Big media’s not dead – it’s evolving

I (David Hayward) work for the BBC so I would say this wouldn’t I – big/traditional media is as important today and will be in the future as it ever has been. At a time of Flat Knowledge, when everyone can find out anything at the touch of a keypad on a mobile device, the job of the fourth estate takes on an entirely new and important role.

The future of the media in the digital world is something I’ll be speaking about in Kosovo and Albania next week, so I’ve been looking at and thinking about it quite a bit. It’s also something I look forward very much to debating at length at Open09. (More postings on that to come soon.)

I think the question is not – is there a future for big/traditional media, rather how is big/traditional media adapting to the new world.

There’s no doubt, the 10, Today and Newsnight are still the BBC’s flagship news programmes and are likely to be for several years – just look at the figures.

But we all know that everything we do is changing radically. This has been illustrated by several things, albeit anecdotal which I’ve come across recently.

Last week I spoke to a group of students at the University of Bedford, as part of the Radio 4 University Tour. While discussing how they got their news I asked whether they watched the 10 O’clock news. Only 4 out of twenty of them had a TV – that’ll be no then. They all had blogs and all found out about the death of Michael Jackson via social media.

BBC News is also advertising for a Social Media editor and very interestingly the commissioning power of BBC newsgathering is changing. All big news events are planned with online at the heart. One example of this is David Shukman’s recent Bangladesh flooding story. His producer, Mark Georgiou told me how their bid started with what they could do for the news website, not the 10, not the Today programme – news online. Until recently this was unthinkable. 

The BBC’s role is still the same, to inform educate and entertain. It just needs to adapt and do it in a different way. If the BBC and big media doesn’t, who will?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • MSN Reporter
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments
Recent Comments: (5 / 5) Add a comment
  • Just an add on to the post above.

    This Reuters Institute working paper,

    Journalism, Democracy and the Public Interest: rethinking media pluralism for the Digital Age by Steven Barnett (link below), makes some points, which are relate nicely to the ...death of big media debate...... not least one quote.

    “The political economy of online news is not one of diversity, but one of concentration ..... the democratic potential remains just that, potential, despite the deluge of information available on the web, old media sources remain the privileged tellers of most stories circulating around the world”.

    As I said in my previous posting - if the big media isn't doing the public interest journalism, who is?

    Download the pdf here.

    posted by: david.hayward - view / reply

  • One criticism of Auntie Beeb is that she occupies such large a space on the web, unnecessarily.
    As she's not about profit, is there an argument for her to scale down her web presence, thus saving some expenditure which could, in turn, be ploughed into quality local media including, dare I say it, print?
    These are the areas that really need public service media help, not the web.
    There's enough on t'internet already and to be fair the standard of much BBC content shovelled onto the web seems average at best and certainly available elsewhere.
    Don't get me wrong, I passionately believe in an independent and publicly supported BBC, but surely it's there to fill the gaps left by the for-profit corporations as well as providing balance.
    I reckon it's worth a conversation at least.

    posted by: Mr Urbane Guerilla - view / reply

  • History shows that innovation comes from the little guys; see Wright Brother, Bell, Whittle, etc. etc. the big boys get to bureaucratic and become meetings people, keynote speakers, blah, blah, blah. Change is overdue.

    posted by: Ken Rigby - view / reply

  • We are fed up with the negative democracy news items doled out by the faceless news script writers contrlled by control freaks. The good news is on the web look and you will find!

    posted by: Ken Rigby - view / reply

  • For a brief explanation of flat knowledge, go here http://www.vimeo.com/7329806

    posted by: Jon Jacob - view / reply

Is ‘big’ media finished?

According to Johnny Nash ‘There Are More Questions Than Answers’. A truism if ever there was one. But like refining a Google search with a + or an &“ the trick if there is one is to identify and ask the right questions among the myriad we could ask.

So what are the ‘right’ questions to be asking about the future of journalism? What criteria are we using to decide they’re the right questions?

Some thoughts to get you started.

  • On the one hand there’s the high minded view that journalism is important to democracy. Even the most down market tabloid uses this one whenever there’s the threat of new legal restrictions or a change in media policy that looks to upset its market share.
  • Then there’s the practical argument about the contribution the entire media industry makes to the national economy providing work for its own employees and thousands of others who make up the supply chain.
  • Or there’s the line that goes something like ‘journalism enriches us culturally’.

And if we assume that any of these arguments have some credence do we really need ‘big’ media to do all that?

