Ken Doctor has a good post for Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab on why news organizations need to be ramping up niche product development, both for individual sale and as free add-ons to make digital subscriptions worth more.
Let’s take one example. On Wednesday, the Boston Globe launched “Sunday Supper & More.” It’s a cookbook. It’s New England. And it could be the beginning of a new franchise: Expect summer, fall and winter editions each year to join this spring debut. The Globe’s staff built it with Apple’s iBooks Author tool, so it offers video within it.
Want to buy it? Not so fast. Today, Sunday Supper & More is only available to Boston Globe print, all-access, and digital subscribers. So subscription — think “membership” (the recent riff of the L.A. Times new paywall intro) — is gaining new benefits. Surprise, says the Globe, you not only get our paper, our spiffy new replica-plus edition, if that’s what you want, and our mobile apps — you also get our cool cookbooks, with more to come.
The Globe will sell the book to non-subscribers — probably at $4.99 — but will decide the timing of that sale after next week’s Globe confab at which execs and editors will plot an ebook plan for the company.
— ProPublica’s Jesse Eisinger writes about a Dallas Fed report he calls a “radical indictment of the nation’s financial system,” and particularly our too big to fail banks. Look at the language here:
The country’s biggest banks look much as they did before the 2008 financial crisis — only bigger. They have “increased oligopoly power” and “remain difficult to control because they have the lawyers and the money to resist the pressures of federal regulation,” Harvey Rosenblum, the head of the Dallas Fed’s research department, wrote in the essay.
Having seen the biggest banks make risky bets, crush the economy and get rewarded leaves “a residue of distrust for the government, the banking system, the Fed and capitalism itself,” Mr. Rosenblum wrote.
It’s one thing for the Occupy movement to point out how bailing out the biggest banks — with little cost to their executives or shareholders and creditors — has demolished credibility. It’s quite another for top officials in the Federal Reserve system to put it in an annual report.
When even central bankers are throwing around words like oligopoly and talking about plutocracy, you know there’s a problem.
— Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican budget guy, says that a Pentagon budget supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and submitted by the Defense Department is no good. It would have cut half a trillion dollars from defense budgets over a decade, but Ryan’s committee put nearly half of the money back in, saying he doesn’t believe the generals “are giving us their true advice.”
Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum notes that “Ryan Finally Meets a Budget Cut He Hates”:
Just to be absolutely clear here: if we’re talking about a program that helps the poor or the elderly or the sick, Ryan is eager to cut spending. In fact, he’s usually eager to be the biggest budget cutter in the room. But if it’s a program for the military, he won’t accept spending cuts even if the military brass supports them. In fact, he insists on raising their budget.
For some reason, this is known in mainstream circles as being a “deficit hawk.”

"It’s one thing for the Occupy movement to point out how bailing out the biggest banks"
What type of drugs is the reporter on... the Occupy movement fully supported the bailouts. The Tea party is the ones that flipped out over the bailout.
Also another crack induced moment?
"Having seen the biggest banks make risky bets, crush the economy and get rewarded leaves “a residue of distrust for the government, the banking system, the Fed and capitalism itself,” Mr. Rosenblum wrote."
In capitalism the banks wouldn't have gotten a bailout... clearly he seems to be confusing capitalism with socialism and the statement should read as such
"Having seen the biggest banks make risky bets, crush the economy and get rewarded leaves “a residue of distrust for the government, the banking system, the Fed and socialism itself,” Mr. Rosenblum wrote."
Also very confused by this statement
“remain difficult to control because they have the lawyers and the money to resist the pressures of federal regulation,”
Federal regulation/regulators are knew deep in this stuff helping the banks... bypass "regulation" the lawyers are just backup if the payed government goons get challenged on the loopholes they use.
Plus an easy way to counter all the lawyer is to make the regulation SIMPLE AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND WITH NO LOOPHOLES.
But then you wouldn't need a host of lawyers thus putting them out of jobs, wouldn't need a host of fed regulates thus putting them out of a jobs, wouldn't have the rich powerful banks having a completely stacked court system where they can sue all the small banks to death, wouldn't have massive loopholes for big banks to scam out of paying taxes, etc, etc, etc plus worse of all obama and other nutbags wouldn't be able to rake in millions in kickbacks from this banks. That would lead to fairer elections and we all know that can't be allowed.
#1 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 01:07 AM
"What type of drugs is the reporter on... the Occupy movement fully supported the bailouts. The Tea party is the ones that flipped out over the bailout.
