From Adam Westbrook
car, to the Apple computer all began by asking a simple question.
Read the complete post and watch the video on Adam Westbrook’s blog.
Looking at the long term future of news
From Adam Westbrook
Read the complete post and watch the video on Adam Westbrook’s blog.
The prophet spoke in the fall of 1992.
Cassandra was alive in Cambridge, Massachusetts. As Cassandra warned the Trojans, she was ignored. You, the news executive, were warned. And you ignored it The World Wide Web destroyed your business model.
I am cleaning out old files and found a proposal from the MIT Media Lab in 1992 for a “News in the Future” study consortium, with a prospective launch date of Feb. 1, 1993.
Here is what the executive abstract said:
When we think of news, we think of how we receive it: by newspaper , magazine, television and radio. We think of the range of coverage from international to our local neighborhood. And we think of various categories like sports, weather and finance. The organizing elements come from the information provider, broadcasting to a demographic group, large or small. The delivery of news is usually funded by advertising, resulting in a kind of roulette for the advertiser and noise for the reader. In the future the consumer will decide if the output is to be audio, video or print. The organizing element will be the consumer. And advertisements will be welcome news. How will this transformation of the passive to the active consumer happen?
Well, the transformation was brought by something called the Internet (which was around in 1992 but not mentioned in the proposal ).
The organizing element is the consumer.
They were right. The nine page document gives what may one of the first references to the “Daily Me.”
Some more gems
One heading More than keywords can say, calling (in academic language) ways of finding the conceptual relationships between keywords. And behold, then came Google.
Here is what the proposal says about story telling, predicting:
a story teller system produces narrative tailored to what is knows –and learns– of a consumer’s background, preferences and interests. Stories emerge dynamically as the system mediates between the user and the element. Questions and criticisms yield new sequences of video, sound and explanation in reply.
The sounds a little like User Generated Content. Twitter is a dynamic information system where the media and the citizen exchange information with immediacy in real time, as the events in Haiti have shown. Youtube recuts present “new sequences of video and sound.”
Blogs present questions and criticisms which often have to be answered and also create new sequences of explanation.
There is one idea that is still pending and still debated. The last item in the proposal “The Feel of Paper”
Printing on paper is a mature, ubiquitous and very successful technology for information display, Among its strengths are low cost, robust portability, high resolution and contrast and its intuitive tactile user interface. ON the other hand, it suffers from severe limitations of both permanence (the information cannot be easily modified) and impremanence (the information is destroyed if the paper is destroyed) Existing digital information systems easily remedy thse constraints but fail to capture many of the strengths of paper. We will be exploring user force sensing and generation to provide tactile I/O for information systems(such as flipping pages or locating markers), hybrid active/passive display materials for more accessible portability and conceivably reusable paper for printing in the home.
Will the launch of the Apple tablet later this week solve that dilemma, providing an “intuitive tactile user interface.” Or will it be another cold piece of technology? We’ll know soon.
If the Trojans had listened to Cassandra, they would not have brought the horse within the walls of the city.
While not all the work from the MIT media lab has come to pass, as predicted, in the beginning there were those words on nine pages of laser printing, that if at least some executives had considered a possible prophecy, perhaps the news business would not see the walls breached and the kingdoms falling.
Update: Jan 6. 2010
The configuration problems have been solved.
There will be limited blogging on Tao of News until mid-April (not that there are that many entries at the moment).
I am taking early retirement as of March 31 2010 so will be busy with paperwork, planning a move, selling a house, buying a house. I will be doing the occasional blog entry.
Once I am settled in BC in late spring, I intend to do more blogging on the long term future of journalism.
Tao of News blog is temporarily under repair due to template configuration problems.
Restoration will be completed as soon as possible.
Is the future of news a town crier?
A town crier with a baseball cap rather than the traditional three-cornered hat?
I’m not kidding. Here’s why.
