First look: 'The Daily' for iPad promises in-depth, interactive news

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Your handle is kind of a warning



    Very funny!
  • Reply 42 of 110
    I actually like it. I've never enjoyed reading the news like I did with the Daily.. Sure news can be read for free in the web but it's just an article with pictures or videos and with that it should be free. The Daily isn't just boring text with pics or videos it's more than that.



    The articles, I don't see anything Murdoch-ish or News Corp-ish spin to it.. So far.



    Anyways I like it a lot and 99 cents a week is pretty reasonable for the type of content and interactivity I will never get on paper and not even on a website.



    That's just me..
  • Reply 43 of 110
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,355member
    Kudos to the GUI designers at least- this looks gorgeously, very well presented and polished.

    If I still had my iPad, I definitely would have given it a shot, regardless of my thoughts of the parent company and assumed political stances. It seems fun to use and browse.
  • Reply 43 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post


    How elitist of you. Oh, I can't be bothered with TV. It's so beneath me.



    ....huh?
  • Reply 45 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post


    How elitist of you. Oh, I can't be bothered with TV. It's so beneath me.



    It's not elitist if it's true, and it's also not elitist if everyone has a choice about where they get their information. And it is true that 99% of TV new is utter rot, and it is also true nobody has to watch it.
  • Reply 46 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stan_Timek View Post


    I get a kick out of how upset some people get over FOX news, their reporting, and management. Is FOX biased? Yes. Is ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. biased? Yes! They all are.



    It is only natural that people have a bias for the kind of news, the style of news that they want to consume. It is the task of the organization to give the people what they want - it is a business after all.



    Love one or hate one - the best way to be informed is to read/listen/watch to several diverse sources and then think for yourself.



    You're right in that no organization can be completely unbiased. But Fox News is by far the worst of them all! ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and BBC are all relatively centrist. MSNBC is left, Fox is right. Al-Jazeera is just out there.



    But I respectfully disagree that the task of the organization is "to give the people what they want". NO!! The basic tenets of journalism are to be unbiased (as much as possible), check your facts, and be free of outside influences (e.g. sponsors, political leaders). There are certain occupations that we PAY to be straight with us: judges, doctors, and journalists are among them. A doctor isn't supposed to just tell a patient what they want to hear. Likewise, it is NOT okay for any news organization to "give the people what they want". Sure, if people demand tech news give them tech news. If the people demand editorials, give them editorials. But it's a whole different thing to tailor CONTENT or political leanings to your audience.



    No organization is perfect, but Fox is the worst.
  • Reply 47 of 110
    Quit with the political commentary. I want this app to succeed because what it represents just might save paid journalism. Other news services will build upon what is being done here. So sick of people being obsessed with "free." I'll be VERY happy to pay for news delivered in a dependable, journalistic manner to a device I carry with me everywhere. A buck a week? What an incredible deal.
  • Reply 48 of 110
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,712member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by durangotang View Post


    Why support Murdoch?



    Because he provides content some people want? Because no on else stepped up to the plate to try a totally new way at publishing news? Because even if you hate his guts and never intend to download The Daily you will benefit as others rush to copy the model if he's successful?



    Quote:

    Epic fail.



    Only for you. The intolerance of some people never ceases to amaze me



    If you don't care for him that's one thing, but to constantly whine about it just shows how shallow people of your ilk are. Freedom of speech - but only when it agree's with your worldview?
  • Reply 49 of 110
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,712member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post


    eventually "free" won't be free anymore. Case in point: the NY Times is preparing to activate their pay wall on nytimes.com. The wall street journal is already behind a pay wall. If you want watered down AP feeds and non-professional bloggers, then fine, that will always be free. But true journalists need to get paid.



    Yup.



    Plus there is value in the organization and dare I say it - curation - of the content.



    If I can get information I'm interested in with minimal fuss than $1 a week or $40 a year is nothing.
  • Reply 50 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dangcookie View Post


    Quit with the political commentary. I want this app to succeed because what it represents just might save paid journalism. Other news services will build upon what is being done here. So sick of people being obsessed with "free." I'll be VERY happy to pay for news delivered in a dependable, journalistic manner to a device I carry with me everywhere. A buck a week? What an incredible deal.



    I agree, regarding the direction this app seems to be pointing us; I was just disappointed in the actual content on offer.



    As for paid, I'm definitely with you. I pay for a monthly sub to the daily NYTimes for my Kindle, and it's a fantastic bargain -- nearly all of the print content, no ads, delivered effortlessly every morning without my having to go hunting for it. It's amazing that so much of the Times content has been free up to now.



    Of course, I'm biased, since I'm a full-time freelance writer. I happen to think people should get paid for their work. Even if that work is something as "easy" as writing.



    Bob
  • Reply 51 of 110
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,712member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dcarmell View Post


    The interface may be neat, although I see Gruber describes it as not groundbreaking and "laggy" in at least one area.



    Given his politics I'm not surprised in the least that he's panning it. If it's honest criticism (I don't know, I haven't had a chance to download and look at it myself) that's one thing - if he's just being nit picky because of the publisher that's a shame since I think efforts such as this should be encouraged.
  • Reply 52 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post


    You're right in that no organization can be completely unbiased. But Fox News is by far the worst of them all! ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and BBC are all relatively centrist. MSNBC is left, Fox is right. Al-Jazeera is just out there.



