What Now? Consumption Habits?

2. What are MY content consumption habits, at that point?

Not sure. I'm guessing that I'll still rely on blogs a great deal. I like the idea of blogging and there is a plethora of legit bloggers producing really excellent work. I have no reason to think that blogs will suddenly cease to interest me. Cover your eyes and ears blog-haters but maybe blogs are going to be the newspapers of my generation? They're not going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm ok with being entirely online. With the advent of internet TV, both in original and syndicated content, I'm wondering if everything won't come from the 'net? Windows 7 is heavily emphasizing home networks as something even the most tech-handicapped (this was found on the Official WindowsVideos channel) can create/use/maximize them. Now, we can link together our computer, gaming system, Blu-Ray player, television and stereo into one large network, streaming video and audio both ways to every device in our house, with all of the content coming from the net. Cable TV should be bracing themselves for a big change.

In undergrad, having not the money to subscribe, the time or energy to walk across campus to my tiny mailbox to pick up a stack of paper with day-old-news, I made the jump to an almost all-online news consumption habit a few years ago. I can't remember the last time I sat down with a mainstream paper to read about the news. In the past couple of years, almost all of my news consumption is online as even the slowest newspapers have finally begun to realize that this internet thing may be for real and as a result, have digitized their content for internet reading. While I can enjoy and sympathize with the nostalgia for the good ol' days of newsprint, I'm not sure its continued existence is as important as some of the Armageddon forecasters seem to think it is. Journalism will be ok without newspapers: there are enough journalists that care deeply enough about their craft and jobs that they'll figure out a way to make it work and even the most skeptical folks will come around eventually.

I am guessing that I'll be using mobile devices a great deal more to consume my news. As smartphones continue to evolve and tablets become more prominent, mobile users will be in heaven. You'll be able to consume your news wherever you go. Even now, you can watch live sports on the go with the correct subscription. This idea of mobile content is where we're headed. It's nice to sit at your computer watching streaming video. It'll be cooler to do it while walking down the street.

What Now? What Comes After Newspapers?

Going off of Colin's prompt, there are three things that need to be addressed in the wake of newspapers demise:

1. What do YOU see in [their] place?

2. What are YOUR content consumption habits, at that point?

3. What role do you see yourself playing, possibly even as a content creator?

I'll take them one at a time:

1. What do I see in [their] place?

Blogs, Social Networks, News Aggregators, Tech still TDB.

For starters, I get as much of my news from blogs today as I do from more traditional news outlets. In fact, anything cultural, I'll get from a variety of blogs that I've rounded up and read regularly. Film, Music, TV, etc. are all better covered by bloggers and internet only journalists than they are by any mainstream newspaper (NY Times Film section aside. AO, you're the man! But I actually think your internet-only material is better than some of your print stuff, brilliant!) The news is quicker and more personal (After art is best covered from a subjective opinion. There is nothing worse than objective art coverage). As film critics get the ax across the country, the blogosphere is filling with film writing that is really excellent: informative, insightful and passionate.

Social Networks already have cemented themselves as invaluable tools for news coverage. All you Twitter haters need look no further than the Iran Elections and the Mumbai terrorist attacks for the reason why Twitter must exist. At a time when, in Iran, the government had widespread censorship over what could be reported about the uprisings surrounding the elections, leaving, in the process, the mainstream press in the dark, Twitterers across the country became THE source for news. What followed was a tremendous amount of unfiltered, unedited information revealing the real truths behind what was happening. Combined with grainy, pixelated YouTube videos, these brave activists/citizen journalists risked their own lives to shed light on the ugly conditions of a country fighting to reclaim itself.

There is no reason to think that Twitter has seen it's peak or even, it's entire potential. This is a service that will continue to mature and evolve. The Twitter train is leaving the station and you can either choose to acknowledge its growing importance and get on board or get run over. It's not stopping once it's fully on its way. I'm not sure that Facebook will have the same importance as a news source. As the more innovative Twitter has grown in popularity and importance, Facebook has merely copied it. The new news feeds are directly modeled on Twitter's platform and as long as Facebook continues to focus on useless, time wasting apps like Mafia Wars and Social Interview rather than truly innovating as a worthy news platform, it'll stay as a nice way to stay in touch with friends but nothing else. I'm a fan of Facebook for what it does but it isn't Twitter and doesn't have the same level of excitement surrounding its potential.

