The state of civilisation is indirectly related to the fierce accuracy of its media. Not so much in factual reportage, although that is essential, but the ability to speak the language of a large a slice of people as possible.
The media is there to specialise attention. To bring about that Platonic wish reflected into Derrida that difference is essential to everything. The nightmare is when most media is similar enough that there is only a singular point to be viewed. The concentration of images and events that inform the public what is the effects of the decisions of power has a manifest value.
The rise of social networking is a false trail for newspapers. Yes some of it is useful. Being able to discuss the news with a like or different minded but similarly fascinated attention - the harnessing of a conversation that reveals seems to be the goal. More content we can read and consume and set fire to opinions with, discuss, digress, digest.
What is the point of the multifaceted view of the world? It is not exactly rational to tell lies or stories that are made up. It pays to be real, alive, truthful. The published media make money by selling advertising and spend it on writers and reportage. A news organisation can make stories and then license it to other players who make media. Television news has provided a face to go with the stories. Somehow it seems essential but tells you less than a newspaper yet it is far more popular.
The real goal of online media is to tell you more than a newspaper while doing so with the communication clarity of well concepted ideas.
The reason TV works in real time is the reason that it does not work as a library. Not as an advertising medium. It is too easy to avoid the advertising.
Which explains the medium of online communities. These harness a voice, an identity that people can grasp onto and talk with each other. But that should never be the limit, a news media is about something more than entertainment and presentation of the news.
The mistake with AI is to use it to replace humans. No reason to do that, we like what we like because we do not know what it will be and the moment of not realising that is better than one where all is predictable. We learn plenty from significant surprises.
A news experience engages its readership with a provocative compelling discussion.
It does not take contention, but directed irritation. Many planned paths of contention.
Muted design gives a paper a silent identity.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Free Information
James Murdoch wants to keep his assets out of the British Library
"The heir to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation empire attacked the British Library yesterday for "harming the market" in print journalism by allowing online access to its vast newspaper archive. James Murdoch, head of News Corp in Europe and Asia, spoke out days ahead of his company's big gamble in introducing charges for access to the websites of The Times and The Sunday Times."
- The Independent
Our Response:
What is he? A protectionist? There has always been a market for free information, history is not for sale!
It is a legal human right to know what happened from many points of view. Every other news media organisation recognises that their copyright expires and their writings may become public domain in good time. This does not stop Murdoch adding value to his assets. Just look at how Fox and Friends embellish the news for the select audience of the fixed minds of Right wing fundamentalist Americans who love to see their fiendish representation of things. It is nothing more than an archive of fiction. Let them protect it and remove their opinions from the stream of common history.
Excellent idea James. Keep it out of human history.
"The heir to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation empire attacked the British Library yesterday for "harming the market" in print journalism by allowing online access to its vast newspaper archive. James Murdoch, head of News Corp in Europe and Asia, spoke out days ahead of his company's big gamble in introducing charges for access to the websites of The Times and The Sunday Times."
- The Independent
Our Response:
What is he? A protectionist? There has always been a market for free information, history is not for sale!
It is a legal human right to know what happened from many points of view. Every other news media organisation recognises that their copyright expires and their writings may become public domain in good time. This does not stop Murdoch adding value to his assets. Just look at how Fox and Friends embellish the news for the select audience of the fixed minds of Right wing fundamentalist Americans who love to see their fiendish representation of things. It is nothing more than an archive of fiction. Let them protect it and remove their opinions from the stream of common history.
Excellent idea James. Keep it out of human history.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
How is social media not a bubble?
The "real" or what used to be to sometimes called "bricks and morter" media - the news and magazine media who charge handsomely for advertising and pay well for quality content is being continuously pronounced "dead by social media". And then they go on about how social media will one day make money, but until then being content with dribbles of aggregating income for any old content (quality not being the issue).
In the serious matter of news reporting, online newspapers typically do one of two things:
a) try to sell newspapers by presenting a boiled down version of the printed news
or
b) try to sell advertising by harnessing a huge audience
or, if Rupert Murdoch has his way:
c) charging for content
At least c) drives the online media toward quality.
