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.