What’s wrong with a broader, more diverse range of voices contributing to all of the above? Would it be a complete disaster if ‘big’ media disappeared altogether? Most big media operations seem to be doing the same things as each other anyway, syndicating stories across a range of platforms – duplicating the same old dross that no one really wants and certainly don’t value enough to pay for it unless they’re forced to by the state.

So, would we be much poorer without any of it? And if we still had some of it – why would we care if it came from outside ‘big’ media as long as it was credible, timely, and relevant? I suspect most of us wouldn’t.

Or would we?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • MSN Reporter
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 12 Comments
Recent Comments: (10 / 12) Add a comment
  • Big media has been dieing for some time; Newspapers, Radio, TV, etc have all had their day. They are dinosaurs on intensive care. New media on the internet is becoming more persuasive, more entertaining, informative, and educational. The diversity and content is far wider and pervasive than the dinosaurs linear single minded approach. Shame but that's progress ask the miners.

    posted by: rob rigby - view / reply

  • Regarding the par: "Most big media operations seem to be doing the same things as each other anyway, syndicating stories across a range of platforms – duplicating the same old dross that no one really wants and certainly don’t value enough to pay for it unless they’re forced to by the state."

    When and how does the state make us pay for newspapers? Do we assume that the author thinks that "big media" is only the BBC?

    If no one wanted this "same old dross" why would they keep buying millions of newspapers every day?

    If they were all duplicated, why do we have so many newspapers?

    I am not the biggest fan of media giants, but I feel that the above posting was either a rushed attempt at stimulating debate or somewhat naive to think we could have a world without big media in this day and age

    posted by: Angela - view / reply

  • This isn't an issue for print versus broadcast or online. Millions of people buy papers everyday (although Audit Bureau of Circulation figures year on year highlight a downward trend) Lots more watch news on TV. The issue is whether plurality and diversity of voice can be adequately reflected not by the volume of newspapers, programmes or titles but more accurately by the few companies that own them. I'd miss (some) newspapers as much as the next person - but maybe not 'big' media.

    posted by: Paul Egglestone - view / reply

  • Is big media finished? Very good question-the answer is for the moment I hope not at least for the time being.

    The reason that I say that is until we get a new business model to replace the mass communication one that has been around for 150 years,it is unlikely that bloggers.local communities etc will be able to replace the information and knowledge that big media pump out in order to help us contribute to the democraitic process.

    posted by: Nigel Barlow - view / reply

  • I think it's all a question of quality and relevance. The dilemma is local diversity versus big media templating of titles. People continue to buy from big media only because they have Hobson's choice which, in my opinion, is also the reason why (certainly for newsprint) readerships are dwindling.
    I don't believe the agendas of most big media papers is relevant to most people.
    The regionals are mostly big media owned and run to a standard template. Local papers were the breeding ground of the diversity we used to see in regionals and nationals in my opinion. But big media has killed most of that.
    Until some brave philanthropists jump in and save some of the local papers that are under threat, then give them back to their readers rather than sacrificing them at the altar of the boardroom, circulations in general will continue to decline.
    They seem to miss the point that with regionals and locals their readers are also their advertisers.
    How many big media news products directly relate to their readerships?
    Local is the way forward for print and, I suspect, to a lesser extent broadcast in the longer term.
    I don't think advertisers desert old media for new because of cost, it's rather that advertisers stick with what's relevant for their potential customer base. In other words why waste money on something people don't read or relate to?
    There's evidence this is the case in my local newspapers.
    One is mass media owned, streamlined to the gunnels (with no local presence) and dying on its a***. The other is independent, staffed, relevant and thriving. It has also used new media to complement the hard copy, rather than seeing it necessarily as an alternative.
    I know it's just one example but maybe the exception proves the rule.
    Big media is amalgamating and increasing the area of local titles, thus stripping away their unique identities. They seem to believe new media is everything, whilst fretting about how they monetise it.
    Meanwhile they let good local newsrooms, potential breeding grounds for competent journalists and good relevant stories alike, go to the wall.
    It's not the local papers' fault in many cases, it's the strictures they've been forced to work under to save their big brothers - who now appear to be ailing from the same disease.
    I don't think big media gets it. Perhaps it's just ego that keeps them from closing the bigger titles and investing in local.
    Whatever the reason, to paraphrase James Cameron from nearly 50 years ago: "the local and regional papers owned by big media are potential warhorses ridden by grocers".
    Independents are the way forward, but only by dovetailing with the new media at their disposal and creating a vibrant new journalism that actually engages, entertains and, more importantly, informs its readers and viewers. But they'll need boots on the ground to do that properly.
    Maybe I'm naiive but I don't think we need to re-invent the wheel, just go back to the design that worked and improve it. The 'internet has killed off newspapers' argument is, in my opinion, just a red-herring to take the spotlight off poor management decisions.
    The questions are these: Why are we busy trying to monetise online content when anyone can start their own website in a few hours and advertise themselves for free? Why don't we concentrate fully on improving and strengthening the media that advertisers cannot access themselves - print and to a lesser extent broadcast?
    As an example, India is fast becoming computer literate, yet manages to increase its newspaper circulation year on year. Is this because Indian print media is relevant, largely localised (by either ethnicity or area) and diverse in style and content, or because their big media conglomerates push out loads of identical products?

