August 13, 2008
Carr points to a trend by which "the locus of control has been shifting and consumers not only expect to customize their media experience, they demand it as a condition of engagement." This trend, he believes, will not detract from journalism, it will only serve to create a "deeper, more effective journalism," replete with real life experience, opinion, and facts that would otherwise remain undiscovered -- the type that can only be unearthed by an audience (and consequently contributor) pool as vast as that online.
"On Saturday, Mr. Stelter’s wonderful article in The New York Times on how people were working around the blackout on the Olympic ceremony began as a post on Twitter seeking consumer experiences, then jumped onto his blog, TV Decoder, caught the attention of editors who wanted it expanded for the newspaper and ended up on Page One, jammed with insight and with plenty of examples from real human experience. How much more powerful is that networked intelligence than a reporter with a phone, a Rolodex and the space between his or her ears?"
Locking up or delaying the release of content online (like NBC unsuccessfully attempted to do with its Olympics footage and the Inquirer is attempting to do with its best content) not only no longer works, it is also a bad business model. "If the future of our business is online, then why set up a firewall, delaying the best content to protect a legacy product? And more adept reporters are beginning to realize that the Web is not just a way to broadcast news, it is a great way to assemble it as well."
Comments | 6 Total
August 13, 2008 at 11:52am by Rip Empson
I could not agree more, and I have to say, I'm not in the least bit upset about it. I think that the "bloggers v. journalists" war is silly, has jumped the shark, and really just needs to be put behind us. Quickly. The faster newspapers put the "web log" stigma behind them, the better. Bloggers are not an uneducated mob, unconcerned with "journalistic integrity." They are our readers, neighbors, friends, sources and community moderators. The newspapers who figure out how to use the next generation of technology, social networking, bloggers, etc. will be successful. And why shouldn't they be? Why are we lamenting the evolution of the business? As Ryan Sholin of "Invisible Inkling" says in his blog about the newspaper industry, "You ignore new delivery systems at your own peril. RSS, SMS, e-paper, widgets, podcasts, vlogs, Facebook, Twitter — these aren’t the competition, these are your new carriers." Those newspapers and publications that learn to disseminate their own original content across each of these fields of "new" (they're not really THAT new anymore) technology, will create more robust journalism, reach a wider audience, and will be participating in a winning business model. Embrace the change, newspaper industry, or get out of the way...
August 13, 2008 at 4:08pm by Lynne d Johnson
Rip - You make an excellent argument here. A lot of people say it's an either/or or a print is dead conversation, but really the conversation is one of evolution. The local daily becomes the hyperlocal site. The weekly community paper becomes more of a daily online, supplemented by blogs and podcasts and video. And the newspaper becomes all these things merged with User Generated Content. Inevitable evolution.
Print as a medium is going to become more of a luxury good, a specialty item. Due to environmental needs and the money it costs to produce print -- the product's price point will be set at a higher price and include exclusive content that the online reader can't get. Novel idea huh, usually it's the other way around. But consider print the premium and online the freemium.
If the newspaper business could fully embrace this concept, maybe more newsrooms would merge online and offline gigs and expand on the notion of what the newsroom is and how it functions. Each product should feed the other.
August 13, 2008 at 4:22pm by Mark Amtower
I think a merger between online and offline, especially offline and web 2.0 (like here at FastCompany), is inevitable. I don't think offline publications will be totally relegated to rpmotional activity, but that will certainly be part of it.
August 13, 2008 at 7:58pm by Vernon Martin
Is it really fair to ask an online community about newspapers versus internet? I was offered an opportunity to purchase the weekend edition of our local newspaper. But the question that I had to ask myself was why? By the time the ink has dried, news web sites have already updated the news that the paper was based on. We are becoming so instant as far as the newspapers are concerned, that we have graduated to a broadband deliverance; computer, notebook, telephone and soon, the automobile. Information is streaming in so fast; sometimes it feels like I have entered the matrix. The information is streaming so fast that we would have to say wait a minute while we print a paper, but information does not wait, it simply flows to another outlet. Besides, isn’t it time to save a few trees? How do we justify a course that opposes convenience and responsibility? For some, it is a hard habit to give up (the daily paper and coffee) but remember, it was hard before, but we did give up the stone tablet and we are doing just fine. www.vernonmartincoaching.com
August 13, 2008 at 8:07pm by Chase Wegmann
I agree; it is the natural evolution of the industry. The web offers a richer experience to view news content. Why 'just read an article' when you could not only read the article, but click on related content, view video of the event and then email the content to friends or comment directly to the writer/videographer. They don't refer to the web as an 'interactive' experience just because you choose what sites to subscribe to. Even the way we chose to view the web is changing. I subscribe to and read the New York Times everyday. Not on my computer but via my mobile smartphone - which happens to be a new 3G iPhone.
As technology makes it easier to interact with things on-the-go the industry has a choice: innovate or become obsolete and die of irrelevance. Not only from the changing demands of their end user but from irrelevance of their content. By the time something is printed and read in this 24/7 news culture what you are reading has probably been changed/updated/expanded on, etc, etc... To stay relevant the industry has no choice if the are going to continue to provide us with what new which we all need to remind ourselves is what 'news' is derived from.
August 16, 2008 at 2:59pm by Carel Two-Eagle
The wonderful thing about the Internet is its vastness. No one person or group can stop another person or group from either assembling a story or from distributing one. It is truly magic at work in our lives. "Freedom of the press" is determined by who owns the press, and we all own the Internet. Let's hear it for freedom! This must drive the control nuts craaa-zy! I rattle my tongue for this!