My solution.
So, I thought I would end this project with a solution to all my questions I’ve posed on this blog throughout the semester. Below you will find my proposal…. to reinvent journalism, put some coherent thoughts together about the media industry, and my expectations for the future of the press. It’s not a perfect solution– in fact, I’m continually wanting to change it. Hope you like it– I’d love to hear your input.
Reinventing Journalism
Shift to Dewey’s philosophy
Journalism seems to have been going through a pressured evolution over the past few years, but for decades the field has been under constant scrutiny over the way it is conducted. Walter Lippmann and John Dewey may be two ends of the most heated debate about the art of journalism. Lippmann, a prominent journalist during the early twentieth century, believed that news should be chosen by a few individuals—essentially, editors that are able to exert power over what gets published in the paper. Lippmann believed that citizens were incapable of understanding our ever growing and complex world, and there needed to a be a subset of individuals in charge of educating the public. John Dewey, a famous psychologist during the same time period, believed everyone should be allowed to contribute to the news, and as more people contributed, more truthful stories would be told—essentially, a “wisdom of the crowds” belief. Until the birth of the Internet, America had been following the Lippmann model, however, with the recent explosion of participatory media, it seems that Dewey’s philosophy is becoming the major trend.
No more scoops
Because technology and the rate at which news can be reported is making it nearly impossible to have a scoop, breaking news won’t be nearly as valuable as being able to produce quality news that has a shelf life. Therefore, there will be a shift from publications emphasizing “quick” news to producing investigative pieces, feature stories, and other longer articles that have a greater impact than short, quick stories that need to be released right away.
Age of participatory media
Citizens will be responsible for breaking news. They will blog, tweet, or report events to news aggregator sites (much like Wikipedia). These news aggregator sites can be directed towards a local, national or international audience. The more people contribute to a story, the more comprehensive and accurate the story will be (wisdom of the crowds). For example, if John Doe sees a plane crash, he’ll immediately “tweet” the crash, with as much information as he knows, to a main news site. The site will then continue to aggregate information from various sources that all have information about the same event. In the beginning, this system may be inaccurate, but eventually (much like Wikipedia) news consumers will be able to comfortably rely on the information to learn what is going on. In addition, because breaking news (even in today’s world) isn’t necessarily deemed as accurate—it is only later stories that are noted for their clarity, etc.—breaking news will have the same accuracy as it does now. Also, news will be broken much faster because people don’t have to wait for journalists to write the story and publish it.
News outlets will also interact with these news aggregator sites by promoting stories they think are worthy of attention, are trustworthy, etc. News outlets will approve or disapprove stories. The more news outlets that approve a particular story, the higher the story will show up on an aggregator site. News outlets can also link their follow-up, in-depth stories from these news aggregator sites.
Return of niche media outlets
While the field of journalism is facing a secular change in the way readers consume their news, there is going to be a cyclical shift towards niche media outlets. For the past few decades, it seemed that newspapers that thrived tended to have larger, broader audiences with a range of intellect and interest in the news. In the future, there is going to be more of a demand for specific niches. Rather than broad media outlets like The New York Times, outlets that cater towards a specific audience are going to become more popular among readers. The Wall Street Journal remains the “red herring” that has been able to make a profit online—this no doubt has to do with the fact that the paper caters to a financial news-dependent audience that is willing to pay for the information that the Journal offers. Those who want the spectrum of news can refer to the large aggregator sites (and link out) to get the breadth of what is going on. If they want to follow up on stories, they will pick the specific online publications.
This trend of shifting to niche media has become apparent since the new administration stepped into The White House. President Obama has quickly become known as the President who doesn’t necessarily call on the major media outlets for questions during press conferences. In addition, Obama recently went on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno—trying to reach a subset of the population that may not be regular news consumers.
These niche outlets will run very similarly to the way a small-scale newsmagazine does now. The staff will be much smaller than a large media organization, and not as dispersive. There may be a niche media organization in New York City that covers transportation composed of only three individuals, while another organization may cover San Francisco’s courts. These sites may collaborate together in a pay scheme to allow one person to access all their information.
The new faces of journalism
Future journalists may want to monitor these breaking news aggregator sites, making sure that information is being told properly, or that important news is being delivered to the audience. But most journalists will work for the niche publications. The news outlets, while specific to a particular subject, such as finance or style, will not be limited in the way information is told—there will be multimedia, interactive features, discussion boards, etc. A journalist who works for one of these outlets must be prepared to help with all aspects, and when they produce a story, must utilize as many technological features as possible to help make their story more comprehensive. Competition to get readers will not only be on finding news that matters, but also on how well journalists use technology.
