<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[What The WaPo Could&nbsp;Become]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Millman <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/will-jeff-bezos-destroy-the-village-in-order-to-save-it/?utm_source=feedly">dreams big</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>If <em>The Washington Post</em> treated its own newsroom as a premium product to be bundled with a larger package of services that mostly re-purpose third-party-generated content – and long-form investigative journalism in particular is a perfect example of a premium product that is very hard to sell on its own, but which considerably enhances the value of a more comprehensive bundled product &#8211; then its scope could be much, much larger than it could ever be on its own. Larger, and more truly national, in fact, than <em>The New York Times</em> is (and the <em>Times</em> has already gone some way in the “parallel internet” direction, but relying on its own prodigious capacity to generate content). …</p></blockquote>
<p><!--tpmore --></p>
<blockquote><p>My own personal hope is that Bezos becomes the first internet media mogul to actually downstream revenue to third-party content providers. I’m sure it wouldn’t be much, but even establishing the principal would be huge. And the opportunity to capture a huge portion of the high-value journalistic internet is enormous. Who wouldn’t rather optimize their blog to integrate with the <em>Washington Post</em>‘s engine than try to sell enough banner ads to keep the lights on? And once that process has begun, the “parallel internet” starts working better than the real thing.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ken Doctor&#8217;s <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-07/where-is-our-netflix-for-news-or-itunes-for-ideas-.html">vision</a> is similar:</p>
<blockquote><p><a title="Get Quote" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/NFLX:US">Netflix Inc. (NFLX)</a> has rounded up movies and TV shows. <a title="Get Quote" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/APP:US">Apple Inc. (APP)</a>’s iTunes has rationalized the buying of and listening to music. You know the buzzwords of the consumer digital revolution made meaningful: recommendation engines, aggregation and curation, socially mediated discovery, save lists, wish lists and flexible alerts.</p>
<p>All of that would create a boffo news product. The <a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/associated-press/">Associated Press</a> offers a 1.0 version of it, in AP Mobile, and Google News and Yahoo News, among others, have long aggregated. Google caused near apoplexy when it pulled the life-support line from Google Reader. <a title="Open Web Site" href="http://cloud.feedly.com/#welcome" rel="external">Feedly</a> seems to be the replacement flavor of the moment.</p>
<p>Seriously, though, there’s nothing like a Netflix or iTunes experience for heavy news consumers — a place to read, buy, share and be easily informed without heavy lifting.</p></blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>