Blog article
See all stories ยป

The Decline and Fall of Newspapers

What is behind high frequency trading?

I read an article in a paper. I won't name it since I could be hassled for copyright infringement if I reuse as few as 11 words. Insufficient to link it, let alone make you interested enough to bother reading it.

We've read about high frequency, flash trading or whatever you wish to call it and there has been some discussion about whether it is constructive.

I  followed a link in another blog and had the pleasure of reading a newspaper article about high frequency/flash trading (for free). If you are really keen you could search on the first 6 words of this entry.

The article left me none the wiser. Sure glad I didn't pay to read it.
The only thing I gleaned from the article was the implication that (some brokers/firms think) flash/high frequency trading probably requires oversight. Exactly why and by whom?
Surely we're not just supposed to trust 'them'?
Can it be used to manipulate or otherwise gain benefit from the market in a way that all others (who are not high frequency trading) cannot?

I read this from a newspaper. A dying newspaper. A shallow article.

There has been a debate, rightly so, about newspapers and the copying of their content. Presumably it is the googles and yahoos and other sites which are simply aggregating news that are the real issue.

There is a difference between that use and sites where people discuss and comment on the news. SURELY NEWS IS WORTHY OF COMMENT - IF IT IS NEWS?

I note that I was unable to pose my questions nor comment where the article appears.

This is the fundamental reason the remaining gasps of newspapers are turning into croaks. Apart from all their overpriced classified advertising disappearing, the constant propaganda and often considerable lack of objectivity or depth of critique will do that every time. There is a more informed audience. That, combined with the lack of opportunity for readers who may wish to discuss, debate or simply ask more questions will see a newspaper relegated to history. I suppose we are supposed to go away and talk about it in a vacuum without any reference to the 'news'. Even if there is good critique, that only stimulated discussion more.

If AP's current crazy idea to try and DRM their news and that bunch of fools who brought the case in the EU court over 11 word grabs being copyright infringement is anything to go by, we'll soon have the AP word police stopping us discussing their news in the street.

To me it was a classic example of why new media and the internet are relegating the old propaganda machines to history. It makes so much sense, what with all that saving trees and stuff.
Newspapers just don't seem to have the management capable of realising how the new media could make their hand even stronger.
Instead AP and others have some crazy idea that they can somehow 'own' the news and hold back progress.

This particular new outlet is 'gunning' for LinkedIn users with a new social networking platform. Surely an even more informed audience.

Back to high frequency trading - faster isn't always better or necessarily progress, otherwise we'd all be flying on Concords wouldn't we?

How about showing us how it is progress, positive and benign?

Don't expect us to just trust. Look where that got us last time.

It does need to be discussed, like so many other things - in public.

Apply the same thoughts to the news, and why so many other sources are looking better than newspapers, from a trust and speed perspective.

Someone please show the newspapers. If you're reading Rupert, give me a call, but perhaps don't bother if you think the same way as those crazy Danes and AP, if so, it's only a matter of time...



Comments: (2)

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 04 August, 2009, 10:52Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Whilst I agree in part with your comments, most of the people communiting this morning were all reading paper versions of their daily news - despite the vast majority having mobile internet access to read similar content & comment on - so may be the paper version still has life... or is it just that my morning hard copy is already free of charge ;)

However, interesting to learn (from an online newspaper) that the UK's Sunday Times is to set-up its own site and potentially as a pay-per-read service!

Go figure...

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 04 August, 2009, 22:35Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Newspapers have a right to charge for and protect their stories. They also have an obligation to do 'the greater good', such as in Melbourne in the case of police raids against alleged terrorist conspirators - where a newspaper failed in it's duty and announced the raid before it had occurred.

I had just seen a blogger do something similar without thinking and thought the newspapers knew better.

It seems we are all amateurs after all. Good luck charging for that content.


I do see a great payment service opportunity for newspapers, credit cards, paypal and others just won't that well for micro-payments.

I admit to finding content valuable eenough to pay to read occasionally and would pay but for the difficulty and time it takes.

It is usually quicker to find the information from another source. I have a few ideas there.

Learn from the record labels what not to do. Do make it very easy, safe and inexpensive to make micro- payments. (Rupert?)

There is still the moral issue that if you can't (pay to) quote them then you can't discuss the news online...

Member since




More from member

This post is from a series of posts in the group:


A place to share stuff that isn't at all fintec related but is amusing, absurd or scary.

See all

Now hiring