“In the next 10 years, the whole world of media, communications and advertising are going to be turned upside down — my opinion. Here are the premises I have. Number one, there will be no media consumption left in 10 years that is not delivered over an IP network. There will be no newspapers, no magazines that are delivered in paper form. Everything gets delivered in an electronic form.”
Proto-blogger Dave Winer thinks the real problem revealed by Scott McClellan’s new tell-all book is that the press was complicit in beating the Iraq war drum:
“But corporate-owned media isn’t interested in helping us make decisions as a country, they’re only interested in ad revenue. That’s why it’s so important that we’re creating new media that isn’t so conflicted, and why the question of whether bloggers run ads or not is far from a trivial issue.”
When it comes to national media, there really are not that many outlets that need to be manipulated. Four TV networks; maybe that many cable news channels; a handful of newspapers with national reach. If you can juke them, you’ve got a lot of the country juked.
The sooner their influence is diminished, the better. There will no longer be even the illusion of “national media” and people will have to work (a little) at being informed. Sure, the willfully clueless will still head for blogs and news sites that confirm their view. But the rest of us will stop trusting (if we haven’t already) news organizations that are child’s play for political spin-miesters.
The local newspaper here in Jefferson City has been locally owned for a long time. It was recently sold to a group with headquarters in Arkansas. As George and I discussed this over coffee a couple of weeks ago, he wondered why someone would buy a newspaper when it seems like –nationally– their profits are in free fall (I love that expression).
During our chat, George said he thought the local paper only had four full-time reporters. I have no idea if that’s accurate but, for the purposes of this post, let’s assume it is. It started me thinking. What if the local paper just shut down? What sort of online alternative would be possible? Could you create one using volunteers?
You might start by evaluating what’s currently in the paper: Local news, state news, world and national news, features, business and finance, entertainment, opinion, sports, community, obits, weather and classifieds.
I certainly won’t be the first to point out that much of the information in the local newspaper is available from other sources (weather, state news, national news, etc). The one area a local paper can and should do better than anyone else is local. Local news, sports, business, entertainment… local, local, local.
What if you had one, maybe two “professional journalists,” coordinating a group of volunteers. Could you do a credible job of covering local news and events? For example, could a dozen highly motivated volunteers –armed with digital cameras and recorders– cover the local news as well as four paid staffers?
Hey, no question it would be different but I see no reason it couldn’t work. We’re already seeing a growing number of examples around the country. And, yes, a number of these efforts have failed.
Even the smallest newspapers have massive overhead. Paper, ink, printing presses, etc. That means you need LOTS of advertisements. What I’m envisioning has virtually no overhead. A few hundred dollars a year for web hosting. You could cover a lot of local news for the tiniest fraction of what a “real newspaper” costs.
I suspect that some small town papers are morphing in this direction already and one day the print edition will just disappear and the transition will be complete.
My last post on Clay Shirky’s terrific book, “Here Comes Everybody.” I believe and hope that we’re in the midst of a revolution. Mr. Shirky makes the case far better than I ever could.
“I’m old enough to know a lot of things just from life experience. I know that newspapers are where you get your political news and how you look for a job. I know that if you want to have a conversation with someone, you call them on the phone. I know that complicated things like software and encyclopedias have to be created by professionals. In the last fifteen years I’ve had to unlearn every one of those things and a million others, because they have stopped being true.”
I’ve posted a few times that I have more faith in technology than people but this book has made me rethink that.
Clay Shirky is an American writer, consultant and teacher on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies. He teaches New Media as an adjunct professor at New York University’s (NYU) graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP). His courses address, among other things, the interrelated effects of the topology of social networks and technological networks, how our networks shape culture and vice-versa. [Wikipedia]
“Who would want to be a publisher with only a dozen readers? It’s also easy to see why the audience for most user-generated content is so small, filled as it is with narrow, spelling-challenged observations about going to the mall and pick out clothes. And it’s easy to deride this sort of thing as self-absorbed publishing — why would anyone put such drivel out in public?
It’s simple. They’re not talking to you.
We misread these seemingly inane posts because we’re so unused to seeing written material in public that isn’t intended for us.” – Page 84
“For the last hundred years the big organizational question has been whether any given task was best taken on by the state, directing the effort in a planned way, or by businesses competing in a market. This debate was based on the universal and unspoken supposition that people couldn’t simply self-assemble; the choice between markets and managed effort assumed that there was no third alternative. Now there is.
Our electronic networks are enabling novel forms of collective action, enabling the creation of collaborative groups that are larger and more distributed than at any other time in history. The scope of work that can be done by noninstitutional groups is a profound challenge to the status quo.” – Page 47
“For people with a professional outlook, it’s hard to understand how something that isn’t professionally could affect them — not only is the internet not newspaper, it isn’t a business, or even an institution. There was a kind of narcissistic bias in the profession; the only threats they tended to take sseriously were from other professional media outlets, whether newspapers, TV, or radio stations. This bias had them defending against the wrong thing when amateurs began producing material on their own.” – Page 56
“As Scott Bradner, a former trustee of the Internet Society, puts it, ‘The internet means you don’t have to convince anyone else that something is a good idea before trying it.'” – Page 99
“We are used to a world where little things happen for love and big things happen for money. Love motivates people to bake a cake and money motivates people to make an encyclopedia. Now, though, we can do big things for love.” – Page 104
“The invention of a tool doesn’t create change; it has to have been around long enough that most of society is using it. It’s when a technology becomes normal, then ubiquitous, and finally so pervasive as to be invisible, that the really profound changes happen, and for young people today, our new social tools have passed normal and are heading to ubiquitous, and invisible is coming.” – Page 105
“Any radical change in our ability to communicate with one another changes society. A culture with printing presses is a different kind of culture from one that doesn’t have them.”