There will be an influx of professionals in other fields that will become working journalists in their fields of expertise. Sanjay Gupta of CNN is a perfect example of this. Gupta is a practicing neurosurgeon, however, he has used his communications skills to report health news to a non-academic audience. Fields like business and science, which require an extensive knowledge to report accurate stories, will have an outgrowth of professionals who become journalists. This is because not only is there a need for this information and a lack of finances (currently) to hire individuals and train them in these specific fields, but also graduate schools (like medical school), are making sure that their students can communicate properly before graduation.
This isn’t to say that journalists won’t be able to find careers in these fields—there will still be job opportunities for these specific niches. However, as the traditional business model gets dismantled, and as multitasking becomes dominant in all careers, this idea may become more prevalent.
Shift away from ad-based revenue
The Internet has made it much easier for companies to find cheaper and more creative ways to market their product, rather than buying ad space in a magazine or newspaper.
Thus, news outlets will gain revenue primarily through subscribership—this has already been the case with cable news networks and magazines like The Economist. The revenue from subscribers will help fund the expensive, in-depth stories that journalists will report. Pricing will inevitably vary depending on the size of the organization, how much money is needed to report on that “niche” or “beat,” etc.
When the recession ends, ads will become a source of profit again for news outlets. However, they will need to become much more specific and directed to the individual reading information on a news site. With cookies and other technology, news outlets might be able to publish specific ads on their sites depending on who is reading the article. For example, John Doe who loves hamburgers (this information is compiled on the number of links he has clicked about hamburgers on the site, and through search engines) will have hamburger restaurant ads (that are near his residence) appear on his sidebar. While this advertising technique isn’t perfect—just because John Doe searches hamburgers doesn’t mean he is interested in it, it is the same idea that Google uses for their search engine ads—and has been working quite well for them.
For aspiring journalists
Workers will work more in isolation from one another. Each journalist will be in charge of how he or she is perceived. Saying you are from The New York Times, for example, isn’t going to mean much. Saying you are Sanjay Gupta or Anderson Cooper (two individuals who have successfully marketed their names, and produced unique, thoughtful news programs)—that’s going to be the way journalists will gain prominence and have long-lasting careers.
There will still be writers and editors—these are the people that will produce the niche sites. The main change that will occur as everything shifts online is the timeline of when news will be distributed. It will become vital for news sites to publish their in-depth stories during the relevant time period of the topic of interest—if there is a plane crash, a reporter might do an in-depth report on the safety of planes. This should be published within days of the crash. This will be different from story to story, but the journalists will feel the pressure of what they need to report, and how quickly they need to report.
Survival of the Fittest
Even today, there is a huge amount of “junk” news on the web. But inaccurate news sites will fold—case in point, the recent closure of Jossip.com. And it should be noted that just because we are shifting to online doesn’t mean that this idea of “junk” news is new—The Star, The National Enquirer, even US Weekly are prominent publications that have minimal basis in truth. Even with these publications, news consumers still turn to The Boston Herald and The LA Times for information, because they trust the writing from that source—this isn’t going to change when everything shifts to online.
An organic change
This change in journalism may seem like a sudden dismantling of a system that has been successfully in place for the past few decades, but the change has in fact been quite organic. The shift to a community-centered view of the news is not unexpected when citizens are given the tools to communicate easily worldwide—nor is the need for citizens to produce their own media. In fact, technology may eventually be programmed to crosscheck stories. Computers might use satellites, police records, etc. to do a microsecond analysis on whether a story someone submits is accurate—or the computer may even report the basic facts. But until then, the idea remains that the more people contribute to the sites, the better and more accurate they will be.
Even news creators are helping change the role of the news. President Obama has vowed to become more transparent in office, and improve direct communication between the government and its citizens. This transparency changes the need for journalists to be watchdogs for a “secretive” government.
There is no one, common solution to this problem. The Internet has produced a multitude of diverse ways to spread news and opinion, so the solution to the breaking business model can’t be a one-size-fits-all. An older audience may be willing to continue to spend money for print, while younger audiences may not—it wouldn’t make sense for one large organization to cater to them both. There is one common thread, that has been continually repeated, that if journalists just continue to do their job, the solution may find its way organically—there is always a need for news. A good journalist, a journalist that will have a career in the future, needs to report the news that matters.
