Recently, I enjoyed a refreshing and invigorating dinner with Walt Mossberg. While we casually discussed our most current endeavors and experiences, the discussion shifted to deep conversation about the future of journalism in the era of socialized media with one simple question, “are newspapers worth saving?”
Walt thought for no more than two seconds and assertively replied, “It’s the wrong question to ask. The real question we should ask is if whether or not we can save good journalism.” He continued, “Think about it. Of the hundreds, thousands, of newspapers around the country, there are really only a few that matter. Good journalism and journalists, on the other hand, are worth saving.”
Indeed. Perhaps good journalists, intuitive and ambitious journalists, might figure out how to survive this Darwinian state of media evolution on their own. Others may need the help of early risk-takers and success stories before being able to individually adapt to the socialization of content.
My contemplative discussion with Walt explored the missteps of publishers and content producers and the corresponding opportunity for savvy individuals with relevant perspective combined with online social prowess. The persistent reverberation of those ideas in my head in the weeks to follow the exchange led me to explore the impact of the Statusphere on the authority of the blogosphere, as measured today. And it serves as my outline today.
Whether it’s newspapers, television shows, or online mediums and networks, the shift is in consumption behavior, quality, relevance, and personality, not the production or distribution of content per se.
As Walt said, “there are truly only a handful of media properties in print worth saving, the rest is comprised of great journalists and recycled national news.”
So what of those brilliantly articulate, passionate, and scintillating writers whom we identify, admire and connect with in each article they share?
It’s not unlike the renaissance currently underway in the music industry. Artists are discovering that they have a Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) channel to reach fans and cultivate relationships. Those in touch with technology and the cultures of online societies can bypass traditional music production and distribution altogether.
I guess I’m saying that at a time when traditional routes to journalism careers are being questioned, exceptional journalists can create their own destiny. Their future is in their notepads (or laptops), ready to escape from paper to online and the real world.
The connection with readers, once established, multiplied, and fed, is seductive and unquenchable.
Personality, motivation, determination, and the ability to embrace risk and venture into unchartered and unpredictable territory is the only way to champion change and influence the direction of professional adventures.
Stop the Presses
Believe it or not, in the overall theatrical production playing out as the world watches media Darwinism unfold, in the end it really doesn’t matter whether or not newspapers survive. We are witnessing and building the future of media production and associated connections right here, right now.
Advertising in newspapers as well as print and broadcast media in general is spiraling irrecoverably without any hope of salvation. Subscriptions are evaporating and quickly eroding the supporting infrastructure for printing and delivering paper publications.
The Rocky Mountain News and Seattle Post-Intelligencer have shuttered their print businesses and they’re not alone. These industry staples are merely the first to topple, triggering a domino effect that will resonate and replicate worldwide. Newspapers are swinging the axe and cutting staffs as though they were invading hordes while many are also reducing their publishing frequency. The rich and influential 200 year-old history that defines the legacy of independent media empires is now writing its next chapter for the history books. The still-powerful empires of print media will become a footnote in the future of all published media as the much younger, 15 year-old online medium competes for limited advertising revenue.
This is just the beginning.
According to Paper Cuts, a Web site tracking the newspaper industry, more than 120 newspapers in the U.S. have closed since January 2008 and at least 21,000 jobs at 67 newspapers have vanished. I’m sure that the number is much more dramatic now.
To get a real time glimpse into the bloodshed, The MediaisDying on Twitter also maintains a running public account of all media properties as they announce layoffs, closures, and firings.
Hope
What eludes publishers is the very thing that can save them: the new model for not only surviving the evolution, but also thriving in the future ecosystem of publishing and connecting content with audiences—where they congregate online. The new media economy will embrace a shift in content creation and revenue generation from a top-down model to a bottom-up groundswell.
The socialization of the web is powered by not only the ability for citizens to publish and share content, but also the wherewithal and associated rewards for connecting with the real people and the personalities with whom we follow. This is paramount as publishers and journalists can learn from the ongoing documentation in the art and science of online community building.
Perhaps the reinvention of the publishing model starts with journalists who become the ambassadors for content and the flagship brand they represent.
Why?
There’s a direct correlation between the attention captured online and the loss of newspaper readers and subscribers as well as television viewers for that matter. Yes, many media properties are creating sophisticated web infrastructures and networks and are succeeding in attracting and maintaining visitors. Online advertising is the healthiest segment of advertising and it’s not entirely tied to the recession.
The hunger for relevant, inspirational and compelling content is insatiable and potentially recession proof.
To broaden revenue horizons, publishers are experimenting with the idea of micro payments, charging consumers a few cents to view stories and also resurrecting pay walls, which serve as a tollbooth between readers and deeper content. Because of the severity of the revenue blood loss, new ideas are introduced, reviewed, and tested almost daily.
Adapting vs. Reinvention
Content producers are scrambling to integrate social technologies and platforms to spur readership volume and interactivity among visitors and also between reporters and readers. And truthfully, this story is now years in the making. Maybe, just maybe, the existing model for generating, distributing and monetizing content could benefit from a Ctrl-Alt-Delete reboot.
While newspapers and publishers explore new models for reversing the downturn, the real story resides with the very people whom they employ, the standout reporters and journalists who are worth saving.
Waiting and hoping are not the catalysis for reinvention however. Taking control of individual destiny is a personal choice and commitment to change and shape the outcome of what lies ahead. It requires an immediate shift from operating behind the scenes to self-championing individual compositions. The most well-known, successful and celebrated journalists figured this out long ago. And those more assertive journalists who see the window of opportunity today aren’t necessarily waiting for approval or for existing processes to adapt to the new world order. Time waits for no one.
Personality + Insight + Promotion + Interaction = Visibility and Community
The socialization of the Web has given way to the era of personal brands. We are all now responsible for the creation, direction, perception, and management of our online personas, reinforced by what we share and how we interact across The Conversation Prism. This is incredibly poignant for journalists as they not only need to maintain a watchful eye on their media employer but also now compete against a new generation of bloggers and content producers who do not abide by or embody the classical rules and training of journalism.
