Tag Archives: newspapers

“Social media is making the world a better place”

Posted on by

I gave up Twitter two years ago, never did Facebook and said goodbye to Google+ recently. Social media seemed only slightly less afflictive than opioid addiction. But this post by Kevin Drum offers a glimmer of hope:

The internet boasts an immediacy that allows it to pack a bigger punch than any previous medium. But this is hardly something new. Newspapers packed a bigger punch than the gossipmonger who appeared in your village every few weeks. Radio was more powerful than newspapers. TV was more powerful than radio. And social media is more powerful than TV.

Broadly speaking, the world is not worse than it used to be. We simply see far more of its dark corners than we used to, and we see them in the most visceral possible way: live, in color, and with caustic commentary.

The money quote: “If you want to make things better, you first have to convince people that something bad is happening. Social media does that.”

People still listening to radio. Even for news.

Posted on by

“91% of Americans ages 12 and older had listened to traditional AM/FM radio in the week before they were surveyed in 2015, according to Nielsen Media Research. […] In research asking about how people are learning about the U.S. presidential election, 44% of adults said they learned about it from radio in the past week. Radio outpaced both national (23%) and local (29%) print newspapers, although it trailed local TV news (57%) and cable TV news (54%).”

Pew Research State of the News Media 2016

An end of radio

Posted on by

Bob Conner, Chief Engineer_4778633546_o“Just as newspapers fell off a cliff, radio is about to follow. It’s going to happen faster than anyone expects. And of course, it will be replaced by a new thing, a long tail of audio that’s similar (but completely different) from what we were looking for from radio all along. And that audience is just waiting for you to create something worth listening to.”

Seth Godin blog post

Your grandpa’s bank

Posted on by

oldbankI’ve enjoyed my VISA Amazon rewards card (from Chase) and I’ve used the points to make purchases. But rewards cards (at least this one) is not part of the Apple Pay system. No problem. Took about 5 minutes to get approved for a card that will work with Apple Pay. Haven’t decided on whether to keep the Amazon card.

My “back-up” card is a MasterCard issued by my local bank. So I stopped by to ask if they had any information on when/if they would support Apple Pay. The first guy I spoke with had never heard of Apple Pay.

“Have you heard about Ebola?” I asked him. It was a joke!

While he was calling different departments to see if anyone knew about this new “Apple Pay thing,” the lady at the next desk gave me a little lecture on how their bank (Central Bank, Jefferson City, MO) didn’t jump on every new thing that came along.

“We were one of the last banks in this area to offer online banking,” she proudly announced. “We’re very conservative.”

“So, this is Your Grandpa’s Bank,” I teased.

Stony silence.

Like the music business and television and newspapers, the banking industry is due for some major disruption. I really don’t need them for much these days and have started looking for ways to use them less.

The MP3 of journalism

Posted on by

“But we are in the midst of a transformative shift in the craft of journalism. Text-only stories, the kind your parents found in their morning newspapers and characterized by the classic inverted pyramid (most important stuff at the top, least important stuff at the bottom) could eventually go the way of 45-rpm records. The MP3 of journalism may be the “live blog,” which relies on the merging of platforms and weaving of text with video, audio, external links to other articles (including those of rival news organizations), blogs, tweets, Facebook posts, and whatever other useful information is available. It doesn’t matter if information originates from a New York Times article, a tweet from an eyewitness on the scene, or someone offering astute commentary and curating links, a video shot by a protester or produced by a team at CNN. Because in the live blog format disparate platforms become irrelevant, and the walls between these separate silos of content simply dissolve.”