On the afternoon of Nov. 18, 2009, the Toronto Transit Commission shut down the main north bound subway from the city’s downtown due to safety concerns after a contractor (not connected to the transit system) damaged a bridge over the subway line.
That stranded thousands at the main downtown crossroads of Toronto, Yonge and Bloor Streets.Many of those thousands of commuters had to line up for more than an hour to catch a bus. The system was actually restored ahead of schedule by the middle of the evening.
CBC News story
Subway back to normal but riders still fuming
I had my camera with me and began shooting. I was also wearing my CBC News baseball cap, which is a lot more visible to the public than a media ID card around one’s neck.
People kept coming up to me and asking me what was wrong with the subway system.
It happens quite often when a media person is at an event. But usually it’s at a demonstration and the question is “What are they demonstrating about?” If it’s a crime or accident scene, it’s “What happened?” In both of those cases, it’s pretty obvious what is going on.
Last night, I had more questions from more members of the public than I have had in my memory, “What is happening? “Why is the subway shut down?” People were also asking the police, uniformed TTC employees and other members of the media. In most cases it was the live or camera crews with media baseball caps or media jackets, not the TV reporters waiting to do their live hits into the supper hour news shows. ( What good were those live hits to the people waiting in line, wondering what was going to happen? Great for the folks at home though, another “live from the scene” report. )
That got me thinking about the ongoing debate about the future of the news business. Are we missing something?
Toronto is a media saturated city. There are four daily newspapers (all a bit shaky but none at death’s door, so far) (The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun and The National Post) five broadcast and cable networks (CBC, CTV, Global, CITY/Rogers and SunTV) three Canadian 24 hour cable networks (CBC News Network, CTV News Channel, CP24), radio stations too many to count–and they all have websites.
Then there’s social media, lots of blogs in Toronto, including BlogTo which has become a web-based news service for the city.
In fact, I first found out about the subway disruption from a @TTCalert on Twitter.
Yet a significant number of people at Yonge and Bloor did not have any idea at all that their homebound commute was going to last a lot longer than expected. Are we missing the real “news you can use” in favour of some artificial variety created by a consultant?
Gee, why weren’t these people checking news websites from their offices? After all the numbers show that the highest web news audience is during office hours.
We say we live in a wired, web world. Are we really? Is all this talk by the academics and other experts of “link economy” all that important, if the basic news can’t be delivered to the people who need it? Maybe that’s why people are losing faith in the media. We don’t tell them what they really want to know (even if it appears to be boring. Standing out on the weather waiting for a bus because you can’t get a subway is even more boring.)
When I was a journalism student back in 74-75, the late Phyllis Wilson, a great prof, who taught at Carleton from 1966 to 1982, a former city hall reporter for the long -gone Ottawa Journal pounded into our (Watergate dreaming) heads that people want to know and need to know the basics, water and sewerage (always sewerage not sewer, Phyillis would say), garbage collection, street cleaning and why isn’t the bus running?
Why isn’t the bus running?
You know, fifty or sixty years ago, when there were still evening newspapers, there would be newsboys (yes newsboys in those days) hawking The Toronto Star five star final or an extra from the late Toronto Telegram that would have told the people in line exactly what was going on (at least up to the print deadline).
Yet, last night, despite cell phones and smart phones and text messages and Twitter messaging to those phones, a good many people didn’t know what was happening and needed to know.
The Good News. They saw someone with a media baseball cap and asked me and the crews from the other stations. So despite all our numerous failings and mounting problems, folks still go to the media for the news.
Maybe there’s hope for us yet. Maybe we do need to be a town crier some time and shout out the news from a street corner.
We certainly have to take a hard look at what we do and what kind of news we chose to deliver.
You can see my CBC photo gallery Transit chaos at this link
Journalism is in crisis.
So it’s now time to realize that journalism students are an “indicator species.”
Wikipedia defines an indicator species in biology this way:
An indicator species is any biological species that defines a trait or characteristic of the environment… Indicator species can be among the most sensitive species in a region, and sometimes act as an early warning to monitoring biologists.