It’s survival of the fittest predicated by what you stand for and how hungry you are to build and sustain a community around you and your work. What’s taking place right now is an incredible opportunity for good journalists to humanize their stories and project an outward extension of their persona to connect with existing and potential readers at the point of attention aperture, the window of opportunity to engage someone on their own terms and in their own time. And, it’s no different than the tactics used by innovative, enterprising, and determined bloggers who aspire to create a congregation around their perspective.
This was and is, all about people and a new breed of social journalism.
To cultivate a personal brand or invest in online interaction is time consuming as the required investment is beyond one’s daily routine. It is however, rewarding and measurable.
Michael Arrington and Erick Schonfeld interact with readers on Twitter, Facebook, and other social networks to stay connected, converse with peers, and also to meet people at events local and around the world. There’s a reason why 350,000 people follow TechCrunch on Twitter (being on the suggested list doesn’t hurt either).
CNN’s Rick Sanchez boasts more than 75,000 followers on Twitter and uses the micro medium to source story ideas and interact with viewers. Also Anderson Cooper has cultivated a loyal following of 93,000 on Twitter by sharing interesting content through his timeline. Reggie Aqui uses Facebook to interact with viewers as well.
Mary Louise Schumacher and Tannette Elie of the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel participate on Twitter in relevant conversations while also hosting and attending Tweetups to extend their personal brands online and in real life.
Kirk Yuhnke, News Anchor for Fox 13 in Salt Lake City interacts with viewers and also those who share his views outside of his home base. He’s reaching a wider audience because of Twitter.
John Byrne, Editor-in-Chief of BusinessWeek show’s us the human side of running the editorial side of a global media powerhouse
NPR Scott Simon’s 167,000 followers on Twitter relish in his personal updates and responses.
Ryan Squire of NBC 4 in Columbus leverages Twitter followers to collaborate on stories as well as simply engaging in real world conversations.
Kara Swisher of AllThingsD and the Wall Street Journal shares updates, new thoughts, and also talks to people regardless of social stature. She’s built a global reputation through her work and insight, strengthened by her interaction across multiple social networks.
Ron Sylvester, an award-winning journalist at the Wichita Eagle, tweets directly from the courtroom. He also blogs and connects with people on Facebook.
The list grows every day. And, while many of these examples showcase Twitter and Facebook, the truth is that your community of potential viewers, readers, and stakeholders are engaging in multiple networks such as personal blogs, blog comments, Ning, Google and Yahoo Groups, Yelp, Upcoming.org, FriendFeed, and many others that surface with simple Web searches.
Journalists and reporters benefit from reminding the world that they’re real people who are learning that genuinely connecting and participating online, outside of traditional walled gardens, allows the rest of the world to appreciate who they are and what they stand for. Participation also empowers an influential group of content ambassadors who broaden the reach of their own personal and media brands and associated stories by willfully sharing and introducing links to their personal network.
These lessons are also critical for students who are learning about the past and the future in a real time collision of textbook cases combined with current online examples shared from peers and mentors in the field.
The Statusphere is the Future of Social Syndication
We’re shifting into a rapid-fire culture that moves at Twitter time. Attention is a precious commodity and requires a personalized engagement strategy in order to consistently vie for it. The laws of attraction and relationship management are driven by the ability to create compelling content and transparently expose it to the people whom you believe benefit the most from it.
The Statusphere is the new ecosystem for sharing, discovering, and publishing updates and micro-sized content that reverberates throughout social networks and syndicated profiles, resulting in a formidable network effect of activity. It is the digital curation of relevant content that binds us contextually to the statusphere, where we can connect directly to existing contacts, reach new people, and also forge new acquaintances through the friends of friends effect (FoFs) in the process.
Twitter, Facebook News Feeds, FriendFeed and other micro communities that define the Statusphere, are driving action and determining the direction and course of individual attention. It is inducing a more participatory, engaging, and enlightened community of media-literate information socialites.
I’d also argue that the Statusphere will ultimately replace bookmarks and RSS feeds as a traffic driver for the masses, as we increasingly rely on friends and peers to serve as our social seismograph for relevant and contextual data.
Journalists must tap the Statusphere in order to earn awareness for their work and more importantly, build relationships with those who share affinities for the topics they cover. While traditional media models lived and breathed through the sharing of content directly to the existing readership, new media will thrive from those individuals who reach people where they interact and hand-deliver relevant information directly to them.
News Feeds and Timelines serve as our centralized attention dashboard and determine what we read, what we say, and who responds simply by the information that continually flows through it. We’re engaged at the point and place of introduction and bound by context and time. Noticeable content sparks curiosity and dictates our next move and subsequently the next moves and reactions of friends and friends of friends (FoFs).
For journalists, it’s now their job to identify who these influencers are in order to establish an effective contextual network. With each new connection, journalists can appear in multiple, dispersed timelines to syndicate content across the social graph and social networks. Worthy content combined with evangelism and clever promotion will earn visibility and expanded syndication through retweet (RT), link shares, Diggs, Stumbles, bookmarks, tweetbacks, Likes, and other forms of social syndication. With each new instance of sharing, content reverberates through extended social graphs.
Content becomes a social object that inspires communication and action.
The Human Network and the Future of Socialized Journalism
The Human Network is powered by context. We learn by listening to relevant signals to learn from others who share our interests and passions. The idea is to complement individual connections with the creation of community around your personal brand supported by your associated views and perspectives.
We identify uniquely with different individuals across varying topics, but the timing of each update we share, which serves as the disruption point, combined with the state of the extended attention aperture of friends and FoFs are perhaps the most important factors in determining the thread and viral opportunity for potential conversations surrounding content. It is the Social Effect that determines actual reach, resonance and the course for individual content.
If you are a journalist, it’s now your responsibility to create a dedicated tribe that supports, shares, and responds to your work and personal interaction in both the Statusphere and also at the point of origin. It’s the only way to build a valuable and portable community around you and what you represent.
