Yesterday, a top-read article on Time.com caught my eye. A book, "A Brief History of the Future" by Jacques Attali, predicts what the world will look like in 2050. Among the more exciting prognostications -- multinational corporations controlling everything, roving bands of pirates -- is one that seems obvious now. By 2050, dead-tree journalism as we know it will be dead.
I had a discussion with my mother about newspapers when I was home last. I explained to her that media groups hadn't quite mastered the money-making aspect of the online world quite yet, but when they did, there would be no looking back. We mourn print newspapers out of nostalgia and the feeling of holding something tangible in our hands. In reality, though, good writing (and editing, photography, etc.) is good writing regardless of where it's printed. The idea of the Web (even, ahem, Kansan.com) as a digital dumping ground for stories "unworthy" of print consideration irks me.
Journalism will survive even if newspapers don't. It may even be stronger for it. Another thing I explained to my mother was that, despite all the noise online, the excellent journalism will eventually rise to the top and the market will correct itself. People demand good products, and the strongest and best and most-adapted will survive. There's a reason that the world's best newspaper has steadily shifted to become the world's best newspaper online (referring of course to the New York Times).
Brian Solis' article about social media's role in journalism hits on the major strength of sites like Twitter and Facebook -- instant feedback. You can see, in real time, what people care about and what they're talking about. Web site hits, most-e-mailed lists, comments and tweets measure reader interest and participation in ways that print journalism just can't. Not only do journalists see quantitative audience measures, but readers can also make their wishes known without having to sit down and write out a letter to the editor.
Journalists can take this feedback and turn around immediately and respond to it, covering what their audience explicitly asks them to. To ignore what laypeople are talking about -- in some cases, notably on CNN, laypeople ARE the journalists -- is to blow a hole through your own foot.
I had a discussion with my mother about newspapers when I was home last. I explained to her that media groups hadn't quite mastered the money-making aspect of the online world quite yet, but when they did, there would be no looking back. We mourn print newspapers out of nostalgia and the feeling of holding something tangible in our hands. In reality, though, good writing (and editing, photography, etc.) is good writing regardless of where it's printed. The idea of the Web (even, ahem, Kansan.com) as a digital dumping ground for stories "unworthy" of print consideration irks me.
Journalism will survive even if newspapers don't. It may even be stronger for it. Another thing I explained to my mother was that, despite all the noise online, the excellent journalism will eventually rise to the top and the market will correct itself. People demand good products, and the strongest and best and most-adapted will survive. There's a reason that the world's best newspaper has steadily shifted to become the world's best newspaper online (referring of course to the New York Times).
Brian Solis' article about social media's role in journalism hits on the major strength of sites like Twitter and Facebook -- instant feedback. You can see, in real time, what people care about and what they're talking about. Web site hits, most-e-mailed lists, comments and tweets measure reader interest and participation in ways that print journalism just can't. Not only do journalists see quantitative audience measures, but readers can also make their wishes known without having to sit down and write out a letter to the editor.
Journalists can take this feedback and turn around immediately and respond to it, covering what their audience explicitly asks them to. To ignore what laypeople are talking about -- in some cases, notably on CNN, laypeople ARE the journalists -- is to blow a hole through your own foot.
Leave a comment