I've been a little reluctant to step into this debate, since it's clear I'm in the minority, but this recent post from GriftDrift has pushed me over the top. Granted, I was a little slow catching on to the whole unconference thing, but even so, playing the contrarian in a room full of strangers isn't my style. So here's my take:
The conventional wisdom in the local blogoshere seems to be that the MSM, or at least the local MSM, just doesn't get it when it comes to new media or, if you prefer, web 2.0. While I can't completely disagree, I'm pretty sure this condition is temporary. Big media has never lacked the resources to make major leaps in technology (when needed or mandated), they've only occasionally lacked the will. I think this is about to change.
The same companies that lay out huge capital expenditures for digital presses or new HDTV control rooms and digital towers are beginning to take to the web in earnest. If they don't "get it" now, they'll just buy it later, and you'll foot the bill. And if you blog, podcast, vlog, or engage in an online community, you are their unpaid, unacknowledged and highly unappreciated R&D staff. They're going to school on you.
Here in Georgia, some of us watch with amazement as the AJC flails about in search of a clue. But to extrapolate the AJC's problems to all MSM is to miss the larger picture. Although the AJC and other Georgia news sources are farther behind the National curve than most, my guess is they won't stay that way for long. I know of several projects currently underway by large media companies that will indeed revolutionize the way people get their news. One such project is Rob Curley's retool of the behemoth Washington Post. Newsweek Interactive, aka WPNI. Others are currently in beta and still tightly under wraps.
As much as we might enjoy poking sticks at the MSM, without them there wouldn't be much to chatter about. Yes, some original news content occasionally surfaces in the 'sphere, but it's spotty and highly situational, such as first hand accounts from New Orleans, Iraq or even HB 1 hearings. Most independent news content (like bad cable news), is opinion based and relies on the reporting of others. Like it or not, with very few exceptions, original, consistent, relentless reporting is still the purview of major news outlets. The future of news isn't the indy web, it's hyper-local, multiplatform publishing. Mainstream media outlets in local markets are uniquely suited to make the transition.
Even if the FCC doesn't repeal the newspaper broadcast cross-owership ban this year, it's probably only a matter of time. The venerable old National Association of Broadcasters is even in favor of repeal and has stated "The Complete Prohibition on Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Is Anachronistic". When and if this happens, look for Gannett, Scripps Howard, Cox and every other media company with radio, television and publishing interests to combine forces internally. Even if the ban isn't repealed (some think it will be "leap frogged"), media companies like Cox are still uniquely situated to create whole new entities that combine the best of print, television and radio into a new web-based product not subject to FCC oversight.
Whether or not Cox has the will or even the inclination to retool in time, it's a sure bet others will. Content is king and newspapers and television news organizations have it in spades. Frankly, with circulation and viewership dropping by the minute, they have no other choice. And should ISPs get into the content business, it's game over for the indy web. In the most capitalist society on the planet, long term net neutrality will be difficult to maintain. Instead, the inevitable outcome will be a ghettoization of the indy web. In other words, a two tiered delivery system: premium content and everything else.
My best guess is there is about a year left to (in the words of Andy Warhol), "do everything". Anything you want to try, every idea you've ever had, anything you think might work, do it now. The window of opportunity for micro content providers isn't closing, but the best of you are about to be co-opted (at worst), and assimilated (at best).
Finally, I also have to dispute the claim that MSM folk don't get the idea of reciprocal linkage. Maybe this only happens in the political sphere, but the AJC PI guys routinely link to original content here and on other political blogs. So do the IA guys, but we hate it when that happens.
Comments (36)
Good points. I'd much rather the MSM pay for HD upgrades now and pick up podcasting and whatever else down the road when it's cheap. Podcasting isn't mainstream, why should the MSM do it so soon?
I have physical evidence of the new WPNI -- a Slate slinky picked up at the online politics conference last week. And I also scored a Google coffee mug.
So the AJC doesn't cover the podcast conference. They also don't do a very good job of covering state government and they've had a 100 year head start on that one.
Be a pioneer or ask for the status quo to pick up the slack, but you can't do both.
Mel,
I'm glad to see someone bring in a perspective that doesn't completely drink the Kool Aid. I believe there are many plausible scenarios for how this will all shake out, and yours is certainly one of them. Since I'm catching up on two days missed work, I don't really have time to go through some of the others right now and why I think this is not the most likely scenario. So I'll have to save my contribution to that discussion for later.
