Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Dead Trees Do Not A Medium Make
Carnegie Reporter, Vol. 3, No. 2 | Abandoning the News
Via Dan Gillmor, who advises: "Read it if you care about the future."
Sorry Dan. Love your blog, dislike the weak thinking at Carnegie. Let's try to keep something straight: where consumers get their news is not the issue. It's how that news is created.
I think the confusion of these two points is one of the reasons why I read a lot of blogs proclaiming the death of 'old' media like newspapers.
But media is NOT the technology that delivers it (no matter what McLuhan says), but the output, the content. Dead trees and ink isn't media, it's a delivery protocol. So is the Postal Service. So is html, so is RSS.
So if we define newspapers as tabloid or larger format newsprint publications delivered to your driveway or to a newsstand with ink that smears on your hands, yes, we will see that change. But if we define newspapers as the production of hundreds of journalists and editors who cover local, national and international news, I doubt that that's really going to change. It may be enhanced by 'citizen journalists,' just as print publications are enhanced by letters to the editor and op-ed pieces. But really, what would bloggers blog about if they didn't have news stories to link to? (Mild sarcasm here)
Note: It's worth reading the Carnegie report, linked above. But the logic is strange. Are 18-34s abandoning the news (as in traditional morning papers), or getting their news on demand (from traditional news organizations primarily)? Or both?
Comments
|
Via Dan Gillmor, who advises: "Read it if you care about the future."
Sorry Dan. Love your blog, dislike the weak thinking at Carnegie. Let's try to keep something straight: where consumers get their news is not the issue. It's how that news is created. I think the confusion of these two points is one of the reasons why I read a lot of blogs proclaiming the death of 'old' media like newspapers.
But media is NOT the technology that delivers it (no matter what McLuhan says), but the output, the content. Dead trees and ink isn't media, it's a delivery protocol. So is the Postal Service. So is html, so is RSS.
So if we define newspapers as tabloid or larger format newsprint publications delivered to your driveway or to a newsstand with ink that smears on your hands, yes, we will see that change. But if we define newspapers as the production of hundreds of journalists and editors who cover local, national and international news, I doubt that that's really going to change. It may be enhanced by 'citizen journalists,' just as print publications are enhanced by letters to the editor and op-ed pieces. But really, what would bloggers blog about if they didn't have news stories to link to? (Mild sarcasm here)
Note: It's worth reading the Carnegie report, linked above. But the logic is strange. Are 18-34s abandoning the news (as in traditional morning papers), or getting their news on demand (from traditional news organizations primarily)? Or both?
