Flat, like pancakes (via Wikimedia Commons)
First, a link to the story
The Sun-Times is pushing video and pushing iPhones on its reporters to snap quick pics from the scene. On one level this is a case of a craft pressured by the hyperimmediacy of the Internet.
But it’s also another example of how the low-resolution world of digital media tends to flatten out content, yoking it to metrics, and ultimately to business models that closely monetize what the audience consumes. In the digital realm, content often is made to mirror and reflect – rather than inform – as sites where reconstituted audiences are neither here nor there, to evoke Foucault’s account of what lies between utopia and heterotopia. Speed, efficiency, hyperimmediacy at the expense of craft.
This Mathew Ingram piece
teases out an interesting aspect of journalism’s representational agenda. It concerns the refusal of some journalists to conduct “open interviews” that involve the observation and potential participation of the public.
Is this protectionism or does journalism have a legitimate claim here? It’s the tension itself that’s compelling, because it gets at the heart of what it is to do journalism, at least the way it’s been done for the past century or so. The practice of journalism has an almost sacred relationship to the world of fact, one that’s reflected in the field’s professional code and the law. The open interview appears to undermine this relationship.
At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about interview subjects “playing to the crowd” – or even salting the crowd with supporters. Open interviews also may turn into debates that are about emotion and individual points of view, rather than the surfacing of relevant fact for what may be an important story.
The digital era tugs at journalism’s relationship to the world of fact in many ways, resulting in debates such as this. There’s more to come.
This is a fun interactive map of what people are drawn to read none. It’s broken down on a state by state basis.
Big data is driving the creation of lenses like these that give us more insight into audiences. It’s easy to see what some of ramifications may be for content creation.
Poynter’s Rick Edmonds has a great analysis of this Pew report about the newspaper industry’s search for a new business model.
It’s painfully bleak. So bleak that one executive says the game is over, and no one will innovate now because they don’t want to blamed for the inevitable newspocalypse.
It may be an oversimplification to characterize this as a cultural catastrophe. The news is part of a system, and like any system, we usually only grasp the tip of the iceberg. The problem is, as Bateson might put it, you can’t extrapolate the rest of the iceberg from what you see above the surface. What you see are inevitably partial components of larger, deeper circuits. Economics, reader habits, technologies, broader cultural trends, lunar tides … who can say for sure what newspapers are truly up against. But this Pew study clearly indicates that the hull has been breached.
Then there’s this from GigaOm’s Mathew Ingram.
Here’s the perspective that you aren’t selling news, you’re selling a relationship. This is true, but traditionally this is a relationship based on a contract: I pay you X, and you deliver me news that I can use/trust/enjoy/discuss/etc.
This is the social realm that always surrounds the news. Online, it precipitates as something measured and monetized as the “click.” That’s the issue. In the digital realm, the relationship is much more directly equated with revenue. Suddenly, you can see how much value is placed on the content, and this value is yoked much more tightly to the social. And this social realm now is filled with so much more content. Everyone has so many more news-provider pals. The news consumer is the belle of the ball.
It’s a much dicier proposition for content providers, especially if they are making this content available for free. Not necessarily doomed to fail. Just much dicier.
From TechCrunch, more musings on the end of print and what newspapers must do to adapt to a world of digital news.
I’m mainly posting this for my own benefit, as a reference point. I think adaptation is a more difficult and complex process than starting fresh. But adaptation also is the nature of the web. What other choice do you have when confronted with something so fluid, chaotic and nomadic? What are the economics of the rhizome?
Great article on Nieman Lab about the weekly newspaper Boston Courant, which is in expansion mode, but in print only. In fact, the paper won’t go online until there’s a business model that makes sense. This, despite the fact that 8 years ago the paper paid a Ukrainian developer $50,000 to create a site. To this day, it remains offline.
The article points out that this is a calculation that other small papers are making. Giving content away online looks more like a death knell than salvation for these papers.
I like how this paper’s owner dismisses digital media as “toys,” which means no one has figured out how to turn them into revenue engines.
Is he wrong?