Old growth media and the future of news

I’ve never been worried about the future of news but I couldn’t quite imagine what it will look like as old business models stop working. Steve Berlin Johnson –speaking at the South by Southwest Interactive Festival in Austin last week– sees today’s media as “…closer to a real-world ecosystem in the way it circulates information than it is like the old industrial, top-down models of mass media.”

“So this is what the old-growth forests tell us: there is going to be more content, not less; more information, more analysis, more precision, a wider range of niches covered. You can see the process happening already in most of the major sections of the paper: tech, politics, finance, sports. Now I suppose it’s possible that somehow investigative  or international reporting won’t thrive on its own in this new ecosystem, that we’ll look back in ten years and realize that most everything improved except for those two areas. But I think it’s just as possible that all this innovation elsewhere will free up the traditional media to focus on things like war reporting because they won’t need to pay for all the other content they’ve historically had to produce.”

And near the end of his speech, this warning:

“We’re going to spend so much time trying to figure out how to keep the old model on life support that we won’t be able to help invent a new model that actually might work better for everyone.”

Pew: State of News Media

TV consultant Terry Heaton offers his take on the latest “State of the News Media” report from Pew (Project for Excellence in Journalism) and offers a few predictions:

  1. It’s gone and it’s not coming back. Acceptance of this is the beginning of reinvention.
  2. Future revenue is about enabling commerce, not about serving advertising adjacent to or as an interruption of “content.”
  3. Journalism will survive the death of its institutions.
  4. Most journalists will be independent and work for whoever pays them the most, on a non-exclusive basis.
  5. Journalists will develop and exploit niche specialties.
  6. “The News” will be fast, transparent and authentic.
  7. Anchors will become mostly obsolete, like other middlemen that the Web routes around. I simply can read faster than I can have it read to me. Those that remain will be live hubs that filter multiple content inputs.

From the reports intro:

“There are growing doubts within the business, indeed, about whether the generation in charge has the vision and the boldness to reinvent the industry. It is unclear, say some, who the innovative leaders are, and a good many well-known figures have left the business. Reinvention does not usually come from managers prudently charting course. It tends to come from risk takers trying the unreasonable, seeing what others cannot, imagining what is not there and creating it.”

Will Ferrell’s “You’re Welcome America”

Even HBO was unwilling to air “You’re Welcome America: A Final Night with George W. Bush” in prime time. Perhaps it was the giant photo of a penis Will Ferrell kept calling up on the screen behind him.

But if you weren’t offended by the last eight years, you’ll be okay with this amazing one-man show. Ferrell was at his raunchy best. As funny as he could have been during his SNL salad days if he could have shrugged “fuck it” when appropriate.

It was difficult to distinguish which words actually came from W’s mouth and which were pulled from Ferrell’s very funny ass. So difficult in fact, the word TRUE would be flashed on the big screen to help us know the difference.

As with Oliver Stone’s W., I came away feeling more sad for #43 than mad.

Eagles concert

The Eagles provided the soundtrack for an important period in my life. Equally true, I assume, for others in the audience at last night’s Eagles concert. A lady sitting near us wasn’t born when the Eagles hit it big, but grew up listening with her parents.

The boys had to strain to hit a few of the notes but the memories were picture perfect. I like to think it’s more than Boomer nostalgia that keeps filling auditoriums for Stones and Eagles concerts. Which of today’s big artists will still be filling the seats in thirty years?

This photo was taken from the Cessna 350 as we flew over. But I’m not really complaining. We could see the jumbotron screens and music was loud enough, even from a couple of thousand feet.

It was a good show. The guitar licks alone would have been worth the price of the ticket.

Claire McCaskill’s blog

Watching MO Senator Claire McCaskill play with her new blog.

“These (photo) are the Generals and Admiral all testifying at our Armed Services hearing this am. I will ask questions shortly.”

The thought of a member of Congress “reporting on” a hearing she is covering is… is… sacrilege? Heresy? What word would be strong enough? The obvious problem is, the senator is –by definition– partisan. No way you could trust what she reports. Right?

So, how is this different from Sean Hannity? Or Chris Matthews? Or Rush? No doubt about which side of an issue they come down but they have thousands of viewers. Can we automatically assume every post by Senator McCaskill is tainted and unworthy? That every tweet by @joliejustus is designed to mislead and spin us?

Or can we mix it in with all the other “reporting” we get, factoring in her point of view? I don’t know the answer to that question but if there is one, every reader will come up with their own.

Claire McCaskill news conferences will never be the same

Good post by Post-Dispatch reporter Tony Messenger on how social networks like Twitter are changing the game.

“While covering the Democratic lovefest last weekend, I put a note on Twitter (I’m @tonymess, by the way) about how Republicans were exchanging nasty news releases about the Senate race in 2010 while the Democrats were uniting behind Robin Carnahan. Within minutes, the note had been passed around by countless Twitterites. The next day, Gov. Jay Nixon made the Republican infighting a central point in his speech to the group. Coincidence?”

Yeah, that must be it.

Man, all of this is SO painful for the old hands who can’t or won’t understand what’s happening and how to make it work for them. And so exciting for those do.

UPDATE: Here’s a screen grab of McCaskill’s most recent tweet. Call me naive, but I’ll be she gets some suggestions and I bet you reads them.

Basement green screen set

Basement green screen set

This is my low-rent, quick-and-dirty green screen set in a corner of our basement. Annotated flicker image is here. Lighting and video pros can probably offer a dozen ways to improve on this but –like so much in life– I stop as soon as I hit good enough. I probably have no more than $50 bucks in this set-up. Next project is a graffiti mural on one wall.

“If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?”

In a post titled “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable,” Clay Shirky provides some insight –and historical perspective– on what’s happening to newspapers. He starts with the question often asked by those committed to saving newspapers

“If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke.”

“With the old economics destroyed, organizational forms perfected for industrial production have to be replaced with structures optimized for digital data. It makes increasingly less sense even to talk about a publishing industry, because the core problem publishing solves — the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something available to the public — has stopped being a problem.”

“When someone demands to be told how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems won’t break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains aren’t in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to. There are fewer and fewer people who can convincingly tell such a lie.”

I think this is the first time I’ve fully understood that old models can be broken before new ones are there to take their place.

Google lets me target ads at myself. No more old people ads?

“Not only will Google now target ads at you based on your interest, but it will also let you target yourself. Anyone can go to Google’s Ad Preferences Manager and see exactly how Google is categorizing their interests. Now, here’s the really smart part: Google lets you add or remove any interest. In effect, it is inviting you to declare what kind of ads you want to see. You can also opt out of the program completely.”– TechCrunch

It took me less than 3 minutes to update my interests for Google. And I’m sure I’ll go back from time to time to tweak them.