward to reading more.