Savvy publishers and content producers will also benefit from the extended visibility and vibrancy of the supporting conversations and should in turn build and support campaigns and presences that promote the individual in addition to the media brand to create a dynamic and blooming human collective. Monetization is then influenced by the earned social capital and currency that is valued and measured through relationships and dialogue.
The humanization and socialization of journalism will create a viable platform for meaningful engagement that builds a new era of trust, loyalty and community around the media brand, one person at a time. Concurrently, it establishes a vibrant and collaborative highway to source and share stories by the people for the people to shape stories that matter beyond the assignment desk. Consumers are then vested in media and boast a sense of ownership and pride to have earned the opportunity to help shape its direction.
Content, and the reporters and journalists who produce it, must migrate to the individual attention dashboard in order to trigger a reaction that reverberates across the social graph and become gathering points for individual tribes. The key is held by perceptive and enterprising individuals who can attract, build, and foster flourishing audiences, and must be empowered to do so in order to lead viewers, friends, and friends of friends back to the original font of information—creating a new source of information stakeholders from the outside in.
Thanks for reading this far. If you would like to continue this conversation, connect with me on Twitter, Jaiku, LinkedIn, Plaxo, FriendFeed, or Facebook.
(Photo by swanksalot).
Great Article- So much of the news is redundant rehashed crap spit out by the “top tier”
Maybe if you tried http://www.clasilistados.org
I was able to sell my car there and other stuff…
Paul So
This is a good topic worthy of much attention. Journalism is based on hard work researching and presenting FACTS. Opinions are saved for Op Ed pieces. That way, people know what they’re getting. Students need to learn critical thinking skills because after all they will need to evaluate what they read and formulate their own viewpoints. They should be able to tell if one’s opinions overshadow fact finding.
hahaha.
“Obama wins election”
“Obama takes all key states, landslides into win”
“Obama win, but economists speculate that policies may bankrupt country”
journalists can spin the news any way they want to while presenting facts. they pretend they do something noble, but they’re just pushing their own personal agenda. everything is an op ed piece.
You mean like: “Did Last.fm Just Hand Over User Listening Data To the RIAA?”
LMAO!!!!!
+1
agreed. i’ve read countless articles on msnbc that are completely slanted. in one article (i wish i still had the url) it wasn’t mentioned once that the subjects of an investigation regarding abramoff were all republican, even though, in countless other articles, the subjects’ political affiliations were mentioned. sure, an astute reader can infer that the subjects were republican. but what percentage of readers are astute?
which brings me to my next point, which is that mainstream media dumbs down articles. perhaps this is hemmingway journalism, which is just presenting facts. but facts in and of themselves don’t tell the whole story, and an agenda is inferred from the presentation of the facts.
which leads to how corporations owning the news sources influence what news is presented, and how it is presented. i don’t trust fox news to accurately portray the news, or to offer an objective, non-biased portrayal. nor do i expect it from huffingtonpost. however, at least you know what you’re getting from huffingtonpost. but, is there some sense of objectivity left in journalism?
sure. there are dedicated journalists that spend much of their time pursuing the truth, uncovering facts, and then catalyzing change when the readers become motivated, emotionally or otherwise. in this respect, objective journalism serves a greater good, because it fulfills a vital watchdog role of our republic.
yet, time and again, the corporations stifle this role. therein lies the heart of the conflict. the corporations are the ones with the money to pursue corruption investigations, and other essential newsworthy stories, yet the corporations are disinclined to pursue such stories. a service that is essential to the survival of freedom is at odds with the interests of the financers of such services.
the explosion of information outlets has made it almost impossible to filter or regulate what people say, and how they convey their message. it has also made it next to impossible for the media to keep up with these technologies. yet, i feel that people truly do want authoritative voices that can be entrusted. what i suspect is that many people are willing to pay to continue the good work of those objective journalists that pursue the truth, no matter the cost, and offer it up to readers.
the reason i write this is because you, michael arrington, are one of those journalists that people will read. sure, you’re a dick. there’s no denying that. but we appreciate your work. if you sould somehow join a cabal of objective journalists, i’d subscribe.
> agreed. i’ve read countless articles on msnbc that are completely slanted. in one article (i wish i still had the url) it wasn’t mentioned once that the subjects of an investigation regarding abramoff were all republican
“in one article” constitutes slant?
When a Dem is involved in a corruption scandal, party affiliation is usually not mentioned. When a Repub is involved, party affiliation is almost always mentioned.
And you’re complaining that one story involving the only scandal to be just repubs didn’t mention that. (Yes, there are scandals involving just Dems. Fannie and Freddie mgt is one – and a large fraction of them are now in the Obama administration.)
And Tech Crunch is not pushing their own personal agenda? The site is nothing more than a soapbox for tech companies press releases. There is a double standard here.
The papers mentioned above and even the web content generators you mention *all* are far too silo’ed.
The NY Times and the WSJ have, outside of their shrinking hard news coverage, become nothing more than lifestyle and aspiration manuals for the new gilded age.
The feature stories now are merely how wealthy people are dialing their consumption back to upper-middle class levels. In the Times, there are usually a couple of stories per week about “regular people.”
These papers, which I’m sure Walt would agree are the best (in many ways, I agree) are far too concerned with the DC-NY corporate, finance political and media elites (in the same way this blog and others mentioned above are overly concerned with a similar national very-educated and technologically adept segment of the population – which is ultimately quite small).
All of the above are very, very disconnected from how 95% of the country live their everyday lives.
Very good comments on the way NYT and WSJ have pursued wealthy customers and limited their overall relevance.
Yeah, and that is precisely why we need to save journalism (if not newspapers) in the 98% of America that exists outside of NY, DC, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and Atlanta.
Those most vulnerable to the abuse of power on the part of others, are those quickly becoming the most underserved in the information marketplace.
Want good news? Shell out the $120/year for the Economist. Want the free ‘news?’ Hit SI and TMZ every lunchbreak.
Great.
Shay Totten at the alt-weekly in Burlington VT and also Brad Robertson’s staff at the Burlington Free Press (Gannet) might serve as examples for smaller publications.