    posted by: theurbaneguerilla - view / reply

  • The Immersive Internet will provide a new way of communicating. By removing the physical and social barriers of gender and age and promoting similar interests to discuss and collaborate.
    The old media will slowly die out like the dinosaurs due to cost and lack of circulation. The new media will be free, diverse, non-linear; advertisers take note!

    posted by: Ken Rigby - view / reply

  • The single most important question for journalism today?
    My concern is over whether the ‘grassroots’ of bloggers, social media activists, community groups etc. in whom we are investing all our hope if ‘big media does disappear, are going to be able to do things like uncover and investigate? Last year there were investigations in the US about the fact that ‘The Pentagon’ was using retired generals as PR agents for them. Generals who had strong financial ties to the military industrial complex were being fed talking lines. There was an infrastructure of people in ‘The Pentagon’ who were going to leak things. Then they have a small army of trained journalists who go out and get those facts. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I’m saying that we are challenged to create institutions that will enable these confederacies of bloggers to do what these highly focused organisations – that have deep pockets, connections and continuity do. How’re we going to make that transition? I think that’s possibly the single most important question for journalism today.

    posted by: Digitaldocs - view / reply

  • Quality. That will be the biggest loss as Big Media crumbles. And it's quality that makes Big Media so important. A multi-media journalist can't expect to carry out a dozen different roles to the same standard as a dozen people used to. Take photography as an example. Devalued, particularly in the regional press. The photos of Open09's launch night in Manchester are a great example. Shockingly poor photos taken on substandard equipment (a Nokia N95 camera phone). Are these photos of good enough quality for a magazine? No. So why accept low quality images for a website? It's the cheaper option. Unfortunately, if you don't pay - or can't afford to pay - for talent, the industry will lose it.

    posted by: Garry Cook - view / reply

  • Paper and non-essential paper products will have to be phased out; the landfills are mainly comprising of this material now. A new 'Big Media' has to provide fast information, news, advertising, education, etc. We need a concept description before developing a requirements specification. What will satisfy the criteria?

    posted by: Ken Rigby - view / reply

  • As the song goes; blah, blah, blah, on the Radio; blah, blah, blah, on the TV to; blah, blah, blah, there is nothing new; Change is Overdue!

    posted by: rob rigby - view / reply

inFUZE launch in Manchester

North West Vision and Media want talented journalists to join ProPublica’s Amanda Michel on Wednesday October 21 to launch inFUZE.

inFUZE is a cross platform journalism training course offering a 12 week paid placement for successful applicants.

inFUZE has been developed by the BBC and the University of Central Lancashire’s Meld team to provide 10 journalists in the region with up-to-the minute skills in producing content for online, TV, radio, and mobile. Training will be a mix of inspirational seminars, technical training and a 12 week paid placement opportunity at various news outlets across the region.

The training is timed in preparation for the move of five BBC departments from London to MediaCityUK in Salford, which include BBC Radio 5Live and BBC Sport.

The launch, which takes place at MOET Bar, Selfridges & Co, 1 Exchange Sq
Manchester, on Wednesday October 21, 2009 will include an introduction to  Amanda Michel, ProPublica’s Editor of Distributed Reporting. http://www.propublica.org/

To book a place at the launch follow the link here http://infuze.eventbrite.com

Full Details of how to apply for inFUZE along with dates and details of placments will be announced at the launch.

Space is strictly limited so prompt booking is essential.
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • MSN Reporter
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment
No comments yet - Add a comment

Changing Journalism

Some research we were doing at Meld (www.meldonline.org) back in 2007 with senior staff from national and local traditional media companies lead to the development of a new model reflecting the changing relationship between journalism and its audience.

