Comments on: Pakistan and The Internet Part 1: The New York Times http://citizenmedia.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/pakistan-and-the-internet-part-1-the-new-york-times/ Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:17:29 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Miguel Raul Perez http://citizenmedia.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/pakistan-and-the-internet-part-1-the-new-york-times/#comment-4 Miguel Raul Perez Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:17:29 +0000 http://citizenmedia.wordpress.com/?p=7#comment-4 * Was this intended journalistic partnership successful for all parties involved? First, I see this as an attempt by the NY Times to gain marketshare by gaining a competitive edge over its rivals by using "citizen journalists," nothing more. I think the NY Times had no choice but to rely on citizen journalists since the government's media black out probably affected the fixers that they rely on in Pakistan. The NY times needed to report on the protests and they found their solution by holding a cattle-call for media related to the protests that they couldn't have obtained otherwise. Simple economics. To keep its competitive edge over its rivals, it used "citizen journalists." So, do I think that this was successful for both parties? Yes. Definitely. The NY Times was able to gather media from Pakistan that they wouldn't have been able to get and with that they undoubtedly raised their web hits as consumers sought media related to the protests. The "citizen journalists" also got to dissent against their government through an American news site that gets more page views than all other top 5 US newspapers by circulation. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/nytimes.com http://www.burrellesluce.com/top100/2007_Top_100List.pdf The NY Times just needed a way to consolidate its market share by employing "citizen journalism" so that it did not lose net traffic against the other news papers' sites. Business aside, both parties won. The Times got to keep its net traffic and the protesters found an outlet. Miguel Raul Perez Senior Robinson Secondary School Fairfax, VA * Was this intended journalistic partnership successful for all parties involved?

First, I see this as an attempt by the NY Times to gain marketshare by gaining a competitive edge over its rivals by using “citizen journalists,” nothing more.

I think the NY Times had no choice but to rely on citizen journalists since the government’s media black out probably affected the fixers that they rely on in Pakistan. The NY times needed to report on the protests and they found their solution by holding a cattle-call for media related to the protests that they couldn’t have obtained otherwise.

Simple economics. To keep its competitive edge over its rivals, it used “citizen journalists.”

So, do I think that this was successful for both parties? Yes. Definitely. The NY Times was able to gather media from Pakistan that they wouldn’t have been able to get and with that they undoubtedly raised their web hits as consumers sought media related to the protests. The “citizen journalists” also got to dissent against their government through an American news site that gets more page views than all other top 5 US newspapers by circulation.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/nytimes.com
http://www.burrellesluce.com/top100/2007_Top_100List.pdf

The NY Times just needed a way to consolidate its market share by employing “citizen journalism” so that it did not lose net traffic against the other news papers’ sites.

Business aside, both parties won. The Times got to keep its net traffic and the protesters found an outlet.

Miguel Raul Perez
Senior
Robinson Secondary School
Fairfax, VA

]]>