>what is WorldWatch? How does it compare to the Mainstream Media
>Empires of today? What's its history?

Well, keep in mind, WorldWatch (and InfoFlash, another of pre-StarkWire Ben's employers) was just invented in rather sketchy form to provide some background color. I didn't think them through in detail any more than the streetfront sets in old Westerns have buildings behind them.

That said:

WorldWatch is - or was, one of Ben Stark's articles in "Weapon" implies that it's defunct in 2032 - a considerably larger and more corporate operation than StarkWire, to be sure. I picture it as being to the early-mid-21st-century infoscape what, say, the Associated Press and such-like wire services were in the days of teletypes, except, thanks to the direct distribution capabilities of the InfoWeb (which, as its name suggests, is a technological/thematic descendent of the World Wide Web), they don't sell their content to providers, as the AP does to newspapers and whatnot. (Indeed, as we've seen in one StarkWire post, the AP still exists, providing wider distribution for content not developed directly by one of the big feedsites like WW. StarkWire uses it to provide perspective on news concerning Stark Industries, in an effort to head off the perfectly understandable claims of bias that would otherwise arise.)

>Most critically: how do reporters interact with WorldWatch? How do
>they prepare, submit, and compete in a world in of instant data flow?

Well, not all that differently from the way the big news websites (such as those belonging to major newspapers like The New York Times) do it now, really, except that most of their people don't go to work in a big grey building somewhere; they exist right out in the field. The best correspondents move from place to place almost constantly, going to where the news is and reporting it back via uplink to their home feedsite's central server. Some type their material the way they did it in 1990s; others prefer to dictate their copy verbally over a telephone link, harking back to the great newspapers of the 1930s.

However the material comes in, editors - or, more likely, sophisticated editorial expert systems with human oversight - take a look at it to make sure there are no egregious errors and that it's actually a news article and not an ad for hard-on cream, and then out it goes to the subscriber base.

Oh, that does bring me to one thing that's different about the InfoWeb: a lot of the "immediate" content on it, like news feedsites, is push-oriented rather than passive like the real-life Web. Some news sites and the like have made steps toward pushing more content to mobile devices and whatnot in the real world, but the thing is really still in its infancy; most of the Web remains something you go to and search for what you're after. People subscribe to services like WorldWatch and get what they're interested in streamed to their device of choice as it's published.

WW itself was a highly respected feedsite, one of the pioneers of the concept, and evolved from a fictional indie news website of the Early Web Era. I'm not sure what brought it down; perhaps newer, smaller organizations developed specifically as full-speed feedsites from Day 1 just proved too nimble for it.

As for how any of these operations make money, well, I haven't a clue. As I said, I didn't develop the idea fully; it was really just intended as background scenery.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Admin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.