In short the model was based on the premise that all traditional media outputs will downsize and will shortly employ less than a third of their existing workforce in editorial roles. This wasn’t just a hypothetical academic debate – it was a notion shared by industry professionals involved in the project at the time and it has, regrettably, gained credence as media organisations slowly come to terms with the structural changes impacting their business models.

meld model

But it wasn’t all ‘doom and gloom’. The group believed there’d continue to be strong representation of mainstream media brands  (referred to in the model as the ‘Mainframe’) which commission content from journalists in the freelance sector and absorb User Generated Content from audiences supplying them with material directly.

OK, so the process of commissioning content from journalists needs work. Whilst UK companies like Channel 4 TV have a commissioning process in place, most major players don’t, though they’d argue they’ve been commissioning freelances for ever. This is true, except these freelances have been largely commissioned to produce mono media work. Pressures on business models and changing audience expectations render this type of commissioning process irrelevant going forward. Whilst this is a major change issue for all media companies I’m particularly interested in its impact on those doing the daily job of journalism.

As new commissioning models emerge and content is commissioned for multi-platform dissemination individual journalists role will extend to include commissioning agency specialists to supply a range of ‘value added’ services e.g.

interactive programming

additional graphics

photography

video

Their relationship with the audience will also change as they network within communities, employ ‘crowd sourcing’ story techniques and create and cultivate virtual communities to source stories or conduct investigations. (see Amanda Michel’s work at ProPublica)

Networked journalists will deliver niche audiences to the mainframe. All Journalists will need a series of entrepreneurial skills to manage themselves and the new relationships they will encounter.

Once a project is commissioned journalists will be responsible for its delivery. Projects must be delivered on time and within budget. As ‘mainframe’ companies move towards commissioning multi-platform versions of a story, the journalist will commission and co-ordinate all the elements of the story understanding the different lead times required by third party agency specialists for the various technical and creative elements. And they must do this without the management structures and support (or hindrances) of a mainframe organisation.

Changing working practices demand not only new skillsets but also a different mindset. Journalists formerly working in a structured newsroom environment with access to a range of resources and support mechanisms will need to adjust to working alone. Journalists will need to know how to draw on a range of new and existing support mechanisms as they adapt to an increasingly self reliant working culture.

Modern journalists will need to operate on a number of levels interacting with their contributors and key story contacts, the ‘Mainframe’ organisations commissioning the work and the agency specialists they need in order to deliver the project. At each stage the journalist will require highly attuned interpersonal skills. When supplying multiplatform content they must develop their ability to identify and encourage interviewees to give recorded interviews. Interview techniques will need to adjust accordingly. Equally important is developing interpersonal skills that equip journalists with the ability to quickly identify, brief and commission credible service providers (photographers, graphic design agencies, ICT specialists etc) to ensure they build a trusted supply chain. And they must cultivate relationships with the ‘mainframe’ to secure future work.


Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • MSN Reporter
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment
No comments yet - Add a comment

New thinking on Journalism is the way forward

Journalists are seeing their career paths die right before their eyes. There are even websites like Newspaper Death Watch and a Google Maps project that tracks job layoffs at newspapers across the United States. November marks seven consecutive quarters of declining advertising revenue for U.S. newspapers.

The UK is experiencing similar rates of decline. According to a recent Skillset report few companies recruited more than ten journalists in 2007. The changing competitive and technological context of the journalism sector has important consequences for journalistic employment in terms of the skills needed to do the job.

One programme intended to fill some of the emerging skills gap has been developed by the BBC and Uclan’s School of Journalism, Media and Communication.

October sees the launch of a new version of inFUZE by someone who knows a thing or two about thinking differently about journalism. Amanda Michel is the Director of Distributed Reporting at ProPublica.

Amanda Michel

The goals are to tap into local knowledge and expertise, particularly when reporting on the US federal stimulus program, and to build broader public interest in investigative journalism.

Anyone—including practicing and retired journalists, students, policy experts, construction workers, homemakers, accountants—can join the ProPublica Reporting Network.

The first assignment for members will be to “Adopt a Stimulus Project,” where people will dedicate themselves to following a local road or bridge reconstruction project funded by the stimulus and to monitor it through its completion. These reporters will be looking to see what is getting repaired, how highly trafficked the road or bridge is, whether companies that receive funds are following environmental and labor laws, how many people are employed by the project, and so on.

