But has 'The Daily' measured up to its hype? Simon Dumenco of Ad Age thinks not. His first complaint is that 'The Daily' went too far in condensing the news for the different medium. As he says, "Twitter is for tweets; newspapers are (theoretically) for depth." He cites an article celebrating what would have been Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday, which featured a full-page photo, followed by only three sentences of actual content.
Dumenco also recounts the comments of a fellow iPad owner and 'The Daily' reader: "A lot of times...I'll read something in The Daily that I already read about the day before, but The Daily version I'll read and go, 'Hey, they're missing a lot of story here.'" And that's certainly disappointing. The hype seemed to indicate that 'The Daily' would be like a full newspaper, but with more interactive features and intuitive access to videos, etc. It seems that it's been diluted into something less substantive.
He also criticizes other 'The Daily' articles, like a Gisele Bundchen piece called "I'd tap that," and a U.S. budget-related op-ed from a Catholic priest, entitled "What would Jesus cut?" The seemingly random range of articles lead Dumenco to describe it as similar to "witnessing a new identity crisis every day."
If it wasn't already obvious, Dumenco doesn't think 'The Daily' is worth $0.99 per week or $40 per year. But don't let that deter you completely. 'The Daily' is still young, and they're still trying to figure out how to grab the largest audience possible, without disappointing news buffs, or alienating casual readers. And that would explain its scattered nature; if the editors don't really have a set niche, but the interface is supposed to be 'clean', then how do you choose the news?
source: Ad Age