To clarify one thing, we (Amber, me, and some of the others who helped organize the event) didn't really care if the AJC covered the event as a news story or not. Grayson invited ten AJC staffers to show up as participants, not as press. They were also invited to SoCon. We were hoping they would come out and engage in conversation since they said they are going to show us amateurs that they know online communities best. At least three Creative Loafing staffers showed up and added some valuable counter-points. I disagreed with them completely, but was happy for the discussion to turn into something other than a podcasting lovefest.
I hear you, Mel, and am hoping for some assimilation or at least symbiosis. That's why I was going with the angle of, what do we have to do as budding, ambitious new media types to cooperate with old media when possible and provide content they can use (or just present) on an ad hoc basis.
Maybe your point that independent content is opinion-based highlights exactly where the border of the symbiosis ought to be. So much of the Media Matters problem with Fox isn't that they have a conservative bent, it's that they deny it. If a lot of the new media content comes from issue-focused groups with an agenda (who, by the same token, might be in a better, wonkier position to analyze the "objective" content of the MSM as it impacts their arena), maybe we can just keep divvying up the work that way. Or, something. But the MSM has an infrastructure we can't just ignore.
This is a pretty new set of technologies, and looking historically at the defense sector, it's taken many years for new technologies to be adapted, recognized, and adopted along with some kind of major operational/organizational shift before a "revolution in military affairs" takes place -- and that's when lives and countries are at stake! So it will probably take quite a while for the MSM to reconfigure when all they're looking at is dwindling ad revenues.
Plus, when an RMA takes place, the new technology doesn't obsolesce the entire existing organization, just some of its tools and tactics. We won't become the new media, we'll just wind up part of it.
I guess I'm not understanding the downward spiral mentality. There will always be a huge difference with content on the blogosphere and MSM. The one major factor is that the MSM actually PAYS people to write content, people actually go to school and get degrees, and are hired for such skills. 98% of the writers on the blogosphere are volunteers who enjoy writing as a hobby. The blogosphere writers have real jobs that primarily do not involve writing for a living. For me it's like comparing apples to oranges.
I also don't understand the big deal about giving the blogosphere only a year of life support. There are creative tools that the MSM will not invest in that those on the blogosphere can create. The MSM crew is concerned about the bottom line - return on value. A completely different attitude than bloggers. Many blog owners have a different bottom line attitude - how many hits did their site receive.
The MSM will never allow their employers to develop creative tools for social networking like "a donkey and an elephant..." because of the investment time.
If the MSM has the financial resources to take what has been created and move the ball forward, is this not progress?
The MSM can't move the ball forward without the original creators. Just because they can see the tool they don't know how to operate the tool. Therefore they may have to actually hire some bloggers to assist with the implementation - and is that not progress? Whereby bloggers can now receive a paycheck and turn their volunteer hobby/passion into actual employment to feed themselves and their families. In addition if the bloggers are at the table then they will have a greater input on the content that MSM produces.
Whatever "special and secret" projects are out there will do little damage to the blogosphere - they can only make it a better informed place. The blogosphere will continue because bloggers are not forced to be in a corporate box. As Margaret Mead says "Even though the ship may go down, the journey goes on."
I really don't even understand this phrase "ghettoization of the indy web". "ghettoization" is this a good or bad public housing complex? When has the web not been independent? The web was created and still runs because of independent content and actions. The greatest independent action is to click or not click on to a website. How can MSM destroy that amazing and independent ability - they can't. Web users have that freedom whether they live in America or communist China.
To claim an early defeat is missing the point of progress and independency and perpetuates wallowing in the "us versus them" stagnant mentality.
just my 2 cents.
"The window of opportunity for micro content providers isn't closing, but the best of you are about to be co-opted (at worst), and assimilated (at best)."
You make it sound so dire!
Anyway, I really, really don't see that happening. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong, but personally I don't plan to let anyone co-opt or assimilate me.
I am still on the side lines watching and learning, but so far my take is that this is not about MSM vs the blogosphere, it is about the ability to have our watercooler talks online about what is going on in the news and in our lives. MSM is fortunately "going to school on us" and ideally will provide content that is more relative. I was just having a conversation over lunch that I can no longer stand to watch the news because recently when I tried I had to endure watching a woman smiling as she reported the tornado that hit the high school. I would much rather get my news online where I can follow links and read various opinions (yes opinions are good and we all have them) and think for myself. People thinking for themselves, What a Concept!