Wikipedia goes on to give seven sub definitions for indicator species. In my view, in the current media environment journalism students fit sub definitions 6 and 7.
For the past twenty years, journalism students have been serving as an early warning indicator of the changes coming in the media. Those warnings have, for the most part, been ignored by the faculty of most journalism schools, and more important, by the executives and managers of most media organizations.
How journalism students have regarded the media, the newspapers, television, the web, reflect in the effects of a disturbance regime in the media ecosystem– the rise of the World Wide Web and the failure of the majority of media executives and managers to adapt realistically to a rapidly changing world.
Earlier today, a posting by a journalism professor at Carleton University in Ottawa called “My students don’t have TVs” triggered a lot of Tweets and interest
Marilyn Mercer, as is common among j-profs, assigned her broadcast news students to watch the major Canadian national network newscasts.
I began this course assigning weekly analysis of the flagship nightly newscasts at CTV and CBC. At first, some students panicked. “I don’t have cable,” said one. “Nor TV,” said another. Knowing this was about marks, they went online to cbc.ca or ctv.ca and started watching stories that often begin with [CBC Anchor} Peter [Mansbridge] or [CTV anchor] Lloyd [Robertson].
(Note I currently work for CBC News as a photo editor and in my career at both CBC and at CTV I have worked with both Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson)
Mercer asked her students to take a look at the controversial relaunch of CBC news on October 26, including the change from CBC Newsworld to the new CBC News Network.
None of them had yet watched CBC NN, but said they’d heard about “how people don’t like it.”
She is concerned in her post about the content of the news, which I won’t go into for the purpose of this post.
But on the medium itself, Mercer also says:
CBC’s The National can probably forget about getting my class demographic, even if they are j-school students. This generation wears the news in their clothing and won’t make an appointment to view it late in the evening. They monitor their hand-held devices throughout the day often after texts from friends to check out something, on YouTube, or cbc.ca like the boy in the balloon.
The first reaction in online comments to Mercer’s post is typical
So… these kids want to be broadcast journalists but don’t even own/watch TV?
This is a joke, right?
Claude Adams, another former CBC journalist, now a freelancer and teacher responded in the comments:
Alas, not a joke at all. I got the same general response a few years ago from a class of graduate-level broadcast journalism students here on the west coast. Many didn’t watch TV news unless it was assigned.
A number of them said “it isn’t relevant” although they thought that [Comedy Central’s] Jon Stewart and [CBC’s] George Stroumboulopoulos were cool.
Two weeks ago, I asked a class of 4th year communications students at the U of Windsor what they thought of The National’s new look. Not a single one had watched. “You are exactly the demographic that the CBC is courting,” I told them. They shrugged.
Here is proof that J-students are an indicator species.
That attitude is not limited to the journalism schools. Another study, also tweeted today, of American students, Alloy Media + Marketing’s 9th annual College Explorer Survey, projected annual technology spending among college students (ages 18-30), showed that
Students are spending twice as much time on their computers as compared to television viewing 33% of 18-24 year old students have increased their consumption of webisodes or user-generated videos since last year, and 30% of 18-30 year olds report frequent video viewing on social networking sites
Let’s turn the clock back about 15 years, when I began teaching (as a part -time instructor) investigative reporting at Ryerson University School of Journalism.
In the winter semester of 1995, when I introduced final year and grad students to Computer-Assisted Reporting, I had to teach half the students a lot about computers.
Two years later, that sort of basic teaching was no longer necessary, the students were all computer wizards and so I could get right to the heart of Computer-Assisted Reporting.
That was the same time journalism faculty across the continent began to ring alarm bells. “They’re not reading newspapers!”
By that time of course, most major news organizations (but not all) had created news websites and that was where many students were already getting their news.
The first reaction at most journalism schools was something like this: “So the little monsters aren’t reading newspapers. Well, we’ll make them read newspapers by giving them news quizzes.”
