The Changing Face Of News

[Techie News Service]

<![CDATA[Remember all those people complaining about big media consolidation, and how all those big media companies control what people think? It seems those people forgot that we have many more media choices than ever before. Just a couple weeks ago, even CNN (owned by big media) admitted that <A href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040504/0114235.shtml">people were going elsewhere</a> for their news - because broadcast media just didn't cut it any more. Now, here's an editorial basically saying the same thing: <a href="http://nationaljournal.com/ververs.htm">big media isn't giving consumers what they want</a>, and those consumers are going elsewhere - and aren't necessarily going to return. Of course, this brings up a fine-line issue, because he basically says that people want rumors and gore. However, if (as some major media players said) the response from major media is to tell people "you can just get that on the internet," they will - and they might wonder why they need major media at all. Of course, this result should be the most frightening for everyone. Major media does serve a purpose. The reporting they do is often useful and insightful - much more so than lots of independent sources. But, those major media players need to learn that the news world now includes both types of sources, and they need to figure out how to work with them. The editorial linked here suggests that news sources can become "the ratifiers of the news" rather than "the gatekeepers of the news" - taking all the "muck" that flows on independent sites and blogs and adding both context and factual reporting to back it up. Of course, that would require a shift in mindset. Most news organizations still hate to admit that there exists any other news organzations in the world and that (oh my!) some of their viewers/readers might actually use them as well. <B>Update</b>: Ah, well, as someone pointed out in the comments, it looks like the site that published this story doesn't get it either. They've set up their page in quite an annoying way. Clicking on the "print this" link gives you a new page for no reason. Also, the URL is likely going to break shortly, as it's not story or date specific - and most of their articles move behind a paid wall. I thought this was all about giving users what they wanted or watching them go elsewhere. Guess it's time to go elsewhere.








]]>{br}{br}View the Entire Article (http://techdirt.com/articles/20040521/120217.shtml){br}

[Coot]

From the link (http://nationaljournal.com/ververs.htm) in the article:

The message from news consumers to the traditional news outlets, from the daily papers to the cable news channels and the Big Three networks, is becoming increasingly clear: "If you don't deliver what we want, we'll find it elsewhere. Ignore us at your own risk." This isn't a new message, but it's one that poses a growing risk that consumers will go elsewhere -- and not return.

While the story goes on to discuss the Nick Berg video and to question the motives of so many wanting to see the video, they do make one salient point:

No longer can we say that if it's not in the New York Times or on "CBS Evening News," a story does not matter. When information is out there now, it's out there. Not only is it easier to find, it also can be spread instantly with a click of the mouse or a read on a radio show. To ignore what millions have heard is arrogant at best, harmful at worst.

Taking that head-in-the-sand approach a decade ago would have been completely workable. Today, however, it's simply ignoring reality. Far better than looking down their noses at the proliferation of such stories, would it not be more effective -- not to mention more professional -- for reporters to take those stories head on and debunk them? Why ignore the elephant in the room when it is far better to prove that there is no elephant in the first place?

It's amazing, the author, Vaughn Ververs, walks right up to the problem, looks it in the eye and still doesn't get it. It's not just what's out there and the availability of it, the MSM doesn't have real content, they have their own agenda and they deem themselves as the righteous filter and ultimate spin authority on every world event; and that, along with the notion that they, and not we should be the arbiters of public opinion.

[ethics]

I am telling you folks (in one of my thread starting posts somewhere on blogs) we are on an edge of revolution.

The media has crossed the line and if it doesn't move back, it will suffer in every way. I seriously doubt that they can even recover from this.

[cdw]

You really think so? Well, I guess as time goes on...
I know that I get most of my information from the net...reading material wise. The rest I get from the TV, flipping different cable news programs. But people like my husband and my parents who aren't computer users except for games and stuff read the paper, watch regular news.

Should be interesting.

[ethics]

In another excellent analysis of the situation in Israel, Caroline Glick illustrates the blatant undisguised bias of international media: The new plan (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1085023349067&p=1006953079897). (Hat tip: LGF.)


In an attempt to get the foreign media to report what is actually happening on the ground in Gaza, the IDF’s spokesman’s unit pleaded with foreign news agencies to join IDF forces in their operations and see for themselves. By mid-week, the IDF had to admit that the attempt was an abject failure. Almost no one took them up on the offer. The foreign media is not interested in showing the truth. They simply want to criminalize Israel.

[Techie2000]

errm, nevermind, figured it out...