Speaking of the news... I watched my friend Dacia's segment on Geraldo last night, and had to turn it off when Geraldo used the phrase, "fast girls and loose girls." I almost punched something. This is what adults watch?? This is "news?"
Wait, what's the difference between fast girls and loose girls?
Also, Lori Geary is worthless.
the difference is loose girls are slower?
Fast girls and loose girls sounds suspiciously opinionated to me for an objective fair and balanced MSM outlet
Oh god, sorry for posting that three times. MT was giving me weird error messages. Mel, please feel free to delete.
"Fast girls and loose girls sounds suspiciously opinionated to me for an objective fair and balanced MSM outlet"
My thoughts exactly.
Please note that my comment about Lori Geary was in relation to the mainstream media and not in reference to fast and/or loose women.
Ironic that some feel the great long arm of the MSM will take content delivery awry when the Georgia General Assembly has today approved of a new rule that bars reporters from the State House Chambers. http://tinyurl.com/2k3wbx
This rule change will also affect those with blogger credentials.
I guess in this situation the House GOP doesn't see the distinction between the two groups.
Rhutroooh Scooby, did someone in the Assembly finally read that HB1 post.... LOL I crack myself up..
Those PI guys also crack me up: "House Majority Jerry Keen (R-St. Simons Island) is a big proponent of moving Georgia’s primary. Efforts to reach him Tuesday afternoon, while the House was in session, were unsuccessful." -- ROFLMAO
I'm really not as pessimistic as I apparently came across in this entry, but I do think it's important to be realistic, or at least consider what's going on elsewhere. It’s also possible that I'm biased since I think about 80% of what's published on the independent web is crap, and about 1% is extraordinary. The rest is some combination of informative and entertaining.
For example, of the thousands of posts published here, day in and day out, over the last three years, the one entry that was a) the most linked, b) the most discussed, and c) the most valuable to the public was Bernita's live blogging of the HB 1 hearing. Nothing else comes close, at least not here. It was exclusive, original reporting with an informed and funny style. It also holds the record for the most comments on an entry (139), and was the closest thing to gonzo journalism this blog will ever see.
If we were somehow able to crank out that quality of content daily, or even break a story from time to time, we might actually influence political debate in this state. But that would require a fulltime commitment that none of us is able to make, and a level of connectivity that only a few of us have. That’s why this blog, and many others, will likely remain opinion based. As long as that’s the case, we’ll continue to rely on the MSM as a source for reporting.
Anyway, it wasn't my intention to bum anyone out and I look forward to Rusty's response.
"It's also possible that I’m biased since I think about 80% of what's published on the independent web is crap, and about 1% is extraordinary."
Yeah, but I don't see that as being unique to the web. It's the old mantra: 90% of everything is crap. So true.
As a MSM guy, I'm not sure what the angst is all about.
That something was covered or not covered might not denote arrogance, but rather an allocation of resources decision. If they made the wrong call, that doesn't mean they were arrogant. Did it really matter? The AJC can defend itself without me. You did have coverage from the most pervasive MSM organization in the world. Ah, that's doing pretty good. The story and a sidebar box moved across AP's South Wire (at least) -- and was picked up by a number of outlets as it noted.
As long as a blogger, podcaster or vblogger has something interesting and compelling to say, that person will find an audience.
Is it a labor of love or a business or both? That's where it gets harder.
Certainly here in Knoxville we have ample evidence that you don't need to be a part of MSM to be successful. Glenn Reynolds has a wider audience than any MSM in town.
But breaking into that A-list sphere is not a no-brainer or easy. Pretty much like anything worth doing. Right?
Jack,
We hit number eight in the Technorati rankings Monday (with Myspace and Paris Hilton) and it's possible the AP had nothing to do with that. Or it may have. Don't really know.
Why the angst? The AJC, our hometown paper, recently offered buyouts to its senior staff as part of a reorganization effort in response to flagging sales and revenues. In the statement explaining the buyout, one of the upper-management types said that they would show Atlanta that they know online communities best. I'm paraphrasing, but that's pretty close. Now, if the AJC is going to talk credibly about knowing online communities best, one would think they'd have sent someone to the two biggest social media-focused events the town has ever seen (SoCon in February and then PodCamp recently), no?
