Content and Its Discontents

For years, we in traditional media have consoled ourselves about the increasing irrelevance of our work. First, we insist that content is king. If a story, image, film or report is compelling enough — a candid photo of Malia Obama, “Slumdog Millionaire,” the columns of Maureen Dowd — it will translate into pixels. It will flourish on any platform, dominate every sport. By this logic, creators, producers, artists and journalists should attend only ... Full Story »

Posted by Fabrice Florin

See All Reviews »

Review

Michael Bugeja
4.0
by Michael Bugeja - Dec. 9, 2008

This story gets most of the picture right, essentially noting that traditional journalists (including magazine writers) will have to adapt to the platform or attract a small but craft-oriented audience. This is well worth the read. But it contains a fatal error: for all its innovative thinking, it left out advertising and how that impacts the platform, both in monetizing it as well as living up to Fourth Estate standards. The Internet and other digital innovations are programmed for revenue generation in a model that gives away information for free, especially timely information, and vends information about information that updates and sells more than once. (It is not coincidental that Fabrice Florin, one of the most progressive new media thinkers in the world, divined NewsTrust.net, which intuitively embraces the digital convention of information about information.) This NYT media writer is correct in noting that the platform will dictate the rules; but she misses the point about how journalism will change because of that mandate. For newspapers to succeed, reporting will change from gathering facts that people need to know to vote intelligently (or to hold others accountable) to facts that can be stored, updated and vended by database subscription. Example: A traditional reporter accesses the police log and reports drunk-driving arrests. The print convention believes that information has value; the Internet convention gives it away for free. The new media business model will require that reporter to file those drunk-driving identities in a databank updated regularly and vended to attorneys, psychologists, Alcohol Anonymous chapters and addiction counselors. This paradigm, I have argued in such magazines as The Futurist, has resulted in a global mall rather than a global village. The value of NewsTrust.net is in the experiment, not the platform; will our social network remind the tweeting moguls of the prevailing new media that they, too, have an obligation to society rather than stockholders? Or will NewsTrust.net go down as the last gasp to preserve fundamental principles of democracy with an unofficial Fourth Branch of government (aka the news)? The utility of NewsTrust.net is that it uses Internet conventions to preserve that democracy. Ironically, it is unaware of the worth of its data in setting a new media business model that can influence the direction of the Internet post Negroponte.

This will be a longer review for those truly interested in this topic, which I have researched since 1999 and prophesied in such publications as The Futurist, The Ecologist, Editor & Publisher, Quill, and Neiman Watchdog as well as two Oxford Univ. Press media and technology books.

Then they should think about what content suits these new modes of distribution and could evolve in tandem with them. For old-media types, mental flexibility could be the No. 1 happiness secret we have been missing.

Ironically, this otherwise gifted commentator either knows little about advertising or thinks revenue will follow content that suits the platform; it won’t. The platform will alter how content is gathered, not presented, and until new media experts understand that, they will be unwitting brand managers for Twitter et. al.

See All Reviews »

Michael's Rating

Overall
4.0

Good
from 21 answers
Quality
4.0
Facts
3.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.0
Insight
4.0
Style
5.0
Accuracy
3.0
Balance
4.0
Context
4.0
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
5.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Transparency
4.0
Responsibility
4.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
4.0
More How our ratings work »