Steal this story

In his articel News Executives Losing Fight Against Law and Technology Art Brodsky highlights several important new media law issues whilst examining the Associated Press's legal struggles. While his article was informative, I can't help but think it's kind of pointless.

Here we have another case of someone who can point out the obvious: journalism is in trouble. Damn, that's a problem isn't it. In his words:

"Blaming the Internet isn't going to make the newspaper industry's situation any better. Blaming one of the only pro-consumer features in copyright law isn't going to make it better, either. Recognizing reality and dealing with it will."

Wow, really? While I certainly agree with these statements, I can't help but recognize the lack of ideas he brings to the discussion. Of course the AP is going to try and guard their content. Their subscriptions put food on the table for hundreds of journalists. When someone takes their work without some sort of payment the AP dies a little inside.

On the other hand, of course the internet is going to want to share it. That's what the internet was built for. It's designed to make sharing information as easy as logging on. It's the same conflict the music and movie industry is facing. Why pay for anything when you can get it free somewhere, especially under the guise of anonymity?

But here's the real issue: how do we get people to pay for something they can in all likely hood get for free? Now there's an issue worth discussing. Let's face it, copyright law can try to stomp out the forest fire of infringement, but regardless of how many years they pursue it, the Web community will always be one step ahead.

Take DVD ripping software for example. Originally it was designed to back up your DVD collection in case something happens to the original disc, but quickly became a way to trade digital copies of DVDs. As a result, the production companies were quick to start encrypting their material. Nevertheless hackers are always one step ahead. Granted they take a few hours to crack the code, say three or four, but it isn't long before the sharing community spreads that hack across the internet. Every time a new protection comes out hackers see it as an opportunity to show off their ability to overcome it.

This is the same issue the news industry is facing.

These days I can log on to nearly any site and read the day's news, in full. And it's easier than buying a paper. So to merely state that the news industry is still in trouble is completely worthless. His article cuts off right before anything worthwhile is to come of it. "Recognizing reality and dealing with it will." Duh. But how do we deal with it? It's one thing to point out the need for change and another to actually change. Like all those in the industry, Brodsky is just pointing out the obvious problems. Clearly that hasn't worked before.

I certainly can't solve the problem myself. No one can. But until we stop focusing on the problem and start thinking about solutions the industry will continue to just run in place. The internet is a place for sharing. Always has been, always will be. And the news can either adapt to it and quit fighting a battle they may one day win in court but will never win in reality, or get off the internet. People will pay for something they want. How do we make the news something people want? Let's talk about answers, not problems.We've spent too long talking about problems.

The Digital News Divide

After reading both Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable by Clay Shirky and Old Growth Media and the Future of News by Steven Berlin Johnson, I'll admit I'm not surprised with either article. However, I do have points of contention with both. Let's begin with Shirky.

While I certainly commend Shirky for his honest portrayal of the current state of media, I can't help but question the purpose of this piece. He seems to suggest news is a sinking ship and well, he's not sure what to do about it. But give it time and the answer will come to us as if by some divine intervention. I do agree with his assessment of the newspaper industry; it's dying, and it's dying quicker than society might have anticipated. His references to the 1500s are applicable too. During a time of transition everything does seem to break faster than it can be replaced with new ideas. And I love his line,"Society doesn't need newspapers. What we need is journalism." These thoughts characterize the need for a new model within traditional media and emphasize the need for new ideas in a static system. Ideas that may or may not have any semblance of the status quo, yet are capable of exceeding its success.

Where this article falls flat is with its argument.

Argument: Newspapers are falling apart, we need a new model, I don't know what it is and no one does, but we'll figure it out.

If that is the case, how is this article even relevant? It makes no worthwhile suggestions or ideas that contribute to the current state of media. Instead the author would have you believe in the 19-year-old he so profoundly believes in will just come along and fix media. I certainly don't mean to downplay the importance of garage inventions like craigslist, twitter, or wikipedia and their importance in our current Web age. While they are certainly a vital part of the Internet's dominance in a field once staked solely by newspapers, they succeeded in only one, less important, facet of the common newspaper.