News Aggregators have already established themselves as a vital and fun portion of the 'net. As newspapers bite the dust, they'll only continue to grow in importance. Rather than having to wade through pages of stories one isn't interested in (which may actually be a good thing), one can search for a single news item and get a range of coverage (which may actually be a better thing). No longer is someone forced to rely on just the Courant's (or AP's) coverage of an item. Now, you can see more coverage than anyone could possibly know what to deal with. If you're not looking for a single item, head to Google News' main page and you've got yourself the front page of a region-less, multi-sided newspaper. It'll take an adjustment for readers who like folding newsprint but it's not an impossible leap.

Finally, by 2014, who knows what'll be around? Let's take a look at five years ago. In 2004:

-Facebook was just being founded. Now, it's a widespread phenomenon that has 300 million users in 5 years.
-Digg was founded. Now it's one of the most popular social news networks on the planet.
-A small email service was launched. Gmail now has 146 million users despite being in "beta" for much of the five years.

That's just three services that are now synonymous with the larger internet. Impressive to say the least. Now, what comes in 2014? Who the hell knows and really, who the hell can guess? Was Twitter predicted in 2004? Certainly not by the just-launching Facebook, which had no newsfeed. Certainly not by a large portion of the Facebook audience who flipped their collective shit when the news feed was introduced (now, almost all of which, I'd be willing to bet, spend 90% of their Facebook time gleefully scrolling through their feed, while cursing the hand that fed them, Twitter).

My guess? Probably something along the lines of Google Wave, an even-more-instant-than-Twitter real-time-service that somehow gets news to millions in a blink of an eye. That'll actually be it's name: EvenMoreInstantThanTwitterRealTimeServiceThatImprovesOnTheIdeasOfGoogleWave. Google Wave users will hate it.

Death of Journalism?

I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiment of this article and want to ask why so many people seem to equate the death of the newspaper with the death of journalism? Newspapers might go away in their print form, but why does that mean that good journalism will die off as well? Can't we see that these journalists, if they are enterprising and talented enough, will figure out a way to make things work? Look no further than Hollywood Elsewhere or Thompson on Hollywood as examples of what talented and legitimate journalists can do with their skills after they have left print.

Jeffrey Wells, the writer behind Elsewhere, is a long time film critic and writer who has worked for major publications such as Entertainment Weekly among others. When he left the print world (granted this was a while ago), he launched his highly successful blog, which is truly one of the best on the internet. Not only is it a reliable source for film news (having worked in the traditional print media for a long time, Wells has a vast number of contacts in the industry), it's a vital source of criticism and opinion from a trusted, intelligent film viewer. The second half of this is something that people seem to overlook. While some regard opinion and it's influx into journalism as being a tragic turn, the blogosphere allows writers to lend their work a bit more of personal touch. Rather than answer to an editor who might curb their creativity, writers like Wells, who take their blogs and writing seriously, are able to discuss what they want, when they want and how they want to. All this leads to Hollywood Elsewhere not only being an immensely personal creation but also one that exists as a wonderful source of news.

Thompson on Hollywood is no different. Anne Thompson, who worked at Variety (THE most trusted trade paper in the entertainment industry) for a number of years as a columnist and editor, was laid off earlier this year, went over to Indiewire and now has free reign over her blog. Like Wells, Thompson's blog is one of the best on the 'net, chock full of interesting, topical news. The writing is professional and worthwhile, obviously coming from someone who takes great care in their work and product. In class, we seem to fall into a habit of decrying all bloggers as somehow being less than journalists, when many bloggers are/were journalists and take their work as seriously as anyone in the newspaper industry. While there will always be exceptions to the rule, just because someone is a blogger doesn't mean that they will turn into this. Blogs like Hilton's have single-handily set back what it means to blog. We need to remember that not all bloggers are immature and irresponsible. After all, there are immature and irresponsible newspaper journalists as well, but we give other journalists a pass. Perhaps we should do the same for some bloggers as well.