Our social tools are not an improvement to modern society; they are a challenge to it. New technology makes new things possible: put another way, when new technology appears, previously impossible things start occurring. If enough of those impossible things are important and happen in a bundle, quickly, the change becomes a revolution.
The hallmark of revolution is that the goals of the revolutionaries cannot be contained by the institutional structure of the existing society.” – Page 107
“All businesses are media businesses, because whatever else they do, all businesses rely on the managing of information for two audiences — employees and the the world.” – Page 107
“Revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new technologies — it happens when society adopts new behaviors.” – Page 160
“Another advantage of blogs over traditional media outlets is that no one can found a newspaper on a moment’s notice, run it for two issues, and then fold it, while incurring no cost but leaving a permanent record.” – Page 170
“Barack Obama said Friday that he got more political money from indicted Chicago businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko than he has previously acknowledged. Rezko helped raise up to $250,000 for his various political races, Obama’s campaign said. The campaign had previously put the figure at $150,000 but now says that amount was only for his 2004 Senate race.
(Obama’s) long friendship with Rezko has hampered his efforts to campaign as a new-style politician who abhors backroom deals and insider favors.” [AP]
File under Irony: Turns out Obama really didn’t need to take questionable money. Millions of little people (like me) would have given it (ARE giving it!) to him. I feel like I just crawled into the back seat on prom night. I haven’t been violated yet but don’t like it back here. Sigh.
Bright spot: The sit-down with the two newspapers was the right thing to do. Answer every question. I’ll give him points for that.
That’s one of the findings of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,302 U.S. adults surveyed online between January 15 and 22, 2008 by Harris Interactive.
“Looking at the press in general, over half (54%) of Americans say they tend not to trust them, with only 30 percent tending to trust the press. Just under half (46%) of Americans say they do not trust television, while one-third (36%) do trust them. Somewhat surprisingly, Internet news and information sites do slightly better as a plurality of Americans (41%) trust them while just one-third (34%) tend not to trust them. And, radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it and one-third (32%) tend not to trust radio.”
As for “trusting radio,” are they referring to radio news or radio in a broader sense (talk shows, etc). And why does radio (and the net) earn higher trust than TV and newspapers?
Two thirds of Americans – 67% – believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news, a new We Media/Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The survey also found that while most Americans (70%) think journalism is important to the quality of life in their communities, two thirds (64%) are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities.
Meanwhile, the online survey documented the shift away from traditional sources of news, such as newspapers and TV, to the Internet – most dramatically among so-called digital natives – people under 30 years old.
Web sites are regarded as a more important source of news and information than traditional media outlets – 86% of Americans said Web sites were an important source of news, with more than half (56%) who view these sites as very important.
Most also view television (77%), radio (74%), and newspapers (70%) as important sources of news, although fewer than say the same about blogs (38%).
“Last week, a Broadcasting & Cable editorial warned that TV newscasts could follow the way of the newspaper. This week, B&C’s Jennifer Yarter asks, “What happens when the web starts to replace the television?” Yarter said the catalyst of her column was a dinner with a group of tech-savvy 20-somethings who said they don’t watch TV or even subscribe to cable or satellite. They just watch whatever they want online. Yarter writes, “Most of these young adults are falling into a new territory of media consumption that could potentially eliminate the need for local television stations.”
“Absolutely, and consider this: the only thing that most local TV stations produce is local news. Local TV news in its current form, when translated online, looks very similar to everyone else’s news. If it’s not truly original or unique, it’s a commodity (especially in aggregated environments). And as more people get their local news online instead of making an appointment to watch it on TV, revenue loss will accelerate. A solution here is to start producing original content that bridges platforms — that’s unique enough to not only to attract an audience but create fans. Fans are people who accept no substitutes. Can local TV news, by itself, create this kind of online loyalty? I don’t believe so. It will require new, innovative, locally-produced niche programming that spans TV, mobile and the web. In other words, a whole new approach. Similar to the newspapers, it will be a matter of survival.”
— Lost Remote
I keep asking myself why nobody in a position to do so, is tackling this. The answer I keep coming up with, time after time is that reinventing your TV station (or your radio station) for the new world we’re in is –in the short term– risky and expensive. And the decision makers are close enough to retirement (or have their fuck-you money put aside) that they have decided (even if they haven’t admitted it aloud) to manage their stations to “a profitable demise.” Milk the cash cow until Bossie goes dry.
From Terry Heaton’s PoMo Blog:
"Advertiser Perceptions latest survey of 2,047 ad executives (published twice yearly) — as published by Online Media Daily — reveals growing pessimism among ad buyers about traditional forms of advertising. I view this study as significant, because it speaks directly with people who are making decisions about spending money."
Only newspapers face a smaller increase and larger decrease than radio? [Emphasis/red from original post]