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.

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.