Comments on: Guest Post: National Times will respect, not ridicule, our readers

By: Unrelated blogging matter

Unrelated blogging matter — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:11:17 +0000

Livenews is dead! The campaign is OVER!

Wicked!
Fred the saboteur

By: Clinton

Clinton — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:02:29 +0000

Yes, it’s nothing new, and a well worn trail blazed by os media.

No one has mentioned that this is a shameless me-too in response to the very quickly successful News Limited ‘The Punch’.

The readers and lovers of the by-gone glory days of The National Times will be very sad to see what has become of the mast head.

Farifax fail.

By: Compared, contrasted, consumed – Pure Poison

Compared, contrasted, consumed – Pure Poison — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:34:34 +0000

[...] in the comments at Dave’s post I compared and contrasted: National Times editor Darren Goodsir: Fairfax Media’s new online site, the National Times, will deliver the best in Australian [...]

By: The National Times – The Content Makers

The National Times – The Content Makers — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:08:19 +0000

[...] think The National Times will have to do a lot better to fulfill its editor’s promise of ” the best in Australian journalism – giving readers an unprecedented depth and [...]

By: Lyn

Lyn — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:58:01 +0000

If the Guardian’s Comment is Free is the progressive/left-wing offering, here, out of interest, is the conservative effort: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/

And from Murdoch: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/ (though this doesn’t ‘stand alone’ as much as the other offerings in terms of original online content).

I guess another difference between the Oz and UK approaches is that most UK papers are stand-alones and can therefore take a newspaper-branded approach to their blog/opinion sites, whereas the Fairfax and News Australian models need to take content from across their respective empires in order to make it credible editorially.

Still, UK (and US) comparisons are worthy as both are further advanced in this sort of publishing (and the take up of it by readers) than Australia seems to be.
The Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/news/blogs/), the St Petersburg Times (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/) and the larger Washington Post and New York Times have all been doing this stuff well since 2005, or earlier.

By: John Grono

John Grono — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:56:37 +0000

If we’re going to get all misty-eyed … bring back The Nation Review.

By: David

David — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:18:19 +0000

@lyn agreed i hope that if they actually provide enough support/finance then National Times will be an Australian version. Im not sure if they are pretending maybe its they just dont really know what they want to be?

As I think a few people have pointed out in other discussions and in this article by @jerrys Fairfax often builds great online products then sinks them with poor investment…

It could possible be a platform where advertisers are able to have public debate but with a higher level of control with the off switch. It would make more sense to work with existing blog/opinion platforms as most people dont really read more than a few, why further fragment the market?

By: Lyn

Lyn — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:01:18 +0000

David – it’s also interesting to note that where both Australian models vary from the UK equivalents is that in the UK, papers don’t pretend that their opinion/blog sites are anything other than a collection of opinion pieces/blogs written by their staff writers and regular contributors, and open for debate. In Australia, both models seem to want to pretend they are something more than this. Which they are clearly not.

By: Misha

Misha — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:53:25 +0000

How smart can it be to start something new by talking about an obscure and distant past that will mean little or nothing to most readers under 50? And “celebrated” journalists? I don’t think there are many “celebrated” journalists these days. Might be smarter to be a bit more humble and try and engage readers rather than telling them how wonderful you are before the fact.

By: David

David — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:49:27 +0000

@Lyn visually it seems closer to the UK paper The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/

By: Lyn

Lyn — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:46:18 +0000

Just sounds like Fairfax’s version of the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, which launched a few years ago, and arguably brought blogging into the mainstream UK press. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree

What I find interesting is the differences in design of the The National Times and The Punch. The former presents itself like an online newspaper, the later uses a more blog-style layout.

By: jerrys

jerrys — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:11:09 +0000

FairfaxDigital seems to have lost all interest and competence in executing the modest ideas they have from time to time. A long list of poorly executed ideas over the past few years

Check what they’ve done online with thegoodfoodguide – just a waste – they really don’t care.

And National Times. Should be easy for them to at least make this a positive experience for all concerned. Its a fail so far.

By: The Worst of Perth

The Worst of Perth — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:45:09 +0000

So you can have three uni degrees and still be allowed to read NT site?

By: Guest post: National Times offers nothing new - mUmBRELLA

Guest post: National Times offers nothing new - mUmBRELLA — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:11:00 +0000

[...] There is clearly a huge yearning in the community for intelligent, level-headed debate about the news. Not just the headlines. There’s already more than enough of that around. But concise, intelligent commentary and analysis about what has happened; and what the news really means. Read more » [...]

By: Ben Shepherd

Ben Shepherd — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:11:42 +0000

good point re the punch editorial

reason i love reading the ‘brella is because you don’t get the same old ‘guest articles’ (ie free content) that B&T and Adnews pass off as news.

good work on mumbo report video – very enjoyable, really liked the harold i/view