Are we going to be all right in the end?
I figured I’d take the last couple blog posts to sum up my experiences about JRN 301, and my thoughts on the overall media right now. It’s been really interesting being exposed to all the fantastic new business models, industry insider’s ideas of what is the future of the press, and my classmate’s opinions on the news. I think that I can safely say that there really seems to be no one, right answer. What I think has been exciting for me to learn is the number of opportunities there are for start-ups, small niche media outlets, and people who are looking to experiment with the way news is produced. 20-25 years ago, this probably wouldn’t be possible, but given the slow dismanteling of the structure of the newspaper industry, I think that future journalist’s should be excited about the number of great ideas and philosophies they can choose from and follow.
Among the highlights of this semester, I think a few really important things happened along the way that I think we shape the future of the media industry:
- TARP, and the way it will shape the future of broadband
- Kindle, and its implications on the way news consumers will obtain the news
- The fall of The Rocky Mountain News, and the slow demise of The San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, and Chicago Tribune
- The emergence and popularity of Twitter, Facebook, and blogs
- New business models, like spot.us and Global Post
Are we really only hearing half the story?
viapbase.com
I found this article quite refreshing– in fact, it was a pleasure to read after the hundreds of gloomy pieces I’ve encountered over this semester. I think everyone’s always thought in the back of their head that there must be some newspapers out there that are still successful– but rather than finding papers, we’ve been bombarded by alternative solutions like spot.us (my perennially favorite example), Politico, among others. Well, I’m happy to say, that it seems like local news is still thriving in large parts of America. The major different between these newspapers and the old-school prints like The New York Times and Washington Post– these local papers are adapting. They’re running a successful newspaper because they’re treating it like a business– a business that needs to conform and adapt as society changes. Community newspapers seem to be realizing (and changing) faster than larger chains that people don’t change– papers can. I don’t know if it’s because smaller scale dailies and weeklies are more malleable, or simply because a niche makes it easier to switch directions, but the idea that target-specific papers are more successful may be a good indication for what the future of the media is going to be like.
In my journalism class, we’ve been listening to each others ideas about what the future of the news industry is going to look like– while everyone had a unique aspect to add to the current fate of the industry, what was interesting to me was how similar everyone’s ideas (mine included) were. Everyone seems to agree that more targeted newspapers need to be published, and dispersiveness isn’t really an attractive quality for the media industry. In a future post, I plan to elaborate on this, but I’m curious to see what you think.
Is Murdoch going to be the pioneer for legacy media to start charging?
via battellemedia.com
The Daily Beast reported a rumor today about a potential payment plan that News Corp. may be rolling out in the next couple months. If this is true, News Corp. may become the first legacy media company to take a stand and start charging for online content (in addition to their subscription-only Wall Street Journal). Stryker McGuire, the author of the piece, didn’t mention too much about how the payment system would work– but he doesn’t have to. No doubt is the scheme going to be some combination of the many solutions we’ve seen fail so far: a micro-payment option, walled garden, or limited online access. What I’m excited to see is the way in which Murdoch is going to market this proposal. A student in my journalism class mentioned that legacy media companies will continue to exist– it’s just that the way they approach the business model needs to change. He might be dead on– if this system works, journalists may be able to start unclenching their teeth from fear of unemployment.
What might be interesting to see (that most start-up ventures can’t really do) is that News Corp is a whole conglomerate of media outlets: Murdoch owns not just The Wall Street Journal, but also the New York Post, Times of London, The Australian. Having so many different outlets and being able to control them (possibly all through one payment option) may be the single defining difference between his business model and, say, spot.us. In fact, this may be the very reason that Murdoch’s plan might be successful.
As the Boston Globe’s fate lies in a very delicate balance, it’s clear that it’s time to push forward with online payment options. For now, we’re waiting for one very rich Australian to come pull a magic rabbit out of his hat.