From article at Fast Company

“How Google Dominates Us”

Posted on by

James Gleick’s The Information was one of the more interestisng books I’ve read this year. And this piece in the New York Review of Books he talks about “How Google Dominates Us. A few of my favorites:

  • “The business of finding facts has been an important gear in the workings of human knowledge, and the technology has just been upgraded from rubber band to nuclear reactor.”
  • “When (we) say Google “possesses” all this information, that’s not the same as owning it. What it means to own information is very much in flux.”
  • “(Google has) been relentless in driving computer science forward. Google Translate has achieved more in machine translation than the rest of the world’s artificial intelligence experts combined.”
  • “The merchandise of the information economy is not information; it is attention. These commodities have an inverse relationship. When information is cheap, attention becomes expensive. Attention is what we, the users, give to Google, and our attention is what Google sells—concentrated, focused, and crystallized.”
  • “Google makes more from advertising than all the nation’s newspapers combined”
  • “The perfect search engine, as Sergey and Larry imagine it, reads your mind and produces the answer you want. The perfect advertising engine does the same: it shows you the ads you want. Anything else wastes your attention, the advertiser’s money, and the world’s bandwidth.”

Almost every article about Google worries about the potential danger of someone having so much information about us. And yet, few seem concerned about how much power, information and control governments have over us. I’ll trust Larry and Sergey over any politician that has come along in my lifetime.

We need more chaos in the news business

Posted on by
Reply

Clay Shirky argues we need for the news business to be more chaotic than it is because ” there are many more ways of getting and reporting the news that we haven’t tried than that we have.” Here are some excerpts from his latest essay:

Buy a newspaper. Cut it up. Throw away the ads. Sort the remaining stories into piles. Now, describe the editorial logic holding those piles together.
—
For all that selling such a bundle was a business, though, people have never actually paid for news. We have, at most, helped pay for the things that paid for the news.
—
But even in their worst days, newspapers supported the minority of journalists reporting actual news, for the minority of citizens who cared.
—
I could tell (my) students that when I was growing up, the only news I read was thrown into our front yard by a boy on a bicycle. They might find this interesting, but only in the way I found it interesting that my father had grown up without indoor plumbing.
—
News has to be subsidized because society’s truth-tellers can’t be supported by what their work would fetch on the open market. Real news—reporting done for citizens instead of consumers—is a public good.
—
A 30% reduction in newsroom staff, with more to come, means this is the crisis, right now. Any way of creating news that gets cost below income, however odd, is a good way, and any way that doesn’t, however hallowed, is bad.

“Why did the world shatter at the touch of a hyperlink?”

Posted on by

Dr. David Weinberger asks (and answers?) the question: “Why did the world shatter at the touch of a hyperlink?”

“Newspapers, encyclopedias, record companies, telephones, politics, education, analytics, scientifics, genetics, libraries, mass media, high culture, television, classrooms, assholism, channels, columns, stations, tours, travel, marketing, picketing, knitting, hectoring, picturing, gossiping, friendship redefined, attention redefined, leadership redefined, defamation redefined, curating, editing, publishing, correcting, crowds, mobs, shopping, bar-hopping, catalogs, sing-alongs, fact-checking, being together, being apart, staying together, moving on. Social forms and major institutions, many set in the Earth on stone foundations, fell down at the flick of a hyperlink.”

This started me thinking about tech changes over the last ten years. Digital cameras; high speed Internet access; social media (blogs, Twitter, Facebook); iTunes; smart phones; Google; Tivo; ebooks and on and on.

And, finally, how has our company changed during the past ten years? Can we list the Ten Biggest Changes? Five? Three? And is that even a relevant question?

Fake news

Posted on by
Reply

Nick Denton has been something of mover and shaker in the blogosphere since the beginning. Here’s his take on “fake news”:

“I don’t mean fake news in the Fox News sense. I mean the fake news that clogs up most newspapers and most news websites, for that matter. The new initiative will go nowhere. The new policy isn’t new at all. The state won’t go bankrupt. The product isn’t revolutionary. And journalists pretend that these official statements and company press releases actually constitute news. Of course the public knows that most of these stories are published for the massaging of sources — and that’s why they don’t read them.

To follow the daily or hourly news cycle is the media equivalent of day-trading: it’s frenzied, pointless and usually unprofitable. I’d much rather read an item which just showed me the photos or documents. And if you’re going to write some text, take a position or explain something to me. Give me opinion or reference; just don’t pretend you’re providing news. That’s not news.”

This is a pretty good summary of where I find myself in regard to news these days. You?