Cory Doctorow Calls Death To Music, Movies, Print 336
An anonymous reader writes "Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow depicts an unfortunate near-future for a handful of media industries being transformed or killed by the Internet. Predicting a large-scale transformation of the music, movie, book, and newspaper industry, Doctorow says, 'The Internet chews up media and spits them out again. Sometimes they get more robust. Sometimes they get more profitable. Sometimes they die.' While the Internet has the potential to help the dying book industry, for example, Doctorow predicts the 'imminent collapse' of the American newspaper industry because advertisers are uninterested in spending money on the remaining offline readership, such as senior citizens, who prove less valuable."
Re:news @ 11 (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the thing. For example, it's easy to suggest that they find a new business model, it's harder to suggest a viable business model that works, I'm skeptical that there is one.
This is especially true in an age where people don't want to pay for media, and don't want to see ads that would pay for that media. So where does that leave the media that costs money to produce?
Re:news @ 11 (Score:4, Interesting)
"The key to attracting online revenue, I think, is to come up with an iTunes-easy method of micropayment. We need something like digital coins or an E-ZPass digital wallet -- a one-click system with a really simple interface that will permit impulse purchases of a newspaper, magazine, article, blog or video for a penny, nickel, dime or whatever the creator chooses to charge..."
"...Admittedly, the Internet is littered with failed micropayment companies. If you remember Flooz, Beenz, CyberCash, Bitpass, Peppercoin and DigiCash, it's probably because you lost money investing in them..."
"...Under a micropayment system, a newspaper might decide to charge a nickel for an article or a dime for that day's full edition or $2 for a month's worth of Web access. Some surfers would balk, but I suspect most would merrily click through if it were cheap and easy enough..."
"...I say this not because I am "evil," which is the description my daughter slings at those who want to charge for their Web content, music or apps. Instead, I say this because my daughter is very creative, and when she gets older, I want her to get paid for producing really neat stuff rather than come to me for money or decide that it makes more sense to be an investment banker."
Re:news @ 11 (Score:3, Interesting)
Risk of Death Spiral (Score:5, Interesting)
Beyond that, though, I fear that the papers' response to this will, in many cases, be what ends up killing(or at least mutilating beyond recognition) them. Essentially, the problem is this: High quality news reporting is more expensive than printed trash reporting, vapid gossip, and opinion. On the internet, vapid gossip and opinion are free. So, the newspapers' costs are always going to be higher than the internet's costs. However, if the newspapers move to cut costs by cutting back on good reporting, the quality of their product will go down, and the value proposition of paper will become even weaker in comparison to web.
I hope that at least some paper news sources will be able to swim upstream, instead of trying to out-cut the internet(which they'll never be able to do) and differentiate themselves by providing high quality reporting that classic internet sources don't. If, though, the papers just keep cutting quality in order to attempt to match price with the web, they will deserve their own inevitable deaths.
Liberal papers death by Internet? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:4, Interesting)
Local News the saviour. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, they have to adapt. They need an online presence. They need a different approach, to marketing and advertising.
But there are a few things that people seem to forget when making the argument that the internet will kill media as we know it.
1. Local news. Sorry, but unless a plane drops out of the sky, CNN isn't remotely interested in in Ballarat, Australia - nor do most CNN readers care about the local government elections, or which local VIP has just been arrested for DUI, or who won the district football on the weekend - but I do, and so does our local newspaper.
While they don't have the circulations of the major world newspapers...the bulk of print news is still regionally based.
2. Local Advertising. The local plumber doesn't need to or want to advertise to the entire state, country or to the world writ large. He wants to target the people in his immediate area, and the larger newspapers, and TV, are cost prohibitive, and online sites (mostly) don't meet that need. Local businesses and small businesses need a
centralised local vehicle to push their message.
2. Content. Someone, somewhere has to generate it. Someone has to follow up on leads and stories, and get the word out. Sure, once the word IS OUT, there is no limit to the number of places online where you can find out about it, but someone had to go out and get the story in the first place, check the facts, and filter it down to a piece that most people can digest. THIS is where newspapers must head if they want to survive.
They need to be going out and getting the in-depth investigations and stories that their competitors don't have, and stop relying on regurgitating the same stories that everyone else has.
If a plane drops into the Hudson, or a bushfire kills hundreds in Australia, its covered.. by everyone.. and I can find information on it everywhere. Its the local impact or other local events IN ADDITION TO the major news items, that push me to select one news organisation over another, and one medium over another, for day to day consumption.
As long as people still want to sit down with a coffee to read through the week's news, local, national, international, and do the crosswords, read the comics etc., newspapers will be around. People enjoy sitting down and flicking through a paper at their leisure, and you can't do that online. Having said that, one does not preclude the other - they're different beasts.
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:5, Interesting)
That is my concern. I hope that the virtues of newspapers will carry through; but it is far from assured. Things like foreign and political reporting, and stuff that pisses off possible advertisers, are socially vital; but they are cost centers in the strictly financial sense. They could, fairly easily, end up just being eliminated, without replacement.
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Free print editions...less pages and really just an advertisement "teaser" for the online version.
That's an interesting turnabout. I used to mostly see online newspapers & magazines that were advertisement teasers for the printed version. And I suspect the printed version isn't afraid to put a full page advertisement on, which does allow some continuity of revenue even though the classifieds ink is less.
A trend in our neck of the woods (Victoria, Australia) is for a thriving community newspaper industry. The adverts are tied to very local businesses - e.g. your local tyre store, not national or international brands. This sense of connectedness with folks within driving distance means a closely tied advertising demographic. The trend for these newspapers is to get thicker, not thinner, and they're distributed free. So it appears for close community work, printed newspapers are still a viable concern.
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember one comment was "How many bloggers are embedded in Falujah?"
Just out of interest, how many (western) newspaper journalists were embedded in Falujah? The pattern across the board is for newspapers to keep cutting journalists on-the-ground, depending on hacks sub-editing Associated Press releases (and Associated Press seem to be constantly cutting journalists too). The reason internet bloggers recycling second-hand stories is a real threat to the newspaper industry is that that's just what the newspapers themselves have been doing for quite a while now. It's an enlightening excercise to pick a story and compare the actual text across different newspapers to see how many phrases are identical -- it's usually quite high. The stuff that newspapers still tend to do for themselves is the entertainment, gossip and sport. It's a lot cheaper to send a reporter to a celeb party or a big match than to a war zone -- it might even be free: some papers have been running punter reviews of concerts for years, and reader-generated content seems to be increasing.
Re:Death of the newspaper is overrated (Score:3, Interesting)
You say that like the loss of the world's most powerful propaganda machine would be a bad thing. Public opinion controls government; media currently controls public opinion, mostly by deciding which issues are important and which viewpoints on those issues will be widely heard. Ever notice the absence of a minimal-government libertarian perspective (not at all the same thing as what is now called "conservative") from virtually every major news outlet? That's not an accident or a coincidence; it is built into the design.
The conservative vs. liberal perspective, which is also known as left-wing vs. right-wing, is the product of the media's "gatekeeper" function. On the one side you have those who prefer economic freedoms over personal freedoms, while on the other side you have those who prefer personal freedoms over economic freedoms. This forms a continuum with degrees in the middle that are compromises between the two extremes. This continuum is represented by two points that make a line because it is literally one-dimensional thinking. What does not occur at any point along that continuum is the preference of both economic freedom AND personal freedom; that is, freedom for its own sake. That is why the pro-freedom or minimal-government perspective is marginalized and so rarely heard from any mainstream source. We are paying a price for our commitment to this one-dimensional thinking. It is just one approach among many possible approaches and no one with any sort of media presence seems willing to discuss what the current model is costing us. I submit that the old question "Qui bono?" ("Who benefits [from this arrangement]?") applies here if it applies anywhere.
That can change. If it should ever become necessary, I'm confident that it can also change quickly.
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dunno if he was in Falujah or not. [blogspot.com]
The disruption that the Internet lowers the cost of having your voice heard to near zero. The newspaper's advantage isn't that they have reporters. The newspaper's advantage is that they have editors.
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:4, Interesting)
> Sending someone to report on conditions in some remote area of the world doesn't happen for free.
I used to think the same thing. Until this past Sunday when a TV station played the footage of the Meteor fireball..
That was an epiphany for me that posed the question of do we really need journalists to be sent out to where the news is?
In the days past, cameras were bulky and expensive, satellite up-links were required to upload content and needed entire van full of equipment to make that happen. You couldn't equip enough people - you needed a trained few.
When spontaneous events took place, all that could be mustered was a commentary and some interviews after the fact.
Yet, this last Sunday, someone filming a marathon on (presumably) their camera phone, caught the action live, uploaded it and the news stations picked it up. No need for after-the-fact commentary and interviews to 'recreate' what happened. We were able to see what actually happened - not an embellished recount of the events.
The TV station, in a small way, became the "chatterati" you speak of. They used footage from a person at the scene. Didn't have the send out reporters.
Now, take any part of the world.. why couldn't the people that are already there report it? Before the internet came along, the cost of sending someone there to get you the report was small compared to trying to equip someone that was already there and then to retrieve the material. Not anymore. People have access to usable cameras. Have the means to upload it to the internet. The internet has the ability to 'ship' it around the world.
You needed trained journalists because they were few (dictated by the resources needed to equip them, provide travel for them etc.) and needed the ability to cover wide range of events, topics etc. When you have everyone with the ability to 'report', presumably, they will be the familiar enough with the subject matter..
Anyhow, the sanctity of 'journalism', at least to me, is quickly eroding. Most news outlets don't have a 'journalist' to begin with - they have opinionated pundits who just found a bullhorn. But I digress.
Re:news @ 11 (Score:1, Interesting)
I do want narration and opinions, because what I can see isn't the beginning of the story, and doesn't show what was happening to the left or right of the scene. I'm not arrogant enough to believe I have an adequate grasp of the history and cultural differences between my corner of the world and the DR Congo or Gaza. Instead, I rely on what others tell me to explain the significance of what I see.
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sending someone to report on conditions in some remote area of the world doesn't happen for free. That person has to be transported, fed, clothed.
So you just change the model on how you operate. Use independent reporters that can be contracted in their local areas instead of sending expensive reporters all over the world.
Right on! (Score:2, Interesting)
applause, clap, clap, clap hoot hoot and etc. You got it exactly. The *main* job of the big names in broadcast journalism is to push the party line indoctrination propaganda of the so called "elite" folks at the top of the economic globalist heap, they take orders from the bailed out billionaires once you get down to it. What is it, something like half a dozen or so owners cover the bulk of the alleged news out there now? Times change! The world is awash in decent cellphones with camera and video capabilities, man on the street, on the spot blogging is taking over.
Yes, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff looking at blogs and smaller independent news sites, etc, but it gets easier once a blog has been established and builds some netcred, and at least you *can*, the opportunity is there. Whereas if you restrict yourself to reading much of the big talking heads or even worse listening to them spew their tired 20th century propaganda they developed when talking to their "subjects", it gives you *no choice at all*, zero. Big name news is the equivalent of clear channel top 40 in music. Here's another one, a bakery analogy. Listening to those alleged journalists is like walking into a bakery and all they have for sale is 20 different types of cheap sliced white bread, all the same, just in different bags with different names.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Kiosks (Score:4, Interesting)
... with custom papers. I go to my news stand and order up a paper, AP, NYT, Nature, NBA, Premiership, brassiere ads, lots of cartoons and comic strips (that's what I want). The size allows for bigger pretty pictures than my laptop. It's paper so I don't worry about spilling coffee on it or reading it in a crowd or leaving it in a restaurant. I do the puzzles and drop the paper off at a news stand where a magic process strips the ink with a minimum of energy and water foot print. The paper is recycled.
Sci Fi I know, so flame away.
Cory Doctorow? (Score:2, Interesting)
...People still care what Doctorow has to say? He's still around?
For real?
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't over exaggerate the internet. It is simply a digital network with open access. What is happening is the internet basically illuminates the difference between a radio station, a televisions station and a newspaper. They all have web sites and they compete with web only sites for viewer numbers.
So streamlining, modern media companies will run having all those segments covered, they will be a newspaper, a radio stations, a tv station and a website.
They will have to compete on a global basis, even more so in the future with automated 'accurate' translation services. The best way to think of a web sites is a real estate, your create value on that page view by providing quality information that end users are interested in, now as you replace content with advertising you devalue that view and are forced to charge less for it to advertisers, so it is a careful balancing act. How much you spend on creating content, how much add space on a page, how much you charge for that add space and all of this in a very competitive environment.
So competitive you have to compete against people giving away free specialised content because they enjoy to so or manufacturers who advertise direct by creating specialised web sites to draw the end user directly to them. So you also will have companies that produce content and don't make it available directly to the public but sell it to others who base their web site on it and advertising around it.
Boils down too, no journalists and no reporters and you will lose market share hand over fist to companies that can produce better quality content which attracts end users who in turn attract advertisers. Also if you B$ on your content, you will get caught as people can now compare information from all over the web. Get caught lying too often and you will perish, regardless of how big you are.
Hogwash (Score:3, Interesting)
The media businesses will stay in business as long as they learn to adapt to new trends like the Internet.
Hulu [hulu.com] was developed when too many TV shows got captured and posted on Youtube for free and hosted via file sharing networks. The videos got pulled from Youtube and Hulu.com hosts the old TV shows and some movies for free, with limited interruption advertising.
Hulu.com makes money off of advertising added to the videos, plus advertising on the web site to view the videos, all while providing free videos to its users. There is no need to pirate those TV Shows or host them on Youtube and violate copyrights.
The same with music, one can create a music station like last.fm or Yahoo Launchcast Music that plays free Internet music via a radio-like broadcast system catered to the listener's likes and dislikes. Inbetween songs can be put in commercials.
The same with books, after so many pages of reading, there are a few advertising spots before the next few pages are displayed, the same with newspapers. Along with advertising on those web sites that have the electronic version of books and newspapers and magazines.
Plus it allows people to get into the media business by themselves by starting up their own web site or use free resources to start their own media site for free. Then pay for putting in Google AdSense or some other advertising system on their paid or free web site to bring in the revenue.
Of course there will always be free and open source web sites for free and open source media. Be it Wikis, or CMS forums like Slashdot or CNet, blogs, other forums, or just web site with content on it.
Print is dead, but ePrint replaced it.
Newspapers are dead, but eNewspapers, Blogs, Forums, Wiki sites, etc replaced them.
The Music industry is dead, but the eMusic industry that sells songs via files or pays for them via advertising have replaced them.
The movie industry is dead, but Hulu.com, Netflicks, Blockbuster, etc replaced them.
Learn to adapt to changes in technology or die like the dinosaurs did. Grow, evolve, change, whatever it takes to modify your business model and technology to take advantage of new trends and new technology and new media containers.
I don't really see it as all that different from when we went from Color TV, to VHS video tapes, to DVD video, to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD Video, to Video files over the Internet. It is the same product, just different technology. In the case of the media file it is a pattern of bits which can be easily duplicated for pennies on the dollar instead of being a physical media container which costs more. So in theory, a media company putting their content on files, instead of a physical container, would save a lot of money by just selling files instead of audio CDs, Video DVDs, Paper Books, Paper Newspapers, etc.
The only issue is how to combat piracy when the media is in a format that is easier to copy than the physical matter format. One way to do that is keep prices low, another way is to offer it for free with advertsing ala Hulu.com and other web sites.
This is not brain surgery, this is really really simple. Ask any of us Computer Geeks how to create a file of information and host it on a web site with advertising, etc. Most of us are out of work and need jobs creating the new web sites for the media companies anyway, it is a win-win situation.
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:3, Interesting)
> The newspaper's advantage is that they have editors.
Past tense. The old media would be dying a lot slower, if at all, if your statement were still true but it just isn't. You can read major news stories at major papers and find common grammar and spelling mistakes on a daily basis. It doesn't sound like something that would prove fatal at first thought but I think it is THE problem. If the editors aren't even able to spot the obvious errors or even invoke a spell checker it eventually becomes obvious to even normal people that the editors probably aren't there any more. If an article isn't even spell checked it probably wasn't fact checked any better. In other words, the only advantage the major media claim over a common blogger doesn't actually exist and probably hasn't existed for a decade or better.
Bloggers on the other hand ARE fact checked. By other bloggers and their own readers. A fairly usable ranking is starting to settle out in the blogospere where the major sites at the top of the food chain are at least as reliable as a major newspaper or TV newscast.
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:3, Interesting)
> They could... but how do you know they aren't lying?
Easy enough problem. Assume they are lying, just like our own overpaid media. The harder problem is knowing HOW they are lying, we know our own media enough to make educated guesses.
> Do you think the Chinese government or local new organizations would ever have reported Tiananmen Square?
At the time no. Now with the Internet yes. we have examples already of people posting from inside unfree hellholes.
And after CNN's admission they were burying negative stories about Saddam's Iraq to keep their uplink alive can we ever trust the western media to report the truth from inside unfree states any more than their own state owned media? And it isn't new, western media buried the Soviets crimes in the Ukraine for a long time, not because of threats of ejection or physical harm but simply because the believed so strongly in Communism the couldn't report anything that would have blown the whole world's goodwill budget.
Nope, airdropping a planeload of star reporters onto a story is all about the prestige of the MSM.
Melbourne's Free Daily Newspaper (Score:1, Interesting)
In the city of Melbourne, (Victoria, Australia), a newspaper called MX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MX_(newspaper)) is available - for free - to all of the city communters from late afternoon as they start to leave the office and head home. Many people grab one as the enter the train/metro/subway station and read it on the train/tram as they travel home. Or if you're not interested in reading, there are crosswords, etc.
The quanitities in which they're printed mean that after hitting the streets at 3pm-ish, by sometime between 7pm and 8pm, you need to hunt around inside trains that come back into the city for copies that people have read but left on the train.
It has always been about the same size and has been through one life threatening moment. But for all those that say "print media is dead" (or dying), I look at this and wonder if that's really true.
I read it every day, do the sudoku, crossword and other puzzles that I have time for between when I get on and get off the train. I do this even though I carry a laptop because after 8 hours at work, when it is time to go home, I just don't want to stare at that screen any more. They have a captive audience, all looking for something else to do than stare at the person opposite them.
Would this work in the morning? No. The distribution of newspapers would need to be quite spread out to cover enough entry points into the rail network (vs the city "hub" for afternoon people going home.)
Re:That's just a bit premature... (Score:4, Interesting)
If the editors aren't even able to spot the obvious errors or even invoke a spell checker it eventually becomes obvious to even normal people that the editors probably aren't there any more. If an article isn't even spell checked it probably wasn't fact checked any better.
Mainstream news editors seem to serve mostly to fuck stories up [geocities.com]. (I use this as my example because I'm quoted in it.) That particular article is a gentle example - we'll never see this sort of thing presented for an important story. They don't let people who would do this write those. Even so they changed the article substantially to demonize and sensationalize. In they process they actually made it less grammatically correct.