Is a new “cool device” the best solution?
via edopter.com
Earlier this semester, I mentioned the release of Kindle 2, the second generation e-reader produced by Amazon for e-books. While I thought the idea was a good one, I did think that the Kindle had a lot of potential to help the newspaper industry and its slow loss of the news-paper. I guess I wasn’t the only one. The New York Times mentioned in an article earlier this week that a new e-reader, designed specifically for newspapers, may become a reality by the end of the year. The reader, which will hopefully be the reading platform of choice for news consumers, may replace newspapers as the physical entity a publication produces on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. The article goes to great lengths to talk about the benefits and drawbacks of such a device, but I do think the author missed a couple points. I wonder if the new device will allow readers to comment on articles, in the same way you and I can comment at nyt.com or wsj.com. I find that the ability for an audience of a publication to communicate with each other an extremely enticing part of a news website. I love reading reader’s comments and learning about different sides to the same article– it’s surprising how much an article can actually miss, or not touch on. In addition to the comments section, my main concern, really, is what is the benefit of actually having this e-reader? I, for one, am a minimalist– I keep one binder for all my classes, my phone is my organizer, music player, etc. and use my school backpack for everything from camping to carry-on luggage. I hate having to carry more things than I have to, and I feel like the reader might end doing just that. While it’s appealing for me to have the same layout of a newspaper on a paper-thin screen, I’ve gotten so used to reading news on line that I actually prefer it to print– there is no messiness of ink, I don’t have to carry the paper around, and at the end of the day, there’s no clutter in my room. The e-reader, in my opinion, might just be one more thing that I don’t want to have in my cramped little dorm space.
The article did mention that Apple might be coming out with a tablet– which actually got me thinking. It seems like no matter what cool, technological device that comes out, there’s always going to be a newer, better one that will help consumers get access to news online (for free). I think we need to first fix the problem of how to charge for news online, before we start dabbling with e-readers, etc. Their potential for success only works once consumers who are not willing to spend money on news realize that news is not free– once this is realized, easy tablet reading, and other cool tech tools will make it easier for newspapers to charge for news and promote technology in a profitable way.
Why is the folding of Portfolio so important?
via nymag.com
Last week, Portfolio folded. While other magazines, like Domino and DNR (both Conde Nast publications) called it quits last year, I’m particularly sad to see this publication stop printing. Portfolio had the potential to be a source of reason and explanation about the current economy in a time where magazines that are succesful are becoming increasingly dependent on superfluous information and gossip columns (US Weekly, People). But unfortunately, Portfolio’s demise has been predicted since its initial issue– Si Newhouse, Conde Nast’s publisher, has been consistenly criticized for nurturing the magazine during a time when start-ups shouldn’t, well, start.
Perhaps the saddest part about the folding is the loss of a core group of talented writers, graphic designers, and editors that came together and produced a magazine, that, from its initial start date, has been exceptional in both the quality of the articles and the layout. Joane Lipman, the editor-in-chief, was one of the brightest and savviest editors in the industry– and her niche as the head of a financial magazine put her at the head of the pack.
While a lot of people criticized the publication of Portfolio (right from the start), I think that everyone in the industry must see the sign of the closing of Portfolio as a strong signal of the magazine industry. If Newhouse’s baby, the publication he was willing to invest an undisclosed $100 million dollars in, is folding, what’s next? The sound of the axe on one of Conde Nast’s finest treasures leaves me worried for the longer standing, more iconic publications like Vanity Fair and The New Yorker.
Hopefully Newhouse doesn’t make any rash decisions any time soon. But until then, I’m going to continue subscribing to The New Yorker, and instill some faith in the industry that quality pieces are still needed.
Is the end of Encarta a good or bad sign for the media industry?
- via valdosta.edu
Are advertisers fearing for no reason?
via cjtspace.blogspot.com
With DVR’s in existence now for a decade, it seems hard to imagine a world without them. In fact, it seems even harder to imagine a world without streaming online video from Hulu, ABC’s Go Player, and the CW’s online video player. People have found new ways to get the shows they love without being bound to a specific time slot– in the television business, this shift has become known as the disruption to “linear programming“– the idea that viewers schedule their lives around the TV. But in a recent article in The Economist, it seems like DVR’s weren’t as harmful to the TV industry as they were first imagined to be. In fact, the article claims, the device may have actually helped stabilize television: popular shows are the ones most recorded, and skip half of the advertisements. This means, according to the story, “only about 5% of television is time-shifted and less than 3% of all advertisements are skipped. “
This percentage surprises me– it seems like advertisers really had nothing to fear in the first place. Commenters in the article suggested that the real fear of advertisers in the early 90’s wasn’t DVR– it was ReplayTV. But that’s another story. What I’m suggesting (and the article does too) is that this new advent of other tools like Hulu and other Internet video streams may not be as detrimental as some proclaim they will. In fact, on a personal note, I am more inclined to watch a 40 minute show online, and patiently sit through the mini commercials, instead of watching the same show that runs hour long on TV, with breaks every eight minutes. I also have to wonder– if people are skipping the ads on DVR’s, then what makes advertisers think that even if the show was on live TV it would be just as effective? People who don’t pay attention to an ad online are probably the same people who don’t pay attention to an ad on TV, the Internet, etc. Advertisers probably aren’t marketing to these folks anyways. If they do want to reach this target audience (which does, I believe, include college students), then they really should try to outreach in a more clever way. Perhaps companies need to find a different solution to market their product– perhaps ads aren’t the answer. Product placement is slowly becoming a recurring theme in popular shows, and even philanthropists are promoting their causes by using TV shows to market information. There has got to be a better way for these companies to spread their name. When this happens, perhaps there will be a golden opportunity for the media to take advantage of this– and thereby shift back to depending on companies (advertisers) for a primary source of revenue.
