Posted on 07/11/2011 10:15:41 AM PDT by GOPGuide
Right now if you go to newsweek.com, you'll see a basic magazine website, updated with content from the print version of the mag and a top navigation bar that directs you to content on its sister site, dailybeast.com. But starting July 19, we hear, newsweek.com will no longer exist. Instead that URL will redirect users to a channel on the Daily Beast site, like its current "politics," "entertainment," and "fashion" verticals. The Newsweek channel will still have all the archived magazine content from before (unlike Time, Newsweek puts all of its print content online), and it will be edited and updated once a day to rotate features. Newsweek/Daily Beast editor Tina Brown and Chief Digital Officer Daniel Blackman decided it made the most sense to have all-new non-magazine content appear on the Beast homepage. As it is, that's how the system has been working for some weeks now, but the death of the newsweek.com URL marks the official end of what was once a fully staffed and hugely trafficked site in its own right.
The three guys who still read Newsweak will be very, very sad....
Victory in the War on Error...
Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING
newsweak print edition remains in circulation because of tax subsidized subscriptions for public libraries, public schools, public universities, etc.
Defund the Left.
Seems to me it would be cheaper to fold the paper copy and keep the online copy.
But, if nobody goes to the online site, I guess you’re boned either way.
BTTT to steal later when I’m not on a work computer
That does seem counterintuitive.
Here's how someone, possibly employed by the website saw things when the idea of shutting it down was first discussed:
While high-level print editors were taking sleek black towncars to and from the office (and everywhere in between, including, on at least one instance, from DC to New York), this was a staff who slept on grimy couches while reporting on the road; forking out their own funds, at times, just to produce good work. The disparity in work hours, in pay, in resources—it was comical. And it was only telling that not so long ago—let’s say five years—one high-level company executive had to be corrected about the Website’s URL: no, Newsweek.com wasn’t the same thing as the internal Newsweek intranet.
So maybe it's a cultural/tribal thing. The snobs at the magazine don't get and don't care about the web and their webserfs.
Well, at least they can claim that Newsweek is a ‘revolutionary’ company and leading a new trend: dropping the internet for the print edition. Nobody else ever done that. I wonder how much the six dentists pay for their waiting-room materials.
Newsweak
Who cares?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.