Also another crack induced moment?"
Robo *shakes head* what can you say.
The Occupy movement didn't start until after the Arab Spring riots had brought down Egypt's government. 2011.
The bailouts began before Barack Obama's election in 2008.
Honestly, uninformed and highly medicated people like yourself should go somewhere where getting the basic facts correct doesn't matter. Free republic I hear is fun. Didn't that didn't that doctor denial character offer you refuge at his website? Here you are just embarrassing yourself.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 02:34 AM
As per standard thimbles you only make yourself look like a fool. The occupy movement was on TV all the time supporting the bank bailouts and in fact demanding more and more bailouts. Hey though when has videos, police reports and reality been enough convince you of anything.
#3 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 02:44 AM
Wow. No, ows did not support bank bailouts and no, they never called for more bank bailouts and, if they had supported them to the degree you claim, I'm sure you can easily dig a bunch of those links up for us to watch and read.
A claim that stupid really should be substantiated before made.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 03:46 AM
once again reality and facts get in the way of your fantasy thimbles...
just 1
And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html
that was earlier in the bowel movement. Then of course the "leaders" of OWS got on CNN and MSNBC and stated repeated they supported the bailouts...
But hey once again lets not let facts get in the way of your fantasy.
#5 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 11:58 AM
That's what you got? 49ish percent of people believe the bailouts were necessary?
You know, idiot, when someone suffers a heart attack and requires a bypass, family members may think getting one's chest cut open is necessary but that doesn't mean that they support chest cutting as a generally applicable principle nor that they support the lifestyle habits which lead to the necessity of a bypass nor that they support the efficacy of a shoddily done procedure which has let rot seep into the tissue.
If you thought the market would have corrected itself in 2008, you are an idiot. Hank Paulson was an idiot, he let Lehman Brothers implode and it damn near sucked the rest of the global economy down with it. At that time, bailouts were necessary. That doesn't mean that we supported bailout money to pay for AIG bonuses, Goldman Sach positions 100 cents on the dollar, liquidity injections to purchase non-voting shares in corrupt institutions, the 0% federal reserve loans lent to banks to purchase us bonds, the complete defanging of the criminal justice system when it comes to finance, and a dozen other things which protected the wealth and privilege of corrupt actors.
One of those things being the retaining of Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and hordes of other culpable agents within government under whose watch the bailouts became necessary.
Ows doesn't support the policies which enabled the meltdown and continue to support the perps responsible. They recognize the reality that something had to be done while the global economy laid seizing on the table. And even given that, the most generous figures you can summon show only half the ows people acknowledge the necessity at that time.
No one in OWS thinks we should have more taxpayer bailouts of the banks. You are lying.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 01:04 PM
dance thimbles dance... occupy supports the bailouts period... your not going to find 49% of tea party supporting the bailouts in fact bet it would be hard to find even 10%. The tea party didn't go on CNN and or TV outlets and say again and again on video they supported the bailouts.
The fact is anyone with a brain knows the bailouts were completely unnecessary, OWS is on the record supporting the big bank bailouts and DEMANDING yes DEMANDING MORE BAILOUTS. Bet they supported the GM bailout... because it was "necessary" same with all the bailouts they support they are "necessary" of course if they don't support a bailout then that makes the bailout "unnecessary" doesn't it because only bailouts supported by OWS are "necessary"... classic socialist/totalitarian thinking at its best.
You keep running your mouth confirming to everyone your a fool.
#7 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 01:27 PM
Robo thick: "What type of drugs is the reporter on... the Occupy movement fully supported the bailouts."
Reality: Bailouts happened in 2008. OWS happened in 2011. Based on a wsj editorial's data, 49ish percent of OWS people believe the bailouts were necessary and 100% of the people object to how wall street has been let off the hook for their actions, which was why OWS-you know- occupies wall street.
Reality pt2: you're a moran.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 03:10 PM
lol keep dancing thimbles keep dancing occupy movement supported the bailouts because they were "necessary"... as in necessary for more socialism but the added socialism and oppressive government o and free stuff for everyone... did i mention the free stuff for everyone?, didn't happen and now they are butt hurt that socialist is what history has ALWAYS recorded it as not the fantasy drug induced disillusion they were told to believe...
The "leaders" supported them... the majority demanded more but keep dancing thimbles you amuse me.
#9 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 03:43 PM