    But I respectfully disagree that the task of the organization is "to give the people what they want". NO!! The basic tenets of journalism are to be unbiased (as much as possible), check your facts, and be free of outside influences (e.g. sponsors, political leaders). There are certain occupations that we PAY to be straight with us: judges, doctors, and journalists are among them. A doctor isn't supposed to just tell a patient what they want to hear. Likewise, it is NOT okay for any news organization to "give the people what they want". Sure, if people demand tech news give them tech news. If the people demand editorials, give them editorials. But it's a whole different thing to tailor CONTENT or political leanings to your audience.



    No organization is perfect, but Fox is the worst.



    Very well said. For the last 25 years or so, the press has been blasted with generic claims of media bias, mainly from partisans on the right, to the point where many people just assume it must be so. During that time cable news has emerged as the perfect vehicle for catering to preconceived ideological positions, to tell a selected slice of the audience only what they want to hear. So now many if not most people assume that's the way journalism is supposed to work. Trying to explain otherwise has become a virtually hopeless task. Trying to get them to listen to or watch or read media that isn't designed to reinforce their own views is equally hopeless. Doing so is probably too boring, or disturbing, or both.
  • Reply 53 of 110
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,712member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stan_Timek View Post


    Love one or hate one - the best way to be informed is to read/listen/watch to several diverse sources and then think for yourself.



    That takes too much work. It's far easier to label and then castigate the entire label as "evil" then pick and choose individual issues. Not much effort (or thought) required for that
  • Reply 54 of 110
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,355member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post


    You're right in that no organization can be completely unbiased. But Fox News is by far the worst of them all! ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and BBC are all relatively centrist. MSNBC is left, Fox is right. Al-Jazeera is just out there.

    .



    Have you ever tired listening to AlJazeera English? It's not quite as 'out there' as you may think. Ignore the name for a moment, and watch them with an open mind for a few days. It's very similar to BBC. I think you'll find them extremely professional, in depth, with intelligent and thorough analysis with a tone mostly free of overt opinion. Don't even dare compare them to Fox News, from a professional and level of bias standpoint. They're on completely ends of the spectrum- not in ideology, but in professionalism, intelligence and demeanor.
  • Reply 55 of 110
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,712member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    t's also trivially true that any web-based or iPad based news is going to be even more to the "info-tainment" end of the spectrum than the "journalism" end of the spectrum. A "multi-media" newspaper is kind of lightweight news by definition, not hard-core journalism.



    Feeling pretty morally superior today aren't we?
  • Reply 56 of 110
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Given his politics I'm not surprised in the least that he's panning it. If it's honest criticism (I don't know, I haven't had a chance to download and look at it myself) that's one thing - if he's just being nit picky because of the publisher that's a shame since I think efforts such as this should be encouraged.



    So, you thought it would be best to just go ahead and criticize him, find out if his criticism was justified later? Sort of a "shoot first" policy?
  • Reply 57 of 110
    irelandireland Posts: 17,785member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevemost View Post


    Crashes often (3X in 10 minutes). No Search.



    If it's curated properly you don't need search. It's news. All you need is a few category buttons.
  • Reply 58 of 110
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


    Have you ever tired listening to AlJazeera English? It's not quite as 'out there' as you may think. Ignore the name for a moment, and watch them with an open mind for a few days. It's very similar to BBC. I think you'll find them extremely professional, in depth, with intelligent and thorough analysis with a tone mostly free of overt opinion. Don't even dare compare them to Fox News, from a professional and level of bias standpoint. They're on completely ends of the spectrum- not in ideology, but in professionalism, intelligence and demeanor.



    Their coverage of Egypt is excellent. In fact, I'd love to see an Aljazeera iPad app-- having been largely shut out of the US broadcast market (for reasons having more to do with popular belligerence after 9/11 than any non-existent "death to America" nonsense) they've done pretty well for themselves with their web presence. An iPad app would be a great way to extend that end-run around US corporate media.



    Really, anyone imagining that Aljazeera involves turbaned "Arabs" shouting about Allah should take a quick look, you might learn something.
  • Reply 59 of 110
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,712member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post


    The other news operations don't have that predetermined mandate to skew everything a certain way.



    Really? Perhaps your are blind to everyone else and only notice Fox's "Bias" because all the other news organizations align with your world view?



    Quote:

    It's very easy to imagine Murdoch finding a way to play on both sides of the fence here. And make huge dollars at both.



    Wait, I thought he was shilling his political message? You mean he just wants to make money? That ruffian!



    I swear, when did being successful become something to be socially scorned? What kind of a wussy assed country are we turning into anyway?
  • Reply 60 of 110
    kvh14kvh14 Posts: 19member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Very well said. For the last 25 years or so, the press has been blasted with generic claims of media bias, mainly from partisans on the right, to the point where many people just assume it must be so. During that time cable news has emerged as the perfect vehicle for catering to preconceived ideological positions, to tell a selected slice of the audience only what they want to hear. So now many if not most people assume that's the way journalism is supposed to work. Trying to explain otherwise has become a virtually hopeless task. Trying to get them to listen to or watch or read media that isn't designed to reinforce their own views is equally hopeless. Doing so is probably too boring, or disturbing, or both.



    I just want to say that I thoroughly appreciate the helpful advice in this thread. It's nice when people tell me what I should watch and what I should read. Imagine how confused I would be if I had to make up my own mind.



    "generic claims of media bias..." That's exactly what I'm talking about. If I had not read that I would have wasted all kinds of time reading through the voluminous scholarly studies on this topic and ultimately, I'm sure, just ended up confused. Now I know, from a doctor no less, what my opinion should be. Thanks :-)
Sign In or Register to comment.