Beautifully articulated, and one of the most insightful blog posts I’ve ever read. I would have even paid to read it, and my fingers didn’t turn black once I did.Your formula is almost perfect. I’d add trust/integrity. I’m inclined to defer to the collective POV instead of one person’s, except if I trust the source. Perhaps that’s covered under “personality.” We tend to believe the WSJ more than an unknown writer, for example, on the basis of trusting the objectivity of the editors. A small point I make here- this was a very thoughtful piece worthy of a book.
do we have to call it the “Statusphere”
Topical concatenation, puns, and mashed phrases are the Web [n].[m] of neologism — and are totally rufus [1].
[1] http://www.imdb...itle/tt0151738/
“The real question we should ask is if whether or not we can save good journalism. Of the hundreds, thousands, of newspapers around the country, there are really only a few that matter.”
The first statement has some validity, the second is arguable, bunk IMO. In fact, I might argue that the smaller papers (the ones that are implied to NOT matter) are MORE important in the context of current media. I live in a small town and, frankly, the paper is the only way we get community information. And, as little as some Americans seem to realize it, local politics and stories play a lot larger role in our lives than the things often covered by the few papers Mossberg refers to as important.
+100
Hometown newspapers are little more than associated press resyndications. They should do away with all the AP stuff that people get elsewhere anyways, and only focus on local news. It would reduce cost and save resources. Aside from the little amount of local news that they cover, hometown newspapers are useless, old news.
I agree 100% with the statement, “Hometown newspapers are little more than associated press resyndications.” I finally gave up reading the “Arizona Republic” because the business section became a bunch of AP articles… I want to read about local startup company’s and things that impact our local businesses not fluff pieces from AP”
Delete this if my last comment posted. Just want to say this was extremely well articulated. I’d only add honesty/integrity to your equation.
Great piece. And I like that I discovered it via a status update inside a webwide aggregator!
I have to also add, sentences like the following are part of the problem:
“Content, and the reporters and journalists who produce it, must migrate to the individual attention dashboard in order to trigger a reaction that reverberates across the social graph and become gathering points for individual tribes.”
This is beyond obvious, and hopelessly obtuse. How about, “create content that is relevant to people’s lives”?
I agree with others, great piece. But man, the irony of putting “statusphere” in a title of a post that’s 5x longer than anything I’ve read recently… Priceless.
Great writeup! Questions for thought (for everyone):
*) With Personal Brand journalism becoming *more* of a product, will we see more product reviews for those personal brands? (formalized vs. socially recommended)
*) Does the personalization component for the revamped journalism mean that the new breed of journalists will become victims of their own success? E.g., it becomes very difficult to connect to >150K followers vs. <50K
*) Since we’re now looking at *Personal* branded journalism/media, and that media may be monetized through advertising I would imagine that the Journalist would (or should) take greater care in what they “represent”; if this is true, then would it follow that we would see higher quality products and services since it would be hard to get someone to represent your sub-par goods if their reputation was on the line? [I think we see some of this with Radio personalities today.]
Only Alec Baldwin can save journalism.
A very interesting and thoughtful article, although I am not sure if I liked the word “statusphere”.
I think there will always be a market for good journalism – but the definition of what is “good” will change. A new element will be the ability to connect to your readers.
As a former old media person, (radio), I’ve tried to communicate this message – in one form or another – for the past several years. The points I tried to make were:
1) The importance of connecting with your audience, both where they are, (online), as well as on their terms. The barrier to this is that executives in traditional media STILL feel that the online world is the enemy (i.e., competition).
2) Content IS the proposition, and without compelling, quality, relevant content there is no opportunity to monetize.
Every day I see media brands (mostly) misuse Facebook, Twitter, etc. Misuse how? By populating their tweets and statuses with totally inane content. Compel and conquer. They just don’t get it, and my experience has been that the minds who control these media are closed to moving outside of their comfort zone.
This post offers tremendous insight, not just to journalists, but to anyone who wants to move their brand to the next level. Thank you, Mr. Solis!
Very good article!
newspapers need to open up their debate platforms and act as conduits for larger public debates
WTF is the statusphere?
Oh and tl;dr
Great article. Good to see this and for techcrunch to take the approch of working with the eocosystem to produce a new solution which benefits everyone. I had a long blog on this topic last week called The blind rent collectors: The future of journalism should not be confused with the future of newspapers .. http://opengard...blind_rent.html
will cross link this post. keep up the good work! kind rgds Ajit
Brian, thanks for this really good dive into something we’ve all been thinking about: the changing face of journalism. It’s such a hugely interesting and far-reaching topic. Yes, journalists are becoming more like free agents. Beyond that, the very definition of the word “journalist” is up for grabs. We also should remember this is a worldwide phenomenon, and new startups will be popping up to address the big disruption happening here — to further enable this new breed of free-agent journalists.
cheers,
Graeme
http://www.twit.../graemethickins
Thanks for the mention Brian! I put a ton of time into social media and it’s good to know that people are starting to notice how important web 2.0 is to local news operations.
I think you put it best when you said that this stuff “is time consuming as the required investment is beyond one’s daily routine.” That is the truth! I maintain and interact on twitter, facebook, youtube and more. I also do a regular 30-60 minutes of mogulus.com with viewers via a webcam and a laptop while out in the field covering stories. This stuff takes time! Employers love the extra interaction but aren’t usually willing to give you the extra time it takes to do it. After all, we still have to air the same amount of newscasts. I spend a good hour (if not more) outside of work on a daily basis keeping up with all of this stuff.
I’m hopeful that those of us who recognize that journalism is not just on paper and on-air will help lead things in the right direction. With that said, I fear there are many more media casualties before this thing shakes out. It’s feast or famine in the media biz!
The Statusphere is another way to say “gatekeepers” and is another way to describe what has always been part of the history of media. The failure of the old media isn’t a skewed ideological view but a failure to recognize this as the center of gravity of the changing media.
Sincerely,
Leroy Hurt
C-scape Blogazine.net
YourUnfinishedBusiness.net
Good article, but I believe it overlooks the important of editorial brand.
Most people either can’t or won’t take the time to learn the brand of each journalist. We need the masthead of a New York Times or other media organization as an efficient (lazy) way to assess the likely quality of articles from a broad range of journalists.