Again, we invited them to attend as participants, not as press. We did just fine for media attention (new and old) without them covering it as news.
That's great. I got a few Diggs on the AP story, but it could use some more.
Sadly to say, shrinking newsrooms is not an Atlanta phenomenon. The people you invited certainly would have benefited from a networking and skills standpoint.
The AJC is trying to make a transformation many newspapers are trying to make. It's a work in progress. I hope they get there; I hope we get there.
I hope I don't sound like an apologist for the AJC. They're big boys and girls and speak for themselves. I just was trying to point out that it appears the event got coverage many event planners (of any type) would die for. It was a cuccess!
I think it's a good idea to reprint AJC Publisher Julia Wallace's exact words so everyone is very clear on where the AJC stands.
"Online, we will show that we know Atlanta best, providing superlative news and information and becoming the preferred medium for connecting local communities.”
I think it's a good idea to reprint AJC Publisher Julia Wallace's exact words so everyone is very clear on where the AJC stands.
"Online, we will show that we know Atlanta best, providing superlative news and information and becoming the preferred medium for connecting local communities.”
I'm most interested in, not the platform, but the content. Discussions about podcasting, blogging and vblogging so often seem to remain focused on the medium with ironically less time spent discussing what's being said. I think that most if not everyone here has some understanding of the power of media to mold public opinion. From that point, it's but a small step in logic to understanding that the MSM is a disaster in regards to serving the public. Thus, the opinion that the MSM will eventually, if not very soon, join in wholeheartedly and supplant the people-powered 'new media' is bad news.
Again, it feels to me that we get so caught up in debate around the platforms used that we seem to ignore or forget just how consistently and horribly conservative the MSM content has been and the disastrous effect this has had on people's lives.
The problem isn't how the MSM is getting out but what it's saying to people and how that shapes public opinion and then how that leads to policies that for too many are not inconvenient, rude or bothersome but questions of who will live and who will die.
The 'new media', at least right now, is led by many who's thought processes aren't radically different from those making the editorial decisions at the MSM outlets currently wreaking philosophical and informational havoc on the general public.
Jack,
I'm sure that there are issues of arrogance as well as resource allocation but neither of those things are the central problem. One of the keys to 'making it' in any corporate environment is to learn to read your bosses mind. Most folks learn this in high school or the university, at the latest. The system characteristic of rewarding conformance creates problems philosophy and overall worldview, in part, shaped by their media exposure in developmental stages.
This calculus of what is important, what is not, what is bad, what is good, who is bad, who is good and the overarching need to maintain profit levers and perhaps more important than that, the maintenance of control, that's the problem. I can't speak for others here but that's what my angst is all about.
"I'm most interested in, not the platform, but the content. Discussions about podcasting, blogging and vblogging so often seem to remain focused on the medium with ironically less time spent discussing what's being said."
Often, yes. But that's not what happened at PodCamp. Folks who came to the event know that.
Okay. And in the past I have tended to agree with you, Amber. But as I pay closer attention to the precise articulation of the political vision of said group of people, I'm discovering that my assumptions are incorrect.
People don't know nearly as often as I assumed.
I wasn't at PodCamp so I'm glad to hear that what transpired there was different. But many of the comments in this thread are manifestations of my concern areas. The MSM will attempt to dominate the space bloggers, vbloggers and podcasters now fill. But I don't get the impression generally, or from this thread, that this would be a very bad thing. Too often, I get the impression that somehow increased MSM presence is good news.(????)
Hence my comment that the medium, not the content, seems to be the focus.
Okay. And in the past I have tended to agree with you, Amber. But as I pay closer attention to the precise articulation of the political vision of said group of people, I'm discovering that my assumptions are incorrect.
People don't know nearly as often as I assumed.
I wasn't at PodCamp so I'm glad to hear that what transpired there was different. But many of the comments in this thread are manifestations of my concern areas. The MSM will attempt to dominate the space bloggers, vbloggers and podcasters now fill. But I don't get the impression generally, or from this thread, that this would be a very bad thing. Too often, I get the impression that somehow increased MSM presence is good news.(????)
Hence my comment that the medium, not the content, seems to be the focus.
Iggy,
None of this happens in a vacuum, and discussions of medium and content will inevitably cross paths sometimes. Each medium has its pluses and minuses, and each comes with a different set of ground rules for how it's consumed and interacted with (or not interacted with). Advocating for one medium over another has much to do with the type of content someone finds most valuable to them.