Print Vs. Online

I've always found the argument in regards to newspapers going online a bit perplexing. However, the idea that a entrenched culture is helping to prohibit (or at least delay) the seemingly obvious and inevitable move is something that I tend to agree with. There is a great deal of stress and anxiety generated by this topic but it seems quite simple to me. If a newspaper wants to survive, they have to successfully navigate the changing times (like every other industry) and redesign their product to fit into the rapidly changing 21st century. The easiest way to do so is to bring it online.

Too many newspaper types seem to be antiquated in their views and beliefs. I enjoy the medium of print as much as the next guy but as times change, so too must a medium. Most major media have made the jump to the 21st century, with the music industry leading the way with the now pervasive MP3 existing as the industry's vehicle of choice. The film industry made the jump from film to video to digital as necessary. Why can't newspapers (and their readers) relinquish some of their nostalgia for how things were and realize they need to change their product to fit how things are now? People decry the death of newspapers constantly. Why can't their be a slight concession to the ways in which you consume your news?

Let's take, for example, my father who had previously been a subscriber to 3 newspapers: The Hartford Courant, The NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. He would spend hours (especially on Sundays) with the paper scattered about the room, reading each section as he felt necessary. However, my sister and I purchased him a Kindle for his birthday. Almost immediately (literally within a week), he had subscribed to the Kindle's free trial of the NY Times, found almost no difference to his ability to consume the content within and canceled his print copy. Not only does the Kindle's edition allow for easier transport and less mess, it's cheaper to boot. There are a few subtractions from the Kindle edition (most notably the crossword) but the difference in price is significant. Surely a crossword isn't worth the additional 3 dollars or so on Sundays.

My point is that if the newspapers are failing because their product is antiquated and waning in popularity, people should spend less time gnashing their teeth about the death of journalism and spend more time determining how to take the product and move it into the next generation. If they can't, then the publisher and newspaper deserve to fail to other groups that have determined a better way of doing things.

Blogger Question

More of a question than any sort of observation or answer: Are people who write blogs specifically for newspapers (i.e. Colin) bloggers? Or are they journalists? I was thinking about this while reading Aldon Hynes' piece on what bloggers should be doing to fill in the gaps that the closing of newspapers are leaving. Aldon suggests that they act more like journalists would i.e. covering the news, going to events and writing about them.

Essentially, what differentiates bloggers who are paid by a newspaper to do it vs. someone who does it for free? Does a blogger just need to attend and cover said current events to become a "journalist"?

Courant Criticisms Pt. 2

When reading the Columbia Journalism Review's article of the Hartford Courant's coverage of a local hostage situation, I was immediately struck by how similar the dilemma that the Courant faced was to the one facing the writers of the San Francisco Chronicle, Vallejo Times-Herald and San Francisco Examiner in the Zodiac killings (memorably portrayed in David Fincher's best-of-the-decade masterpiece Zodiac). In Hartford, the hostage-taker demanded that if the Courant didn't un-publish a story about the situation, he would blow up the house in which both he and the hostage were holed up. In San Francisco, the Zodiac demanded the papers publish his letter to the respective editors or risk a killing spree. The Courant declined to remove the story and the Bay Area papers chose to publish the letters.

Now, there are obvious differences here but the dilemma that the papers faced are remarkably similar. The CJR points out that "there is disagreement on all these points, but we believe that journalists do bear some responsibility for the consequences of the stories they publish", a point which I agree with. However, a commented, "John P." makes a interesting point under the story:

Let's say I'm a sleazy businessman and I get word that the local paper is printing a damaging article about me tomorrow. I just need to get someone to call the paper and threaten to blow something up unless they cease publication. Sounds like fun.

