And if we don’t know that the stuff was actually any good, different, or interesting, how do we know that the reasons for its failure were purely technical?
After all, what newspaper that Murdoch owns is that great, anyway? News Of the World? The Sunday Tasmanian? For that matter, what’s the greatest scoop in Fox News history? There may be one, but that’s not what it’s known for. The Wall Street Journal doesn’t count because it was already pretty good before he owned it.
The point is, if you think the editorial mix, the content, has nothing to do with the success or failure of a publication, then I would say that’s a strange position for any journalist to take.
And if you think that it has something to do with success or failure, then we should acknowledge that we really don’t know whether that was a big reason why The Daily failed. I bet most of us suspect that it was.
And if it was, then we should admit it’s too soon to tell whether the format was to blame or just what the format delivered.
The syllogism that The Daily failed; the Daily was tablet journalism; therefore all tablet journalism will fail is a logical fallacy.
It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It just means that a Murdoch newspaper should hardly be the last word.
I know. I subscribed to The Daily a couple of months after it was started, once they ironed most of the startup bugs out of it.
In short, it was well-designed, with OK photography and mediocre copy. If it wasn't wire copy rewrites for the news stories, it sure looked like it could be. Lots of entertainment and celebrity features, a smattering of "News You Can Use" evergreen stuff and standard sports copy.
At least in theory, this should have been The Daily's high point. If it was, it made a pretty low mark. Not bad, but not good and certainly not unique -- especially in light of tons of news aggregators on the web and tablet platforms which provide similar information for free, packaged at least as attractively as Murdoch's folks did.
This wasn't the death of tablet publishing. Or even tablet-only publishing. The Daily had no unique value proposition. And despite the various media guru pronouncements from the McLuhan-ites, a unique distribution channel can't overcome what was ultimately a common commodity product. Even if Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch say otherwise.
If you have no unique message to deliver, the medium can't make one up for you.
#1 Posted by jrhmobile, CJR on Thu 6 Dec 2012 at 09:46 AM
Well said Dean.
Another case: Alan Mutter's Newsosaur offering about the Orange County Register's failed tablet app. Paragraphs about blaming the newsroom dinosaurs; half a sentence about what was in the product.
Why do so few "innovators" cite specific content? It's all about aggregation, presention and enumeration, rarely about information revealed through aggressive reporting.
"What scoops are you proudest of?" ought to be the first question for these folks.
#2 Posted by Paul Knox, CJR on Thu 6 Dec 2012 at 12:19 PM
Respectfully, did you miss the AP's early story? The headline: "The Daily Doomed by Dull Content and Isolation." The second sentence: "It lacked editorial focus." The kicker: "It was sort of a pleasant, middle-brow, slightly tabloidy mix of news and features. And there's lots of that available for free online. I would imagine if 'The Daily' were starting again now, they would invest more in establishing their brand identity early on." Let's give the wires credit when it's due.
#3 Posted by Joanie, CJR on Thu 6 Dec 2012 at 04:18 PM