Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
parliament house.gif
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Commentary
Media
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
Cartoons
South Australian Links
Other
www.thought-factory.net
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

National Times « Previous | |Next »
September 14, 2009

Fairfax have introduced their online commentary magazine Natonal Times, which is in competition with News Ltd's The Punch. The latter is more a tabloid style magazine with different voices and style, whilst the former, basically a resurrected masthead from the mid 80s, is more broadsheet commentary. It promises lively, intelligent engaged debate.

Does it deliver?

Firstly, there is nothing new in the voices in the National Times, as they are just the usual Fairfax commentators collected into one online place without a new visual design or style. No new ground is being broken, and there is no indication that The National Times will develop into an Australian version of The Atlantic or Prospect magazine. That online space is occupied by The Monthly and New Matilda. So why bother with the National Times?

Secondly, one question we could ask is: what is the National Times trying to become if it is not just a collection of existing articles from The Age and Sydney Morning Herald? Is there any original material? If there is new content, then it is buried. Surely Fairfax don't expect that putting this behind a pay wall will work.

Thirdly, the National Times appears to be a defensive attempt to block News Ltd. A counter move as it were with little in the way of an online strategy that recognizes how the commentary world has changed with the emergence of the political bloggers. The boundaries have changed. There is no vision of the future in The National times, and no innovation even in terms of dialogue, use of links, use of Flickr or collaborative networked journalism.

The National Times is still bounded by the 20th century know it all mass media in which the journalists acted as the gatekeepers. They are not going to going to where the conversation is taking place. They are waiting for it to come to them, or think that they are the conversation.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 1:22 PM | | Comments (7)
Comments

Comments

We've been wondering the same thing. There seems to be a small set of new content in the form of their "blogs", but the site's purpose and layout are pretty incoherent.

The Punch launched with a clearly different look, its content was differentiated from other News Ltd sites, and its layout clearly differentiated between aggregated and original content. If Fairfax wanted the NT to become the hub for all of its opinion content then I would have thought their newspapers' sites would need to be changed so that opinion content wasn't hosted there as well.

Tobias,
maybe Fairfax are into organic growth? My judgment is that they--McCarthy + Co have little idea about building an online commentary presence in a digital world.

As you say Gary, all they've done is aggregate. It's a feed reader with ads. I can't see the logic.

The Punch isn't exactly Qualityville, but they've done all the right things to attract the biggest possible audience. Getting Steve Fielding to provide free copy has worked well for them, and they're drawing attention to themselves through means like Twitter and live blogging Question Time and building a sense of community. Leigh Sales and Mark Colvin lend it polish while the occasional nutjob politician takes care of sensationalism. For all that could be said about design, and the masthead, it's sufficiently unique to merit terms like 'fresh' and 'different'.

I can't see the Fairfax offering doing anything like that.

Lyn,
yeah the National Times is a very basic building block. It is hard to see what comes next. I'm not sure that Fairfax has much idea.

It's sad for anyone who remembers the original National Times of a generation ago.
THAT was a newspaper!

it is unclear what the conversation is on the National Times that I am being asked to join. All I do is wander around a bunch of articles written by Fairfax journalists who never refer to anyone else. They are pretending their rivals and others don’t exist. Where are the links to the non-Fairfax world and to the political bloggers?

Editor Darren Goodsir claims the National Times is “a must-read destination for those seeking the most authoritiatve and sought after views on politics, current affairs and social analysis”. Hardly.

Maybe Fairfax directors think that the troubles experienced by their print papers would fade with the end of the global financial crisis. They just cannot envision a continual steady decline of their print papers or that their future is on the internet. The online world is the way of the future.

Online newspapers, TV and other forms of data and content will need more and more bandwidth, that is stable and faster: cable, fibre, wireless will all be the carriers of electronic editions of The Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald.