Could Smaller Indiana be a player in the "new" media business?

[Pat Coyle]

From Fast Company. With newspapers’ traditional business model in free fall, the top media minds at global design firm IDEO (designer of the Apple mouse, consultant to Fortune 500 companies) were asked to imagine: How will we get our news after the traditional model falls apart?

THE ONCE PROFITABLE NEWS INDUSTRY IS TEETERING ON THE BRINK. The recession has battered advertising. Dailies are folding. Printing the New York Times for a year costs twice as much as sending every subscriber a free Kindle. The Daily Show is a more trusted source than network news. And consumers have been marginalized in media dialogue about how to save journalism.

Yet how we define and experience news can--and should--change for the better, if we ground ourselves in what people really need and want. The next four pages showcase two environments that put the future of news in the context of our daily lives. In these scenarios, we see that information has become even more personalized and hyperlocal--and, paradoxically, more communal, participatory, and global. Journalism is more like having a conversation. People speak with unique voices, take ownership of content, and establish credibility, which in turn enables strong communities in which news can thrive. Anything that's notable to a person in a particular moment and place becomes newsworthy.

This future journalism is less beholden to current models of production, distribution, and advertising support--but nimble brands still find ways to thrive. Formerly obscure companies, like Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Wikipedia--now household names--are joined by other powerful companies in a network of touchpoints that lets us find the information we want as soon as we want it. News is supported by a web of contributions from consumers, for-profits, nonprofits, distribution partners, and other entities. Rather than eschewing risk and possible failure, brands (at least the ones that endure) shift from a top-down model of centralized distribution to become incubators for journalistic experiments.

Does Smaller Indiana have a chance to be a player in the "new" media business? Share your thoughts here

[PK Koduri]

I think SI can be a player in the 'new" media business, however the question is can it be done in a financially viable way. Good content takes times and effort to produce, and some one has to bear the economic costs directly or indirectly. Both the creator and the publisher have to benefit financially for it to work. It still bogles my mind that I have to pay for Wall Street Journal Online (~$75 - $100/Yr) and The Economist (~$75 - $100/Yr) but not for NY Times. I wake up read NYT, check Yahoo Finance, head to WSJ, and SI. I completely skip Indystar (mostly pipes AP wire anyway) and local TV news (mostly crime news), I don't have cable. Readers will still value quality and will pay for it if there is no other option to get that same information. If SI can do that and be able to charge a subscription then yes it can be a player.

And on the IDEO article in Fast Company we did a similar exercise on the future of printing at my previous employer (used one of IDEO's main rivals) about 2 years ago with some very interesting but similar results. Its amazing what you can come up when asked to design something from the ground up. But the real solution lies somewhere in the middle and not the utopia that the article describes.

[Steph Woodward]

I guess I need some further clarification on what you mean by your question. At this point, I would say that SI already IS a player in the "new" media business. Members of this site look to it for many of the same reasons they look to traditional news sources. You can read about events that are going on in the area by checking out the calendars, read stories about topics that interest you in the forums, follow "editorials" (of sorts) by people who's perspectives you find interesting by reading their blogs, and so forth. The bonus here, is the interactivite nature that doesn't exist in traditional, one-way-communication styled media.

The other beautiful thing about "new" media is that David really can take out Goliath if he's got a good plan. What's to keep SI from being able to compete with the New York Times to be somebody's primary news source, if that's something SI is interested in becoming? At this point, credibility of our online news sources is really the only major limiting factor for a smaller player with a less established reputation, but that's not an insurmountable obstacle, by any means.

Anyway, my argument would be that SI not only CAN be a "player" in the "new" media business, but you already ARE a player.

[Steph Woodward]

Chris, I recommend doing some research before making a statement as though it’s fact. Your statement is completely unfounded and incorrect. I recall discussing this very phenomenon in a COM class I took last semester, so I thought I’d share some information with you:

“The Daily Show is not more trusted than network news (and I hate network news). The Daily Show is a comedy show, period.” – FALSE.

The experts, who’ve actually researched that question, have discovered otherwise. It turns out that the Daily Show actually contains equal substance in their programming as network news does, and thus is equally credible as a news source.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html

And a study that seconds those findings:

“The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), which recently compared The Daily Show’s 2007 news content with that of mainstream news programs, concluded it “closely resembles the news agenda of a number of cable news programs as well as talk radio.”

http://blogs.america.gov/freepress/2008/07/23/is-the-daily-show-new...

Also, it might be interesting to note that people who watch the Daily Show/Colbert Report regularly are “most likely to score in the highest percentile on knowledge of current affairs”.

http://www.journalism.org/node/10953

Further, for Gen Y, shows like the Daily Show are quickly becoming their primary source for news on current affairs.

“Cable news networks are the most frequently cited source of campaign news for young people, but the Internet and comedy programs also are important conduits of election news for Americans under 30. One-in-five young people say they regularly get campaign news from the Internet, and about as many (21%) say the same about comedy shows such as Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show. For Americans under 30, these comedy shows are now mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news.”

http://people-press.org/report/200/cable-and-internet-loom-large-in...

“A recent poll by The Pew Research Center for People and the Press (2004) reported that 21% of 18-34 year-olds regularly learn about the presidential campaign from comedy shows, specifically Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Not only is this figure remarkable in that it is more than twice what it was four years ago (9%)it is also nearly equal to the 23% who report getting campaign information from network news—and thus contributes to a growing body of research indicating that young people are increasingly abandoning traditional news sources. This is particularly true when examined relative to the news consumption patterns of older Americans. In a 2002 study conducted by The Pew Research Center, only 26% of 18-29 year-olds reported having read a newspaper yesterday—less than half of that reported by those aged 65 and older (59%). Television news hardly fared better: Only 40% of 18-29 year-olds reported watching television news the previous day, as compared to 73% of those 65 and older.”

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/3/...

And, in case you were wondering, the majority of Americans not only consider Jon Stewart a journalist, they also consider him to be one of the best:

“When Americans were asked in a 2007 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to name the journalist they most admired, Mr. Stewart, the fake news anchor, came in at No. 4, tied with the real news anchors Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw of NBC, Dan Rather of CBS and Anderson Cooper of CNN.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/arts/television/17kaku.html

And moving on to your other, incorrect assumption about news:

“Smaller Indiana is great for interacting, getting opinions and thoughs, learning about events, and sharing with those who are like-minded (and those who are not). There is no news aspect at all though. Forums are set up as opinions, not news sources. We certainly aren't learning about what Obama said at a press conference yesterday (except for 1 small part that a SI member takes offense to), nor are we learning about what is going on with the escapees from Arkansas, nor are we learning anything about the weather upcoming for the week.” – FALSE

You'll notice that a good deal of the research I’ve referenced above to address the first misconception you presented is also applicable to this incorrect assumption. However, just in case it wasn’t clear:

Information from the Society of New Communicationz Research (http://www.sncr.org):

“Blogs are now a near second to newspapers as the most trusted information source. A Pew Internet and American Life survey showed that blog readership in the US jumped 58% in 2005 spawning a new desire for immediate news and information. With the launch of MySpace News (www.news.myspace.com) news has taken a leap into social media sites.”

Also, it looks like in the wake of a disaster, people are turning to social media for their news:

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/6d171e8e97e414b30938db91ab279216.html

A prediction for the future of social news:

http://www.labnol.org/internet/timeline-of-news-and-information-sou...

I could probably do this all day, but I think I’ve made my point quite clear. It’s absolutely naïve and ridiculous to think that social networks don’t wield the power to operate as a strong player in news reporting. Whether or not people SHOULD trust these sources is a totally different issue, but the evidence is undeniable – people ARE turning to social networks like Smaller Indiana for their news and information.

[Nwokedi C. Idika]

sweeeet. I may have to bookmark some of these links :o).

[Steph Woodward]

Chris, your argument over semantics, yet again, makes no sense. These people were surveyed regarding where THEY go for news, what THEY consider a news source... so that's what makes it a news source. The fact that they consider it such, whether you believe they should or not.

If someone asks you "What is your primary source of news" and you respond with "The Daily Show", that makes it your primary news source. I'm sorry they didn't check with you to ensure that their definition of what "news" is coincides with yours first, but rather than trying to win the argument by saying that none of these people knew what "news" really is, because it doesn't fit into your narrow scope of the concept, maybe it would be more productive if you tried to analyze social trends based on SOCIETY'S use of the terminology.

[Steph Woodward]

This is where you lose all weight to your argument. If "everyone" decided to cite Southpark as their source for news, then "most reasonable thinkers" would fall into that category of "everyone", and thus, yes... South Park would be considered a news source, even by those "reasonable thinkers".

You like to assume that because you feel a certain way "most reasonable thinkers" would agree, when the statistics are showing you otherwise. You want "everyone" to adapt to YOUR static definition, rather than understanding that language is a fluid concept, and that definitions change as society does. If you don't believe me, go pick up some Shakespeare.

[Steph Woodward]

Actually, Chris, in YOUR example, you did use the term "everyone" literally... it had no link back to the original statistics cited. You were using an extreme hypothetical to make what you thought was a valid point, and found yourself caught in your own trap.

Please, make up your mind what your argument is, and what you're really saying.

If we're going to argue over the original statistics since you can't make your hypotheticals work for you, then please don't put words into my mouth and say that I'm making statements that I never did. I gave specific numbers, and they showed where the majority of people fall. And what THEY consider their news source.

And incidentally, you haven't shown how anything posted on a social network site doesn't actually fall under your own definition of news, either.

Now, before you respond to this... please... Stop. Think. Make an actual argument based on something that was really said, and that you can back up, and that doesn't contradict what you've already stated. If you can manage all three of these things at once, great. Please, hit reply. If not, then please do everyone a favor and just save the e-space. I'm not going to continue responding to ridiculous statements that have no substance to them.

[Steph Woodward]

Also... a couple of interesting articles that just showed up in my inbox, related to this very topic:

(from AdAge.com)

WHY THE NEW YORK TIMES DOESN'T CALL ITS READERS "READERS"

STEVEN COLBERT TAKES OVER NEWSWEEK

[Trevor Bradburn]

News is defined as information on current events or happening these shows use current events or happenings as a basis of there jokes which means you could utilize these sources for "news" based on the definition credibility really isnt a factor

[PK Koduri]

Great summary! The issue that everyone is glossing over is this - someone is collecting the news and feeding it for the bloggers to write about. If that source disappeared tomorrow what are the bloggers going to blog about and the Diggers going to Digg :-). The current news organizations seem to operate like a giant buffet - everyone eats but no one pays. The news organizations themselves are to be blamed for this predicament.

[Steph Woodward]

This point could be equally applied to traditional news sources. They rely on their reporters or the Associated Press to provide them with the information to produce their stories. What, exactly, prevents social media sites from being able to do the same thing?

[Steph Woodward]

Wait... so you're trying to tell me that:

1. All credible reporters must be paid

AND

2. No social networking site could, now or in the future, ever make money

AND

3. No social networking site could, now or in the future, even if they made money, ever afford to pay a reporter

???

Yeah. Ummm... that makes total sense. Next time you want to post, perhaps it would be a good idea to stop and think before you respond with a ludicrous statement like that.