Today our focus is on the transition of the entire newspaper. And what's Shirky's suggestion? Well... he doesn't know. But he'll get back to you on that one. I understand his desire to illustrate the shortcomings of our current attempts at re-orchestrating traditional media, but to criticize without new ideas is worthless. His only suggestion is to give it time. Sit back and relax in hopes that somewhere, somebody can fix this problem. That's great for 99 percent of us, but what about the 1 percent who are actually trying to fix the problem? Those are the people whose ideas we should be discussing and examining. Not focusing on the notion that Superman might just come along and dig us out of the hole we've fallen into.

This brings me on to Johnson's article. His views on newspapers as an Internet filter are an interesting perspective on the role of traditional media in modern times. To suggest newspapers might act a a sort of screen for information posted on the Web may have some validity to it, however he's overlooking one essential aspect to this scenario: writing quality.

While I don't mean to undermine bloggers or other online publishing, I do believe there is a line distinguishing those with a background in writing from those who simply can. To continue his metaphor, the forest may have more trees than ever before, but if those trees are only able to produce half as many leaves (or in this case complete and accurate stories) the forest will never be as sustainable as it once was. In other words, the Internet might play home to all the world's writers, but how many are capable of providing content of similar quality to those well trained in that very topic?

Another concern I have with his model is the lack of ideas for keeping newspapers afloat. While their new role could prove successful for many, he fails to suggest how to turn a profit on such work. How do these filters make enough money to offset the costs of reading every article published on the web and choosing those which are relevant to readers? Simply put, his model is incomplete in its current form. As with any business, one must turn a profit to continue providing its services. So how would that work with newspapers acting only as a filter for what is already published online? And to return to the unoriginal idea of advertising is naive to me; advertising isn't working now, what's to say it would work under these new circumstances?

Both articles do a wonderful job critiquing the state of media using historical examples. Together they illustrate the need for immediate change in newsrooms across the country, but neither suggests worthwhile ideas towards an actual solution for the problem. While no one answer may exist, and in all probability doesn't, it is still a pertinent time for new thoughts on an ever-changing media landscape.

Ethics in a New Age

As of 6 p.m. Thursday, 24 automotive stories have been written on the popular automotive blog Jalopnik, the majority of which were composed by four people. Over on Lifehacker, another popular blog, 20 stories have been written by a similar number of staff writers.

Often these blurbs are comprised of no more than a few hundred words at best, and while these tidbits of information often prove to be interesting and sometimes informative, they are a distraction from the focus of legitimate journalism.

In an era of instant communication, the blogger banks on our willingness to accept breaking news at face value. Thanks to the advent of the web and the 'citizen journalist', we are bombarded with pseudo news at all hours of the day. Shoveling through the encroaching barrage of worthless information becomes a daunting task for readers, as does actually discovering important news.

While timeliness is certainly a virtue for every journalist to have, it cannot and should not become our only focus. At the turn of the century, it was timeliness that paid the bills. To be the first with a story ensured sales and career comfort, but a day was always necessary between writing the story and having it published. Often deadlines were later in the day, giving the writer time to synthesize and well… write.

Fast forward to today’s instant lifestyle.

The news never sleeps, and apparently neither do those with popular blogs. The earliest post on Lifehacker today was at 4:30 this morning. While this may work for insomniac geeks obsessed with (in this case) iGoogle themes, it certainly has no place in professional journalism. Yet its influence is driving the demise of the modern newspaper.

The trend away from solid reporting to on-the-fly news is both disturbing and upsetting to me. As journalists, we are expected to be the Supermen of the news world. It’s not enough for a report to be accurate, honest, and have some depth, but it must also be delivered with the speed and efficiency of a blogger. But therein is the paradox; news can either be instantaneous, or it can be well-written and researched.

This highlights the ethical dilemma of the situation: as journalists, to which do we owe our allegiance? The news has always been timely, that’s what news is. In contrast, journalism is about uncovering truth and sharing general knowledge. How can truth be uncovered in 200 words ten minutes after the fact?

Nevertheless, traditional newspapers are losing to those constantly connected offering opinions on everything from government to sex positions. As unsubstantiated as those opinions may be, it’s their screams drawing readers in.

Be outrageous, be untruthful, be wrong, but be noticed.

On the web everyone has a voice. Our industry views the change with hope in our eyes as ‘citizen journalism’ escalates itself to an unheard of level. It’s often an ideal for people to communicate the happenings of their community with one another. But in a world of ever-increasing clutter and noise, do we really want the news polluted and influenced by anyone with a mouse, keyboard, and an opinion?