The papers face a true conundrum here. Do they relent to a criminal, thus setting a dangerous precedent that their journalistic integrity can be compromised by what may be an idle threat? Or, do they stick to their story and see what happens? I tend to think that the second option is a better one, as I don't like where the first option leads to. If the papers are supposed to be spots of true journalism, they need to be willing to report the facts without fear of a backlash. They need to publish what they have discovered and stick by them. In both cases, the papers, to an extent, stood their ground. While Bay Area papers published the Zodiac letters, they initially buried them deeper in the paper until it became clear that the writer of the letters was a legitimate threat to public safety.

I'm not sure there is a true right or wrong answer here but it surely asks an interesting question. For those of you that haven't seen Zodiac, its absolutely worth seeking out, if for nothing else, a cinematic portrayal of the events described above.

Courant Criticisms

The question of the week is to take a look at the Hartford Courant, the one of the true mainstay major newspaper of the CT region. Since I don't read the print edition (not sure it's worth the money nowadays), I'll limit my concerns to the online edition.

I think the one thing that the Courant does a good job with is their bloggers (no, really!). Finding those blogs, however, is a different story. The blogger section of the front page is buried past the screen cut, forcing a user to scroll down even to discover the roll of Courant bloggers, past a few news boxes, a rather uninspired photo section and the weather. Even here, it only lists the past few posts from across the paper. Prior to the recent website redesign, the Courant had a drop down menu for all their bloggers as a quick hit spot to get to the writer you wanted to read. Now, you're forced to wade through the different sections of the paper to get to the blog you want to read. That aside, once you get to the blogs, most are rather robust with a good selection of regionally important material. I tend to skew to Entertainment related news (music, movies and TV), so let's (briefly) look at the two major entertainment blogs the Courant offers.

I routinely read Eric Danton's Sound Check, which, for local music news, is as good as it gets. Danton wisely focuses on the region's music scene as opposed to cover national news. I frequently notice him out at concerts in Hartford, Northampton and the like and his blog reflects it. Updated frequently with notable information, it's a solid read for Hartford music fans who actually want to engage with interesting, worthwhile tunes.

Roger Catlin's TV Eye is generally pretty good as well. While it focuses more on actual television shows, which leans away from local coverage, Catlin's insights and opinions generally enrich a viewing experience. While I'm not a regular reader, I do actively seek it out fairly often.

The remaining bloggers (Colin McEnroe, the Sports crew) are all solid. For the most part, the Courant's beat blog on Huskies basketball is as good of coverage as one can find for all your UConn basketball needs. The bloggers all cover the local scene with a great deal more efficiency than the actual Courant, which was leading me to consider what the coverage would look like if every reporter was blogging rather than writing columns.

It would obviously lead to the demise of the print edition as the blogs just wouldn't translate into a printed page. However, it'd give the readers of the online Courant up-to-date bursts of information from the writers that they have come to know and trust. Equally so, the reporters wouldn't have to strictly focus on a single story. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but writing a blog offers a great deal more of freedom and speed. The problem with the blogs are that they allow for a great deal of self-publishing. That said, adjust the editors to focus more heavily on the blogs and go online exclusively. You'll have adjusted the paper for the coming generation and would have beat most other regional papers to the punch. While it'd be sad to see the Courant printed edition go away, the paper does a good job with their bloggers, I'd like to see more focus swing in that direction.

Michael Moore on the Death of Old Media

From a Q&A session following a screening of his most recent, Capitalism: A Love Story. From Hollywood Elsewhere.

Moore makes an interesting argument here in regards to people vs. advertising. Plus, anyone who consults David Simon, creator/writer of the best TV show ever, The Wire, deserves to be heard.

Obama Backs Newspapers

An interesting story this morning about President Obama backing the newspaper industry.

"Journalistic integrity, you know, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting, how to retain those ethics in all these different new media and how to make sure that it's paid for, is really a challenge," Mr. Obama said. "But it's something that I think is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy."

My question is what difference does it make whether a newspaper is published in print versus only on the internet, ala the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? How does that change the newspapers ability to publish worthy, accurate news? The printed word is the printed word, regardless of whether its on newsprint or in hypertext. It may be more difficult to sell the news on the internet but it's not impossible. Facebook is starting to show signs of being able to turn a profit. A reputable newspaper should be able to do so also.