Astonishingly light piece around the UK’s version of BigBrother on how people will want to pay for ‘high quality broadband content’ in the media guardian today.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t find a single figure in terms of usage or revenue to support the case that the content-providers are making in the piece.
I think this makes it three weeks in a row that the mediagrauniad have written a puff piece about broadband content providers. All have pretty much been pegged around a report that the British Government released a few weeks back which said that high-quality content was the essential spur needed to drive take-up of broadband. As far as I can tell, this report was written by a working group dominated by those who would profit from the creation and subsidy of a ‘broadband content industry’.
On receipt of the first piece the mediagrauniad ran, Cory wrote an excellent rebuttal (here and furthermore, here), and Steve Bowbrick wrote an interesting supporting piece (but his permalinks aren’t working… so go to http://www.bowbrick.com/bowblog/ and scroll down to the july 3rd entry).
Despite working for a ‘content company’. I’m on Cory’s side. I’d love to see there be a dialogue on this issue between the onlinegrauniad and their friends in the media section. Or at least a bit of representation of opposing views or at the very least an intelligent critique of some sort in the media section, instead of it merely serving as a mouth-piece for those who ‘would say that wouldn’t they’.
Petafloptimism 
But of course The Guardian doesn’t have anything intelligent or thought-through to say. It’s the _Guardian_.
If you [affectionately?] call it the “Grauniad” it means at least you noticed their old typo habit.
But isn’t there also the small problem of it being poorly written by people who don’t know about very much, but believe they do? Content is just what they don’t have, and none of them realise.