Our social network can help replace the masthead brand (we rely on our friends anyway to determine the value of a masthead brand), but a masthead will still provide incremental quality assurance that will give us confidence to introduce news into our social networks, and it will give us more independence in our social relations.
The death of newspapers does not mean the death of news, though. Newspapers have been protected from competition by a number of factors (economies of scale, network effects for ads/classifieds, etc.). Now their regional advantages are breaking down, and they are poisoning the market for good journalism by ‘dumping’ their product, creating over-supplies of both news and advertising space. As they go bankrupt, the dumping will stop, news prices will go up, ad page inventory will go down, and profitable business models should emerge again.
Thanks for the comprehensive treatise – complete with facts and everything! As someone who works with both bloggers and “real journalists” (i.e., old-school folks who were steeped in traditions of fact-checking and ethics), I think about this ALL the time.
There are many good writers on the Interwebz, with lots of great ideas, but many of them are woefully lazy about going back to the original source of a story to make sure they got everything right. It would seem that those who didn’t go to j-school and/or have never worked for serious news organizations don’t even realize that it’s not okay to just repeat what somebody else wrote as fact. When news breaks in the blogosphere, it’s like the kids’ game of telephone, so that in each re-telling the facts fall further afield from where they started – which were sometimes erroneous to begin with.
I truly hope that there are business models for sustaining serious journalism on the Web, but I confess I don’t know what that would be at this moment.
Interesting how you all think you know a lot about journalism. Investigative journalism for example is NOT something you can perform on your own. It is something you do with other journalists and an editor that can back you up. It is damn hard work, and if you are on a really good story, you’ll meet so much resistance that it would be impossible doing it on your own. Further you can not always ask your audience beforehand, if they want this and this story and give them what they want. When investigating something, you need to keep a low profile in order not to let those you investigate do heavy damage controle. If journalism end up being a one-person-business you, might as well forget about the journalism that really matters, the journalism that is necessary in any democracy. Pernille, Denmark
What Pernille Tranberg wrote is the dark underside of the revolution we are witnessing, and we may one day wake up and realize what was lost. It is so obvious a point that it’s hard understand how one can miss it: Open, democratic societies need investigative journalism (as part of the checks and balances, call it the fourth power next to executive, legislative, and judicature, which all three need to be watched and interpreted), which in turn needs a institutional/corporate framework to be able to render its service, whatever that framework may be.
Well said. The masses do not realize investigative reporting is incredibly difficult and expensive — something that is beyond the capabilities of most bloggers. Good luck trying to expose a corporation or politician who can easily ruin or discredit a blogger with their shear power and endless cash flow. A newspaper reporter at least has the backing and credibility of the paper to allow him to go up against these people. Lastly, I find it sad that although TechCrunch loves to chastise newspapers, it has done no investigative journalism of its own. Way to go.
Just as importantly, daily journalism – the city council, the park board, etc. – also takes a lot of time and resources (in other words $$) – and if they aren’t covered routinely, how do you know if they’re doing right by the public dollars?
I see no problem with an expanding, social role for journalists. But if we give up the bread and butter we take for granted, we’re going to be very sorry down the road – unless a new, workable financial model takes root.
“Deep journalism” is going the way of “deep reading”. The ‘One Minute Manager’ did it in. With a society that is predominantly afflicted with ADD, readers prefer twits of 122 bytes. Net it out. Anonymous youtube posts where civility has disappeared are communiques of preference. The culture of savouring a delicious article in The New Yorker over a cocktail has disappeared. Will Kindle save the day?
People who read no more than 140 characters at a time will be restricted in their work to dealing with cash registers, infants and the labels on cleaning products. Darwin will be not be denied.
Crap. Now that I give it more than 140 characters of thought, Darwin seems to favor those who can only fill the aforementioned jobs. Not for having tbest options in this life, but certainly for extending their genetic lines to new ones.
An interesting piece, but I can’t help hearing that nagging arrogance perpetuated by the tech “experts” who are, in many ways, imposing their own agendas on a public that may not want to get it’s news filtered through a dominating personality that has too much ego served up as their personal interpretation of “news.” Isn’t this just like adding celebrities to the “it might be news” mix?
I used to follow the blogging journalists who have adapted to a new way of presenting their personal opinions and calling it news, because, after reading thousands of self-promoting pieces, their personalities and opinions became the overriding theme — not the news and not a balanced view. The names you name are big, huge, and ego-driven personalities, not journalists. They are driven by their need to be known for who they are and how important they believe they are, instead of the issue they have chosen merits their (oh so valuable and expensive) attention.
It’s been so long since news was news that most people, including the tech world, wouldn’t know news if it bit them. But what you’re advocating is just another layer of arrogance that has certainly been a constant theme in the tech world since StartUp got its label.
Then, we can all spend every waking hour being talked to by talking heads to have an “image” to protect, and a bank account to fill, and openings in their Day Planners for invites onto CNN so they can add “news consultant” to the ends of their titles.
Blogging, tweeting, and endless personality-drive editorials are not news. Their exercises in self-perpetuation.
“Blogging, tweeting, and endless personality-drive editorials are not news. Their exercises in self-perpetuation.”
Spoken like someone who has never used Twitter.
Assumptions that mirror the underlying issue that personality trumps all means that if you aren’t jumping on the next social networking trend, you aren’t cool enough to exist. “Never use twitter (blog, facebook, youtube) is a simple insult thrown out at the expense of the simple fact that, if it has no real personal or business value, then why waste the time? Trends are trends because they’re trends. And jumping on every trend that comes along leads to enough confusion that no one can see the other side of the street.
Nancy, I totally understand where you’re coming from. I think a good journalist knows how to report on a story and not make it about them. With that said, I don’t think it’s impossible for a journalist to engage in internet conversation via twitter,facebook,blogging,etc and also report the news in a reputable and reliable way. Afterall, isn’t that what makes our world so great… the conversation? My attitude is this, here’s the story, here are the facts, now let’s discuss. I am the person who delivers the facts but I also need to be the person who helps to facilitate the conversation.
