3/12/2009

in

Facebook. The New York Times. Unlikely duo, right? Well, apparently not. Whether it's a good idea is another question altogether.

John Winn

Though no one can say exactly when the social networking site, (known more for its photos of drunk, passed-out college students than incisive debate) and the Gray Lady got together, in the past several weeks Facebook users have noted a heavy presence of the Times on their news feeds. The topics are typical Times such as articles on the Middle East conflict, trenchant commentary on the economy and examinations of Michelle Obama's wardrobe. The comments are not. One commenter, referring to California's Proposition 8, called for a 'genocide' of conservative, fundamentalist Christians. Not exactly the beacon of moderate, informed political debate.  
  
According to a March 5 article on the website Gawker, the partnership with Facebook is an attempt at microblogging. Bloggers are paid to use the Time's blogging software while in exchange for free publicity and weblinks to every website and social network they can dream of. The idea is that the masses, in their infinite wisdom will know which stories to highlight and which ones to avoid. But as CBS learned to its regret last year, the only stories worth reading for the masses are tabloid articles on Britney Spears and racy articles on the celebrity of the week. Anyway, it's not a good business model for either Facebook or the New York Times, who are both in danger of going under in an economy and industry that is shrinking rapidly. According to Gawker-affiliated blog Valleywag, Facebook's net worth has dropped 23 percent from its previous estimate of 15 billion.  
  
So if the NYT and Facebook are losing revenue, what good would it do form them to team up? Apparently not much. Yet as the journalism profession struggles to redefine itself in the wake of deficits and newspaper closures, a defective life vest seems better than no life vest at all. That is exactly what the social networking site is to them--a life vest. But it is also a desperate gamble that will likely fall flat on its face.  
  
As any reporter and journalism professor will admit, The Facebook Generation is the future of journalism. But is it really worth it for the Times to dilute their brand when their stock price is less than their Sunday edition? In a turbulent economy, the only way the Times can stay relevant is by standing out amongst the blogging crowd. And that means doing what it's always done by providing the news, with or without reader input. Whether they will be able to do so is a separate issue.  
  
But no one can blame them for trying.