“This is precisely the kind of nitty-gritty investigative work that will reveal some surprising facts, but takes time and patience to do well,” said Michel. “In the process of working with our network members, we’ll take investigative journalism into a new collaborative sphere and help the American people determine where the stimulus program is succeeding and where it’s falling short.”

It’s that kind of visionary thinking that underpins inFUZE and makes Amanda the ideal person to come to Manchester for the launch.

Originally piloted earlier this year, inFUZE has been adapted to broaden its appeal across the publishing sector and sees the introduction of  a 3 month paid work placement in a digital newsroom. Nazia Mogra took part in the original pilot project.  “The focus on not just theory but the balance with group work, story telling, audience research, pitching ideas has delved deep into the person I am and the thoughts I have making me discover further parts of my brain which were pretty weak at times.”

Since completing inFUZE Nazia has been given a full time job at BBC News.

The media industry is adjusting extremely slowly to the structural changes demanded by the evolving digital economy. The industry will require a workforce with additional new skills to secure its place in the digital economy. It’s a fair assumption that  employment and working patterns within the industry will change dramatically as the new digital economy emerges.

inFUZE aims to prepare journalists for the challenges posed by the economic downturn and the emerging digital economy.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • MSN Reporter
Posted in Main | 1 Comment
Recent Comments: (1 / 1) Add a comment
  • I see journalism changing from the written word to presenting information in a 3D environment; instead of word creating the imagination the imagination will be presented. Maybe 3D metaphors will represent ideas to speed information flow?

    posted by: rob rigby - view / reply

Google’s Fast Flip is aimed at publishers | Media | guardian.co.uk

Google’s Fast Flip is aimed at publishers | Media | guardian.co.uk .

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • MSN Reporter
Posted in Main | Leave a comment
No comments yet - Add a comment

Microsoft’s vision for a “next-gen newspaper” looks like TweetDeck » Nieman Journalism Lab

Microsoft’s vision for a “next-gen newspaper” looks like TweetDeck » Nieman Journalism Lab.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • MSN Reporter
Posted in Main | Tagged , , | Leave a comment
No comments yet - Add a comment

MISS CAY’s thoughts on Future Media

Social media is seemingly never out of the press at the moment. Indeed, it feels like all you have to do nowadays is open a newspaper to discover yet another commentator trying their hand at Twitter and giving it up after a week after deciding that (in the words of Janet Street Porter) its only purpose is to allow “middle aged, middle class, work weary wannaby trendies” to “exchange mindlessness”.

Of course, Ms. Porter is not alone. She joins other commentators such as Jackie Ashley, Bryony Gordon, Terence Blacker and Andrew Orlowski, who apparently confuse Twitter with their own columns, questioning why anyone would want to read the endless ramblings of individuals intent only on attracting followers. With egos replacing talent, they resort to upsetting the most people possible in order to achieve notoriety; like a journalistic equivalent of the ebola virus.

There’s undeniably a certain snobbery at work here in seeing all of these esteemable members of the Journalistic old guard looking down their nose at these new technologies. And of course, it’s easy to be dismissive when you’ve managed to carve a nice little career for yourself in print over the years. But for the new breed of Journalists emerging from our Universities, it’s not enough to just be able to string a sentence together which reads well and doesn’t libel anyone. If you want to stand out from the pack, you need to be something more. You still need a keen eye for a story when you’re wandering the streets of your local neighbourhood, but you also need to keep abreast of what’s going on in the blogosphere. When you’re stuck for ideas, you need to know how to source ideas and leads from thriving organic online communities such as Twitter and Facebook which you can develop into a killer feature. It’s not enough to have the kind of technology in your back pocket which is capable of making videos and recording podcasts, but you also need to know how to use it. And then you then need to know how to get that content into the public eye in the simplest – and cheapest – way possible.

Journalism isn’t the easiest industry to be working in at the moment. And with most of the old guard newspaper companies haemorrhaging money at an alarming rate, it’s not difficult to see why editors everywhere are looking to people who can produce content in a variety of different ways in order to bring those all important readers to their websites. For example, a recent job vacancy at the Sunday Times gained over 1,500 applications, which is a mind boggling amount by anyone’s standards. When so many excellent people are fighting for the best positions, suddenly the idea of raising your profile online doesn’t seem like such a daft notion after all.