Bingo, Kirk. The public smart enough to see us in different roles/facets. I do that all the time at our Website, almost daring folks to find bias in the articles I write, and going light but not completely silent on opinions as I moderate (babysit/ring master with whip and chair) the usually anonymous article comments – a thriving online community.
Great article!
I think there is a need to distinguish between ‘journalism’ and ‘mediaism’. Journalism is more research oriented and content rich. ‘Mediaism’ is more like marketing news platforms, be it electornic or print. ‘Mediaism’ allows diverse interpretations of the journalistic outpour and thus has an existential dependence on it.
The relationship between journalism and ‘mediaism’ is like the relationship between product and marketing. What will u market if you don’t have a product? And a product will not sell without marketing. So journalism and ‘mediaism’ are there to stay, though the mutual relationship might be redefined.
The world is forever changed. No one wants to read a long flowery text article. Technology and the Internet are very powerful tools that everyone should embrace and find a way to do what they do using them. Paperback Newspapers, Magazines, etc are out. Whether you agree or not. The longer you lie to yourself, the harder it will be. Get a smart phone and subscribe to some good RSS Feeds. Easy.
The greatest loss we will be experiencing is in good local reporting. The loss of my own local paper, the Oregonian seems very likely—and it would be more than just a shame, it would be a devastating loss to the community. There will be a gaping hole where there was once the fifth estate, the watchdog of our communities and public officials. As the creator of HBO’s The Wire famously said, in an article in the Guardian,
“Oh, to be a state or local official in America over the next 10 to 15 years, before somebody figures out the business model,” says Simon, a former crime reporter for the Baltimore Sun. “To gambol freely across the wastelands of an American city, as a local politician! It’s got to be one of the great dreams in the history of American corruption.”
We now stand on the edge of an unknown future for journalism but I believe that good reporting will become valued and that people will pay for it. It is the only way.
In the meantime, there are those who are tinkering with the model. There are a few groups who are starting public service journalism entities, like the Sunlight Foundation (as reported here http://bit.ly/2M7G4 ). Fortunately, we have NPR as an example of how good journalism is valued by an intelligent audience.
The social graph is important to disseminate journalistic articles, but not such a great medium to *create* those articles. This website http://www.popedition.com/ is based in this premise: your social graph is important in ‘filtering’ information that is most probably important to you, because it is important to your friends. give it a whirl
Very interesting article. However the remark about RSS is flawed. FriendFeed, Twitter & Facebook are dependent on RSS. The statusphere is only one mechanism for syndication. RSS is still in it’s infancy.
It’s much more likely you will lose half or a full generation of real, fact-finding journalism and in the loss, discover a value that will be, finally, supported by the digitized, bedazzled citizens. The comments about local reporting are right on target. Corruption occurs more at the local level than anywhere else and unless you pay a person a living wage to court sources, dig through documents, establish facts, follow money trails not for a day but for weeks and months the word “journalism” is a specious one. And instead you will get a citizenry that will only get what it wants, catered to its comfort zone, and will easily disconnect from local, regional, state, and federal levels of power until they realize, too late, they’ve been devoured by the wolves. And in place of this you will have “pundit fantasy,” that will entertain the people away from learning, participating, and acting on the facts. It will resemble the celebrity business “journalism” with people who didn’t say a word about the underlying danger to the economy but got viewers adrenaline running hot to support the criminals running the economy. I see far more of that in the blogosphere than anything approaching “journalism.” Get Craigslist or Google to go out in some local communities and pay trained journalists twice what they ordinarily make, along with some fact-checkers, let the pure internet entities own and distribute the content as they wish and the transition might be a bit less painful.
I completely agree with David Eide – we will lose at least a generation of real news reporting. The problem with citizen journalists blogging the news is that there is no accountability to report the facts. People will only read what suits their own ideologies. Just read any of the comments online at your local paper and you’ll see the danger of letting citizens report the news. As Paul said, an active media needs a masthead for accountability and responsibility. Slander and libel are free in the blogosphere. Without an entity to support objective investigative reporting, we will see those with power run amok with it.
I think the most important factor in journalism is to publish articles that are popular among people and at the same time it should be in real-time. Though these two are contradicting to each other, Twitter makes it possible today. However, there are few websites, my favorite in that lot is http://www.boilingpage.com that makes it possible. It shows the hottest pages on the web based on how popular they are in Twitter. And at the same time, the results are almost real-time. I guess this will be the future of search and journalism. Here’s a sample: http://boilingp...hp?search=obama
It shows what’s the hot current news about Obama.
Brian Solis does a great job at saying a whole lot of nothing in many words.
Here’s the problem: there is no “new media economy.”
You say that “The hunger for relevant, inspirational and compelling content is insatiable and potentially recession proof.”
This is a curious statement. Desire may be “recession-proof” (there are lots of things people would like to have regardless of the economy) but “Demand” is an ECONOMIC term and an entirely different matter.
Content, whether news or entertainmnet, can be supported in 2 ways: consumers pay for it directly or somebody like an advertiser can subsidize it.
Who is going to pay for journalism? Offline advertising is in the doldrums but online advertising is too and that pie is even smaller than the offline pie. Paid content hasn’t proven to be an easy model for most.
So what is the answer, Brian?
You list a bunch of people on Twitter and what they provide but you don’t explain what they’re getting in return.
The print and television folks? Their salaries are paid by companies that primarily rely on advertising.
New media folks like Michael Arrington? Same thing.
It’s great that these people are sharing and building relationships online but you miss the point that syndication without monetization is worthless.
This is the problem with you new media folks: you talk about audiences, sharing, relationships, conversations. Touchy feely stuff.
But when it comes to what’s really needed to save journalism — a business model that makes PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM a viable profession — you have absolutely nothing to say. In 1500 words.
Furthermore, your “statusphere” itself needs to save itself. How much revenue has Twitter generated? How many people does Twitter employ?
So here’s a suggestion: in your next post, please explain HOW the statusphere can save journalism. And please do us a favor and use fewer words.