MIT had a communications conference of the shift in television few years back– check it our here.
Is middle-ground journalism no longer in fashion?
via nyt.com
I find myself always turning to CNN for coverage of the news, so I found it surprising that compared to other news stations, the network isn’t doing that well. I, like most viewers of CNN, like the network for its ability to stay unbiased (for the most part) and deliver news in the same manner that newspapers do– fair, accurate reporting. The only difference between it and newspapers is the live commentary and special effects.
Today’s Times had an article that made me rethink whether news outlets should continue to stay in the middle of the road. What I found interesting was what Phil Griffin Griffin of MSNBC said about news networks:
The people who watch these channels are news junkies. They’ve already had access to the headlines all day long on the Internet. In prime time you’ve got to stand out and make a splash.”
While I do agree that many viewers of TV news do get their news from other sources (namely, the Internet), I don’t understand how that would cause viewers to want biased news. I feel like the huge spike in viewership in the newly left slanted shows of MSNBC, the proclaimed-conservative network, FOX, and CNBC all have to do with the recent attention the media has been giving these networks. No doubt Jon Stewart must have caused viewers to tune in to CNBC, and once viewers become entertained by the programs that CNBC offers, they will stick around. Unfortunately, not everyone has had the chance to experience a News Literacy class, so many news consumers can’t distinguish between what’s sensational and what’s not.
I do think, however, that many news outlets are going to become more slanted– not only because that seems to be the trend that is gaining a following, but because news outlets are pressured to get more viewers in order to attract more advertisers. Unfortunately, during this current recession, the lines have blurred between the church and state of journalism– so what happens on the business side will affect what is being told by the anchors.
I’m going to continue following what happens to CNN’s rank, but I don’t think the network can make any big conclusions until all the hoopla about their competitor’s new “reporting tactics” dies down. Partisan news has its place as a niche outlet, but ultimately there needs to be unbiased sources (no matter how big or small) to inform uneducated news consumers will enough information for them to make educated decisions.
Is this Google’s answer to the Facebook phenomenon?
via examiner.com
We’ve all done it. Or secretly wanted to do it. What comes up when you Google your name? Well, now you can know. Google recently announced that your profile page, created through their newly developed social networking site, will be shown at the top of a search for your name, making whatever information you want visible to the entire world. It seems like this is going to be Google’s answer to a Facebook rival, but I have my doubts about how well this will launch. While Google is exceptionally good at most of the tools it creates, I don’t really know how they can top the user-friendly, trustworthy (for now) Facebook.
It should be interesting to see how Google maintains their “neutral black box” stance in the world of Internet. I like the idea that Google is going to be somewhat of an aggregate of all the social networking sites (LinkedIn, Facebook, Myspace), but I find myself thinking that privacy is continuing to become a more trivial issue. If people continue to put up whatever they want, and aren’t careful, what does that say for our views on privacy? Where should the line be drawn?
I also wonder when exactly the mania of social networking is going to stop. While I appreciate the functionality of Facebook as much as the next person, I find myself wondering if news outlets are taking it too far– the other day, as I was watching CNN about the swine flu, Sanjay Gupta asked readers to “tweet” their questions to him– where he’ll then answer later in the day. What happened to just posting your questions in the comments section? Or communicating through discussion boards? Using Twitter, in my opinion, seems to be a little too trendy– news outlets should make sure they are not over extending themselves into the networking scene, and detract news consumers from what they should really be getting– news. I hope that news outlets find a healthy balance– but I think the first thing that outlets need to realize is that utilizing every social networking tool isn’t necessary. It’s making sure that the ones you do use are not only efficient, but effective, and can help enrich a story and consumer’s experience.
updated 4/27/09
leave a comment