Aggregation of content means representing the same things thorough the filter of online networks to score points (or dollars, on google adsense) is what this (blogging) media seems to be about. For this writer, it is simply a way to write and get hundreds (or if successful a few million) readers. From there the sky is the limit.
A bit like the investment in the property bubble, or the sharemarket bubble or the dot.com boom/bust - the proliferation of "media media media" for its own sake continually dilates the audience. The differenced is, that what I write today can work tomorrow. What I publish in a newspaper is designed to expire tomorrow (or soon enough). The same can be observed with comment aggregation mechanisms (facebook, twitter, et al). What is published today becomes dead seaweed fairly quickly. And the most severe degredadation of content is the social marketers - these creatures demand you find out from them "how to gain 50,000 followers" using the same method they used? The age of media competition is not dead, and if I happen to find out how to gain 50,000 genuine followers, it is merely an illusion to say that I benefit by telling these 50,000 people how to compete. It is a co-operative ideal, and one that is bound to come undone when you consider the mathematics.
The concept that you "own your network" - that when an "important person" tweets or blogs, then their 50,000 followers will go crazy is just fiction. That 100 of them may be watching and relay your wisdom is the goal. Respect your network if the one you have is genuine.
There is wisdom in vertical markets. They do not have to be hierachial to succeed, however. Content may be "king" (what a silly metaphor, but it is one that stuck), but the king has to wear interesting clothes or eventually the signal to noise ratio does nothing for it.
The real trick (in my opinion) is to create something worth reading, which is why this writer needs an editor instead of a stream of irrelevance as comments or votes or whatever. In the end, if you do not care how popular you are, but prepare fascinating, dramatic and mouth watering content then your network will transmit it. If they are interested.
But if all you do is inform others how you tricked 50,000 people into registering interest with a non-existent free gift (the infamous give away ebook and selling webpages that go on and on scrolling for hours of fun persuasion) and expect to make millions, you are inflating a bubble that will not work as well as compelling, interesting or even valuable content.
In the serious matter of news reporting, online newspapers typically do one of two things:
a) try to sell newspapers by presenting a boiled down version of the printed news
or
b) try to sell advertising by harnessing a huge audience
or, if Rupert Murdoch has his way:
c) charging for content
At least c) drives the online media toward quality.
Aggregation of content means representing the same things thorough the filter of online networks to score points (or dollars, on google adsense) is what this (blogging) media seems to be about. For this writer, it is simply a way to write and get hundreds (or if successful a few million) readers. From there the sky is the limit.
A bit like the investment in the property bubble, or the sharemarket bubble or the dot.com boom/bust - the proliferation of "media media media" for its own sake continually dilates the audience. The differenced is, that what I write today can work tomorrow. What I publish in a newspaper is designed to expire tomorrow (or soon enough). The same can be observed with comment aggregation mechanisms (facebook, twitter, et al). What is published today becomes dead seaweed fairly quickly. And the most severe degredadation of content is the social marketers - these creatures demand you find out from them "how to gain 50,000 followers" using the same method they used? The age of media competition is not dead, and if I happen to find out how to gain 50,000 genuine followers, it is merely an illusion to say that I benefit by telling these 50,000 people how to compete. It is a co-operative ideal, and one that is bound to come undone when you consider the mathematics.
The concept that you "own your network" - that when an "important person" tweets or blogs, then their 50,000 followers will go crazy is just fiction. That 100 of them may be watching and relay your wisdom is the goal. Respect your network if the one you have is genuine.
There is wisdom in vertical markets. They do not have to be hierachial to succeed, however. Content may be "king" (what a silly metaphor, but it is one that stuck), but the king has to wear interesting clothes or eventually the signal to noise ratio does nothing for it.
The real trick (in my opinion) is to create something worth reading, which is why this writer needs an editor instead of a stream of irrelevance as comments or votes or whatever. In the end, if you do not care how popular you are, but prepare fascinating, dramatic and mouth watering content then your network will transmit it. If they are interested.
But if all you do is inform others how you tricked 50,000 people into registering interest with a non-existent free gift (the infamous give away ebook and selling webpages that go on and on scrolling for hours of fun persuasion) and expect to make millions, you are inflating a bubble that will not work as well as compelling, interesting or even valuable content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)