Finally – a commenter who sees the actual issue! Thanks, Hector.
It’s not about getting all warm and fuzzy with your readers/viewers/followers/audience – it’s about HOW TO MAKE A LIVING while doing it!
As an experienced journalist who spent more than a year looking for a job after being downsized, I can state unequivocally that all the blogging etc. I did during that time did not keep me from burning through my retirement funds or going on food stamps to take care of my family.
The average journalist doesn’t expect to get rich – but we gotta keep a roof over our heads and we gotta feed the kids.
Until you can demonstrate a way that your “statusphere” can result in an income someone can live on, you’re just blowing smoke up our collective posteriors.
The media business today is where the Hollywood studio system was in the early sixties when cheaply produced independent films threatened the star system. The future for media “stars” looks bright: our company compensates some bloggers, but many are also getting paid for speaking, consulting and other activities. Many formerly traditional journalists are doing very well, thank you, in the new environment. See former FORTUNE reporter Marc Gunther’s post here: http://www.marc...ther.com/?p=523 The big dif is that now bloggers have to manage their own brand, having been shoved from the nests of the big media brands.
The writer presents a flawed premise typical of those who see journalism as technology driven as opposed to content driven.
Journalism has survived through all iterations of delivery including word of mouth, town crier, hand printed page, the automated press, film-reel, radio, TV, and is now adapting to the Internet.
The trouble with news nowadays is that it is presented by ever increasing numbers of undocumented journalists.
This is a problem in the US because these ‘reporters’ don’t even have a clue why the framers of the Constitution protected the press from the government. It is very much a missing insight in today’s news-gathering and reporting.
Content, not technology, is the key to journalism’s survival. This means news-reporting cannot be driven by an ideological template that delivers some news more objectively than other news.
the comments make a better read than the article itself
I rarely comment on blogs or stories, but this entry is terrific. It’s reasonable to conclude that this model may find it’s way to other industries where information is everything (education, real estate, etc). I also think there will be a premium on investigative journalism… most articles today are essentially press releases.
I agree completely with the article…good writing and journalism is worth saving, even if the current model used by many newspapers simply is outmoded and needs to be overhauled to fall into step with modern times.
leave it to tech geek reporters/gossips to get the questions wrong as well…
its not about the binary of GOOD or BAD journalism…
ITS ABOUT A FREE SOCIETY and DEMOCRACY SURVIVING without the ACT of JOURNALISM.
The rollover of the press for the last decade is now gonna sadly be missed, as even more sinister uses for propaganda by those who can afford it will take place.
IT cant happen here? the past is riddled with that lie.
And twitter is as “real” as “second life”….lol so there.
This is a very interesting post. Journalism is changing. Journalists must change, too. Last week, TrueSlant.com released it’s Alpha product to the public. The release was covered by Walt Mossberg. True/Slant is an original content news network tailored to what we’re calling “The New Journalist.” As we see it, “New Journalists” are Brands of One. On True/Slant, they anchor, brand and consolidate their brands. It’s their Digital Home. On True/Slant, New Journalists (credible, knowledgeable and experienced voices) can be as entrepreneurial with their brands as they want to be.
Quote…..
…a ‘hang-out’ where a “twoosh” is said to be a message that fits a maximum of 140 characters……..
http://www.sharecafe.com.au/
Cheers!
Great writeup, Brian.
That said…
1. Journalism skills are hard to develop.
I’m a working online journalist and I suck compared to my colleagues who’ve been tutored and apprenticed in newsrooms. As newspapers vanish, we need new ways to socialize the investigation, writing, editing, beat management, and collaboration skills that make for great journalism.
J-school for bloggers? Rent-an-Editor? Certification programs that accredit for specific journalism skills (think scouting merit badges)? Bonding that I always tell the truth and correct errors promptly? Subscription to journalism codes of ethics?
2. Newspapers use the popular to subsidize the important.
High school sports (and the auto and real estate advertising behind them) pay for local coverage of city hall, the crime beat, and investigative reporting. National/international stories can find markets that local markets cannot support on their own.
As the online spew breaks the subsidy, we either need to lose the coverage or find new ways to subsidize reporting that is important but not popular.
I like the idea of public subsidy for civic coverage. A tax that pays for fourth estate coverage of government and power.
Phil, I like your comments, right up until the end. How can the fourth estate stay independent if the government is serving as revenue collector/distributor? It’s bad enough trying to get tough stories on major advertisers, and probably none of them contributes more than 10% of any newspaper’s revenues.
Have you heard of “dont bite the hand that feeds you?” You can’t expect govt. to pay for media and then expect media to hold government accountable. The media serves a critical purpose. Government funding is NOT the answer.
If there were a way to support media from public donations, that I would support. Just can’t be the govt. to coordinate it.
I believe it was Jung who said, “beware the extremes.”
Look at the newspaper industry from a few clicks of abstraction back and what you see is a manufacturing system that uses journalists instead of machines, editors as quality control and design, etc., wrapped in a very old-world delivery and operating model.
In that context, it’s easy to see that much of what characterizes the newspaper industry is outmoded.
But we are in deep, deep grease if we dismiss the whole structure because part of it isn’t relevant going forward.
Many here have written well and thoughtfully about the importance of investigative journalism and the danger of the proposed “statusphere.”
Woodward and Bernstein, for example, were minor players pre-Watergate, so they would have had little status to lift their message to the national stage — much less to fund its lengthy and careful development.
Most of us are far too lazy, in most parts of our lives, to spend the time necessary to develop a truly informed opinion, which is why we need the editor function so badly. The wisdom of crowds isn’t a valid substitute. (For the record, it isn’t as though news organizations are perfect; one could argue that the advent of cable news and the ability to micro-target audiences was the starting point for the erosion of quality journalism.)
What we need is fresh thinking around a business model that preserves the basic architecture of news creation while embracing the possibilities inherent in a digital delivery environment.
Oh – and it has to be economically viable so that quality people are drawn to pursue it as a career. With all due respect to the TechCrunch gang, who I respect and read regularly, your experience of riding the wave you’re on is exactly not like what the next generation will face.