I think there is a role for professional press, but that its role is going to change a lot over the next decade. I've been promising Mel a response with my thoughts on that, but haven't found the time yet. It's probably going to be too lengthy for a comment when/if I get around to it.
I think the hysteria of the MSM presence is that - hysteria. The MSM can not exist without us - the consumers. The MSM changes its platforms daily based on projected consumer interests. If we, the consumers, decide not to visit the MSM's site then they will change their platform accordingly.
Instead of whining about their impending presence why don't we come up with a strategic plan to support bloggers, vbloggers and podcasters.
oh yeah, silly me to discuss envisioning, creating, and implementing a strategic plan with Democrats. I done gone and bumped my head. It's way easier to keep going with the Chicken Little "the sky is falling" plan. and how is that working out for us??
"But as I pay closer attention to the precise articulation of the political vision of said group of people, I'm discovering that my assumptions are incorrect."
Not sure what you're getting at..?
LOL Smitty!
And I agree.
Amber,
In response to your comment that the folks discussing mediums tend to already 'get it' about the problems with MSM content, I was replying that I once assumed that and no longer do.
Smitty,
I'm certainly down with a plan to support as well as expand the community model. What's the plan?
Iggy, get Amber and Rusty to plan a meeting. I am by no way the expert on the podcasting revolution, but I'm willing to assist with my knowledge on strategic planning.
Iggy,
Ah... okay. I see I was unclear in my first reply to you.
You wrote:
"Discussions about podcasting, blogging and vblogging so often seem to remain focused on the medium with ironically less time spent discussing what's being said."
I replied:
"Often, yes. But that's not what happened at PodCamp. Folks who came to the event know that."
What I was saying was that the discussions at PodCamp - at least the ones I was present for and the ones I've listened to recordings of - did not remain focused on the medium, with no discussion of the content. When I said "Folks who came to the event know that," I was saying that other people who were at PodCamp and participated in these discussions know that this was the nature of the discussions.
Make more sense now? I see where you could've misunderstood.
I was at both SoCon07 and Podcamp. I work for Creative Loafing, but we are not MSM. We are also not where we need to be with our on-line presence. Even though we aren't MSM, we do have some of the same roadblocks - inertia, different views, etc... I will say that both SoCon07 and Podcamp helped me look at things a little differently and gave me some good ideas. I still feel that there are a lot of folks who don't realize that for a major publication protecting your brand is paramount. If an individual blogger says something wrong about Perdue it's usually not a big deal and if it does become a big deal it will only affect that person's on-line rep for a little while. If Creative Loafing did the same thing we would have people pressuring our advertisers to pull out, people hesitating more before they believe what we write, potential sources not coming forward, etc...
mgjr,
You may not think of Creative Loafing as "mainstream media," but compared to blogs and other forms of new media, it most certainly *is* MSM. I think maybe you are misunderstanding what we mean when we say MSM. We mean (largely) print publications that are accountable first and foremost to their advertisers, that view readers as an audience rather than community participants, and that are concerned about "protecting their brand" even while the concept of a brand being something to protect is falling by the wayside.
Many of us here *do* understand the challenges a major publication faces, as many of us have worked for a major publication, either as reporters or behind-the-scenes. We understand that MSM is scared of change. But being scared of change isn't going to save them.
I understand MSM concerns about protecting brand and credibility as mgjr explains. However, I do not see this as an "either" "or" proposition. I believe there are ways to integrate user-created content with MSM without risking the brand or credibility. I think Mel alludes to projects underway that will show how this can be done. It may not be perfect right out of the gate but kudos to the MSM who will be giving it a try.
We all know that many MSM reporters and op-ed folks pay attention to blogs/podcasts/vidcasts, etc and get leads or ideas from them. What's the next step in this process? I dunno...
I don't want to give the impression that creative loafing doesn't recognize we need to change with the times. The issue for us is how best to do that. Our editors have made progress in their thinking. Check out the editors note on a story that John Sugg did about Stormfront.com a few weeks ago. That article generated 220 comments and a very lively and some would say offensive debate. A year ago Editorial would have requested that my team close the article for comments. This year they let it flow.
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A206566
We have a few articles a month that generate 50 or more comments so we know we have a base of people that will participate. One of the ideas we are discussing is allowing the people who comment frequently with reasonable arguments to help us manage some of our blogs.