Medienspiegel.ch

«You've already guessed, of course. Both require paid subscriptions, and therefore, both do not support deep linking. In other words, both are nearly impossible to find if you get your daily dose of news, analysis and opinion from the blogosphere. [...] I find, increasingly, that sites which wall themselves off are becoming irrelevant. [...] In today's ecosystem of news, the greatest sin is to cut oneself off from the conversation. Both the Economist and the [Wall Street] Journal have done that.»

Battelles Vorschlag:
«Take the plunge and allow deep linking. Notice I did not say abandon paid registration, in fact, I support it. Publishers can let the bloggers link to any story they post, but limit further consumption of their site to paid subscribers.»

Dass ein solches Vorgehen durchaus Sinn machen kann, zeigt der «Guardian» in einem Artikel mit dem Titel «Why bloggers are good for profits».

Über den Link Generator von Aaron Swartz ermöglicht es übrigens die «New York Times» Bloggern seit längerem, Artikel zu verlinken, die auch nach der Verschiebung ins Archiv (nach 7 Tagen?) noch anwählbar sind.

Noch einen Schritt weiter geht Dan Gillmor, Journalist beim «San Jose Mercury News», Über-Blogger und Autor des Buches We the Media. In einem langen und sehr interessanten Gespräch mit Journalismus-Professor Jay Rosen meint Gillmor unter anderem:

«I think that organizations like the [New York] Times are caught between two worlds. The Times' archives are behind this <pay wall>. And that's a real moneymaker for them. But there are some sites that are pay-per-view from the get-go, like The Wall Street Journal, which for all practical purposes does not exist in Google. But at some point I think most news sites are going to say, <We can do better on revenue by making all of the archives available for free with perma-links, with the bargain being that we will have targeted advertising.> When you do a search on keywords there will be things popping up in the story or alongside the story that are like Google's ad sense, or whatever comes along that is better than Google ad sense. And we may find out — I'm speculating, I don't have a model for this, that keywords and ads are a more profitable way for traditional organizations to monetize what is quite expensive to produce. It would have a secondary effect that, in the end, becomes a primary effect: the site becomes even more credible and even more a place to go when you need to know things.»

Wenn das kein Food for Thought für die hiesigen Medien ist!

Update, 26. Januar 2005: Dan Gillmor doppelt nach: «Newspapers: Open Your Archives»