I’ve rarely seen so few words without actually making any sense. So let me get this straight, all journalists need to do is bang the crap out of twitter and facebook, and then money will roll in?
Uhh, I don’t get it. I think Brain has stated what is already clear to most people, the way to increase your status is to make a lot of noise and post a lot of crap (oops, I mean riveting articles). Now what does this audience bring if no one wants to buy any articles, books, E-Books, subscriptions, etc.
IMO, I think this is pretty much what Seth Godin has been saying for quite a while. I don’t see how this saves good reporting. Or did I miss something.
>”The socialization of the Web has given way to the era of personal brands. We are all now responsible for the creation, direction, perception, and management of our online personas, reinforced by what we share and how we interact across The Conversation Prism. This is incredibly poignant for journalists as they not only need to maintain a watchful eye on their media employer but also now compete against a new generation of bloggers and content producers who do not abide by or embody the classical rules and training of journalism.”
>”It’s survival of the fittest predicated by what you stand for and how hungry you are to build and sustain a community around you and your work. What’s taking place right now is an incredible opportunity for good journalists to humanize their stories and project an outward extension of their persona to connect with existing and potential readers at the point of attention aperture, the window of opportunity to engage someone on their own terms and in their own time.”
>”I’d also argue that the Statusphere will ultimately replace bookmarks and RSS feeds as a traffic driver for the masses, as we increasingly rely on friends and peers to serve as our social seismograph for relevant and contextual data.”
I think the point of the article isn’t really about how the money will roll in for journalists, but how in the face of media evolution do we preserve the integrity and placing of journalists as a reliable source of information a.k.a. good journalism. What the Statusphere offers is varied opinions (from various blogs etc.) of a piece of news – it does help us to think about the values that we stand for. But the job of journalists is, I feel, that they highlight issues (without bias) that people should be thinking about. The article doesn’t particularly address how the evolution saves good reporting (it does mention the options now available to journalists and where they need to be to survive), but it does highlight that our focus shouldn’t be on saving print media, but on saving good reporting.
The last thing journalism needs are more PR people telling it out to survive using the technologies they are paid to pimp.
This article comes across as pure techno-evangalism.
I’m also not sure the rise of “celebrity” journalism will have the outcomes you predict. Like any good journalist will tell you an editorial process is essential – this collective effort propelled by coherent values is something individualised media misses out on. When working in isolation you can sometimes not see the wood for the trees, bogged down in churning out copy and endlessly working on “establishing your brand”. The financial support of a good paper/publishing house also means that individuals can take on companies, governments and visit the faraway places that one individual might find economically unsustainable. How many bloggers have their own legal teams?
The flipside of your argument is a host of “celebrity” journalists forever reliant on pr and marketing teams to get their stories, lacking real independence and power to make far-reaching decisions.
Also, many many newspapers, if they disappear, will reduce the number of good journalists overall dramatically. No more internships, no more training, no more experienced figures to draw on, those entering journalism will be faced with impossible odds. Where will the likes of Anderson Cooper get his start in the future? On Twitter?? How would he fund that? Flipping burgers? Then how would he have the time to develop skills, leads, stories? And what happens when the likes of Cooper et al die off?
I agree the industry has to adapt and there is much good that can be achieved with twitter, blogging etc but I don’t buy that this is all necessarily a positive thing – I would urge caution or we could lose a powerful brake on those with unaccountable power.
Great article…and I’m glad you brought local broadcast media into the equation. As I’ve argued on my blog, the time is now to be one’s own brand. I agree with you that quality content–the “good” journalism will endure one way or another, just as people will always want “local” news. It’s just that they may not turn to a TV station and it’s old-model appointment viewing 6:00 newscast to get it.
Mark
Mortimer Ferdsnorter, dudeist, Steve, Scratching my head, Mark Joyella –
Judging by the content of this article, Brian Solis is a clueless schmo whose ignorance is dwarfed only by the ignorance of the superschmos who agree with him. The lot of them are morphing into a tribe of slaves who — not knowing fact from fiction — refuse to believe anything or anybody with whom they disagree.
To say that what we’re moving into is Orwellian is not only trite but really doesn’t state the case. Orwell feared an uberstate controlled by a person (or a group of people pretending to be a single person) and dedicated to the enslavement of the human race. Brian Solis and his fan club are well along the way to forging a community, a network really, of like-minded ignoramuses who will organize lynch-mobs online and send them after people they don’t like in the real world.
There won’t BE a state. There’ll be a huge corporation that owns all these other, smaller corporations that pretend to exist independently. Each of the smaller corporations will have a squad of slobs like Brian Solis, who organize mobs of those who like “brand x” and send them after those who speak against “brand x”. The enemies lists — comprised of people who may or may not have spoken out — will be published on Twitter or Facebook or some other idiotic, transitory venue. Like Warhol didn’t say, everybody will be famous (as a villain) for 15 minutes or until she/he is killed by one of the “brand x” lynch mobs.
Away up toward the top of the list, some yahoo posted who blames the likes of Ernest Hemingway for the curse/cult of objectivity in journalism. There’s nothing anyone can do for people so abysmally ignorant. No knowledgeable person can persuade them to heed anything they do not want to hear.
The Age of Reason was premised on facts. It ended when wise men agreed to turn advertisers and propagandists loose on the public. Now, some hundred and twenty years later, few are left who know fact from fiction and fewer still can use what they know to reason coherently. We truly are headed into a new, Dark Age. Who the hell knows (at this point) if or when anyone will lead us out of it?
one of the major difficulties of investigative journalism is getting access to potential sources and getting them to view you, the “journalist”, as credible. this comes from having the big/trusted name. with such fragmentation, for major issues how will sources know who to trust enough to speak to? who gets to go to the big international press conferences? not that bloggers can’t do it, but one thing real journalists do is follow strict guidelines in terms of certain points of accuracy, even if there is an inherent bias.
hopefully any truly good, but unfortunately laid off journalists, will band together to form new trusted networks. not to mention there’s something to be said in using new technology to lower an organization’s cost structure.
Well said.