Print isn’t dead. It’s just evolving. And we as Journalists need to evolve with it. After all, it’s very easy to sit around sneering at those who use Twitter – choosing to call them “Twatters” or other highly original names – but, unless you’re Janet Street Porter, be prepared not to get any work out of it.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • MSN Reporter
Posted in Main | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment
No comments yet - Add a comment

Looking the wrong way down the telescope

There is a future for news – a sustainable and once-again profitable future with the prospect of expanding and improving journalism by taking it deeper into our communities with increased relevance, engagement, accountability and efficiency.

That’s the view of uber J-blogger Jeff Jarvis who, when not asking “what would google do”, is asking (along with his students at CUNY) “what happens to journalism in a city when its last daily newspaper dies?”.  According to Jeff’s article in the Guardian, what happens is that the local community could step in and fill the gap with something new and, most importantly, profitable.

Bottom line: after three years, we project that a blogger could hire editorial staff and advertising help – citizen salespeople who help support the citizen journalists – and net $148,000 out of $332,000 revenue. That’s a conservative estimate when you consider that a community weekly paper in such a town probably earns between $2m-$5m.

There are more facts and figures of amounts that, even with the exchange rate as it is, are pretty eye-popping.

In a comment, I questioned if there was enough of a culture of hyper local in the UK to sustain the ‘ecosystem’

Given that most of the metro blogging and hyperlocal networks in the US are driven by/motivated by/focused on politics, you also have to wonder if the legislative structure in the UK would effectively stop the kind of ecosystem you are talking about at a county, or at a push, city, level.

That prompted a response from  the Guardians Kevin Anderson who noted that very little of the ‘hyperlocal’ stuff is to do with politics. Pointing to an older post he mused that there was still “much to learn from two-yr old report on hyperlocal” which, for him, underlined a key problem news organisations had.

One of the most common mistakes that news organisations make when it comes to community is trying to build participation strategies around an extremely narrow, overly-professionalised definition of news.

I have  a lot of sympathy with that view. Maybe the media does look the wrong way down the telescope at this issue. But I still think there are questions to be asked about the roll of news in the ecosystem and the role the community has to play.

Is there room for a Preston City Chronicle?

Is there room for a Preston City Chronicle?

Much of the tone of the debate around the ‘death of the traditional media’ is framed by the general consensus that we need to know what is going on in the community around us – it’s our democratic duty.  That may not be the fun stuff. It may be the hard stuff,  when the community fails. It may be the dull stuff like the endless council meetings.

The argument goes that, whatever it is, we need it and as newspapers die the gap needs to be filled. It’s in that context that many of the best examples of hyperlocal journalism seem to exist. The oft cited Ann Arbour Chronicle is a great example. The frontpage is all politics and metro news and the civic watchdog roll is one that is part of their daily routine.

But that brings me back to my comment and few (of many, many) questions.

  • If sites like the Ann Arbour Chronicle are the model for a successful hyperlocal news service, will the model travel? Does it work in Ann Arbour because of the city and the way the public administration work in the US?
  • What would need to change in the UK for it to work? More open government, less ‘big media’ or a more politically motivated electorate?
  • Should we be trying to make it work at all?

Open09 seems like the perfect opportunity to ask those questions.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • MSN Reporter
Posted in Main | Tagged , , | Leave a comment
No comments yet - Add a comment

Brave New (digital) World – Brave New (digital) Journalism

‘Media’ has changed more in the last five years than it did in the 500 years before. Search engines, user-generated content and social networks are interesting new additions to the media landscape. Through them, power and control have shifted to consumers from publishers and broadcasters. As the world evolves from a one-to-many broadcast model to a many-to-many conversation, the way journalists reach audiences needs to change as well.

Dan Gillmor believes that until recently, news was always a “lecture” in which big media companies “told you what the news was.” Now he sees news as a “conversation” in which “lines will blur between producers and consumers, changing the role of both in ways we’re only beginning to grasp.” In this new age, “the spreading of an item of news, or of something much larger, will occur. without any help from mass media as we know it.” The result, according to Gillmor, will be news that is “bottom-up, interactive, and democratic.”

Sounds a bit like OPEN ‘09

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • MSN Reporter
Posted in Main | 2 Comments
Recent Comments: (2 / 2) Add a comment
  • I lot of people who buy the local papers buy just for the births, deaths, and marragies just because it's traditional. Anyone who produces a digital equivalent will get the attention of the advertisers.

    posted by: Ken Rigby - view / reply

  • Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Their are people in a bubble: (academia)

    People looking to collaborate outside their bubble; (students)

    and, people who have to work outside the bubble (industry)

    where the main points I got from OPEN09

    posted by: Ken Rigby - view / reply