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.

5 Potential Uses of Twitter

Here's my list of 5 potential uses of Twitter:

1. Crowd-Sourcing: A quick search for a hashtag or trending topic will give one a pretty good idea as to what the masses are saying about it. This was initially more difficult without the use of a client desktop application but since Twitter has implemented a viable search on their own site, this is a quick and easy process. Let's say I wanted to see what Eagles fans thought about Sunday Night Football. Search for "Iggles" and there you go.

2. News Source: One can get breaking news information quicker on Twitter than any place else on the 'net. Whether you choose to follow news organizations such as the NY Times or rely strictly on the idea of citizen journalism, a Twitter user can get to the point info fast and easy.

3. Blogging Platform: Tired of writing longer blog entries? Twitter alleviates that with it's 140 character restriction. When a Twitter user is efficient and up to date (Adam Schefter), you can get the information you want without having to sift through a longer blog entry. Twitter forces the user to boil down his/her post to the bare minimum, a blast of information without the (sometimes) needless opinion.

4. Keeping up with Friends: An offshoot of #3 and an intrusion on Facebook's (which has essentially adopted Twitter's format for their news feed) territory, one could use Twitter for what doubters hate Twitter for. If you want to tweet that you're sitting watching TV while eating Cheetos, have at it. Just don't expect anyone other than your friends to follow you.

5. Meeting New People: While Facebook is designed for keeping track of people you know, Twitter is much easier to find people with similar interests and seeing what they have to say. Utilize the excellent WeFollow and you can find Twitterers for just about any topic you want to learn about.

Sports Coverage

Colin raises an interesting question in regards to sports coverage: Does it belong in our hypothetical website? I'm not entirely sure that I know the answer but if Pazniokas is looking to cover everything that has to do/go through the Capitol, it surely must include The University of Connecticut, the largest state funded collegiate level university in CT. With that comes the Huskies sports programs. After all, as tax-payers, some of our money goes towards funding these programs.

In regards to the Krayeske/Calhoun incident earlier this year, here are my thoughts:

1) It was the wrong environment to raise the question and reeks of self-promotion and importance.
2) It's a valid question to ask.

I, for one, have no issue with what Calhoun is paid. The amount of prestige/money that he has brought to UConn (and also the State of Connecticut) can not, quite frankly, be measured in any concrete way. What the Huskies mean, not only to the school's ability to draw students there but also to the state's moral, is incalculable. What was once a down and out program now stands as one of the pinnacles of collegiate sports and for the most part, Calhoun seems to turn out good people from the program. Figures such as Emeka Okafor, Ray Allen, Richard Hamilton, Kevin Ollie (still in the NBA, god bless 'em) not only shine in a basketball standpoint but as role models as well. While there are some issues that the program has to deal with, let's not forget that the kids playing for the Huskies are exactly that, kids. God knows that we all make stupid decisions in college. These are just magnified specifically because these 18 and 19 year olds mean so much to the state. Those who gripe about UConn's graduation rate are sorely misguided in so much that that problem does not solely exist here but as a larger issue with the college basketball world. Calhoun has done so much and continues to do good to not only the program but to the state that his pay is ok with me.

Calhoun's claim seems to have less significance than some want to assign to it strictly due to the situation in which it was stated. Calhoun was clearly upset and while he may not have handled himself in the best way, he's human and is allowed to make mistakes. After all, I'd be willing to guess that many people would react in a similar fashion when your pay vs. worth was questioned in an inappropriate forum in front of the press.

I'll give Krayeske credit for knowing when to ask an explosive question to achieve maximum effect and I agree with Colin's assertion that people like Krayeske are necessary from time to time. However, from what I understand from close friends, Krayeske's penchant for self-promotion outweighs almost any good that he may present. He seemingly exists to make people appear like jerks. A glance at his website, which he has the hubris to proclaim as "visionary movement", is self-promoting to the point in which is outweighs much of his content.

Is the topic of UConn Athletics worth covering? Potentially. However, it seems to sway from the stated political goal. I'm feeling that, at launch, the site should be as concise and concentrated on one goal as possible with the mind of achieving that goal as being tantamount to the site's survival. If the site is able to draw a dedicated following from the initial coverage, the site can then expand out to focus on broader issues relating to the state but I'm not sure that UConn athletics should be the first place to start.

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.

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"?