Over the past 10 years the old guard media has suffered greatly do to the rise of new media. Recently they have come out of their gilded caves to attack Google and other new media sources as the cause of their demise. The problem is that news sites like the Huffington Post and Digg are the new defacto rulers in the new world of online news. People want their news anywhere and anytime, which is not how the older news organizations work. While some people say that the new media is devaluing the writer, this could not be farther from the truth. This is the rise of the writer. Now a casual blogger, professional writer or Journalist can be a one-person news machine. I believe that the future of journalism will not be centered around the website but around the writers. When a journalist can write stories and post them on multiple sites across the web, it is a win win for everyone. In the not too distant future, by Christmas in my opinion, news sites will need to adopt this type of business model just to survive. Get use to hearing the words “revenue sharing” more often as writers will be able to have a website promote their work and share in the revenue generated from a particular story. The old media has seen record drops in profit over the last year as more and more consumers go online for their news, but don’t count on them going down without a fight. However, their problem may be that the business models they are pursuing (paid subscriptions, paid content, etc) simply will not work. More and more people will flock to the sites with the most relevant information for their local area. All we can really say to them is “so long and thanks for all the fish.”
So Long Old Media And Thanks For All The Fish
5 Responses for “So Long Old Media And Thanks For All The Fish”
Leave a Reply
Advertisement
puhahaha!
Hey, Jeremiah –
We may have met yesterday, at #journopdx. I met a couple of you guys, anyway. I’m excited to watch this move forward. That said, I’m about to try to respectfully question a bunch of your suggestions here.
I agree with a lot of your observations, but I don’t really follow your diagnosis.
You say old organizations are dying because people want news "anywhere, any time." This is EXACTLY how old news organizations work. Show me a single TV station or mid-size newspaper in the USA that doesn’t spend more than $100,000 a year on its Web operation alone. Show me one that doesn't have a mobile Web site, email alerts, online discussions.
It’s not as if legacy news organizations have the best such services on the Web. Often they’re pretty crappy, because the legacy corporations are spending too much time on the legacy product to keep up with, say, the latest article-comments plugin from IntenseDebate.
But lack of access isn't the problem, so I don't think the problem will be solved simply by creating a Web site that's nicer-looking than most MSM sites.
As for the supremacy of the writer, I don't really understand why the writer is going to be the one who benefits disproportionately from being able to post and distribute cheaply. Maybe you're saying content is now so abundant that it's no longer valuable enough to support editors to tell us what to do. But I'd suggest to you that there's nothing more rewarding for a writer than having a good editor.
Here's my alternative theory, which you obviously might disagree with: HuffPo and Digg are indeed stealing the MSM's lunch online, but not because they're making the news more accessible. It's because they're making relevant news more accessible. HuffPo is mostly a filter for the politics niche — one built around the assumption that people trust people, so they'll come to trust an aggregator that brands its content with human faces. Digg is a rainbow of niche filters, along with one big filter for general-interest nerdy news.
All that said, I don't mean to denigrate this exciting experiment. It's gorgeous, forward-thinking, and seems to be put together well. But I think you might be coming at it with the wrong attitude.
Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Micheal,
I totally agree with what you are saying actually. The only part I wasnt aware of is the relationship between a writer and their editor , you learn something new everyday. As far as where ThePortlander is going we will not be cross posting as much content as time goes on. Just as HuffPo is gradually weening itself from aggregation. When it comes right down to it old media can't maneuver fast enough to meet the changes within their own market let alone the technology needed to run a modern "successful" news org. If old media thought the same way a startup did they would and could be just as successful as they always have been. I have read some truly great articles recently on allthingsd.com about how newspapers can survive, if you get a chance check them out sometime.I truly believe now that for a news org like the Oregonian to survive they will need to go down to roughly 25 employees max , focus on their online property and only sell the Oregonian on weekends. Unfortunately the only way this will most likely happen is if they buy another local news site like ThePortlander and foster its growth or separate itself from Newhouse Newspapers so that they can change to meet the local climate better.
All right, Jeremiah, I declare peace. I'm totally with you on newspapers' innovator's dilemma, and I suspect you're right about the future of the O (though unfortunately for you guys, I'm not sure our particular local dailies will ever have the cash flow to pursue an acquisition strategy).
I'll declare peace and say: keep up the good work.
this is sophomoric pablum that woould have been interesting a few years ago == you know, before everyone else said it.
Oh, when it comes to local dailies and their resources, better look again at who owns the O.