Then there were the usual remarks about how bad, lazy, the younger generation was. Of course, older adults have been saying that at least since students in ancient Athens gathered to listen to Socrates. (It probably goes back at least to the first scribe schools in ancient Sumeria but so far as I know there wasn’t a Sumerian Plato to record the remarks).
When I was a grad student at Carleton (74-75) we did have a couple of news quizzes, but they were challenging scavenger hunts.
We devoured newspapers.
First thing I did each morning was open the door of my old Ottawa apartment (if it was New York or Boston it would be probably be called brownstone) and grab The Globe and Mail, which had a new investigative story almost every morning.
Assigning a news quiz didn’t make the students of the late 1990s grab a newspapers first thing in the morning.
I stopped working at Ryerson in 2001. I returned for one semester in 2004, to help teach first year students. By then the news quiz had changed. No longer a scavenger hunt for kids who devoured newspapers (the carrot) nor a way of forcing them to read newspapers (the stick), instead the news quiz was now a time limited exercise in searching Google News.
If those students from the mid-1990s are still lucky enough to have jobs in newspapers, they may read their own rag in print, but are highly unlikely to read the opposition in print, instead they are going online.
Their contemporaries are not reading newspapers. That’s why the business is in trouble.
Journalism students were and are an indicator species.
This is similar to what Mercer notes her post, “Knowing this was about marks….” that made the students rush to their computers to watch the online versions of the network newscasts.
Now we see the same trend in broadcast and cable television, as we saw in newspapers a decade ago, where the younger audience is drifting away.
It is the same argument I had with journalism profs (most weren’t listening) when I attended conferences in the 90s. If you can’t get journalism students to read your product, how to expect the rest of the generation to read it?
Broadcast executives around the world say they want the younger audience, the 18-34 or 40 demographic demanded by advertisers. But they want that audience to fit into their metrics. They don’t want to give the audience what they want to see or hear.
Ask anyone of that age and you quickly learn that broadcasting is not serving that audience.
Last summer, on Vancouver Island, I went to photograph some Canada Day fireworks with a friend who is in his 20s, more than 30 years younger than me. That evening I hung out with some of his friends (none of them in journalism). They told me that they didn’t listen to the three private-sector radio stations in the area.
“They’re all the same,” one guy said.
Of course, they all sound the same, the days of a individual DJ are decades dead.
What those stations broadcast is “mix,” play-list pap that comes out some consultant’s office, likely in Los Angeles.
My friend who is a part time DJ, says these days if anyone requests a tune that he doesn’t have in his system, he (honestly paying for it) downloads it from Itunes into his Iphone and then transfers it to his music system. Who needs playlist pap?
What I did find interesting was that these 20-odd year-olds liked and listened to CBC’s information radio at a time when the stereotype, even within the CBC, is that the audience consists of aging boomers.
Those guys also listened to the online CBC Radio 3. I found the same thing last weekend at a session of a conference of student newspaper journalists at Wilfred Laurier University where I was one of the speakers. Most of the students listened to Radio 3’s eclectic mix of largely Canadian original music.
Then New Democratic Party leader David Lewis (right) and political columnist Anthony Westell speak to Carleton University grad journalism students in the fall of 1975. (copyright Robin Rowland)
Back to Carleton for a moment. It’s in Canada’s capital, blocks from Parliament Hill. The Carleton Journalism program has a well-earned reputation for turning out political reporters. In 74-75. we had guest speakers, party leaders and top journalists, come to our class. I am pretty sure people from the Hill still show up at Carleton from time to time.
Now in 2009, you can’t get journalism students in the national capital to watch the major national newscasts? If you can’t get journalism students in a political city to watch the major newscasts, how do you expect the rest of the generation to watch those shows?
There are reasons, of course, not just that the times they are a changing, that the students don’t have TVs and cable.
Cable is too expensive, my Rogers bill is $71.72 a month. I wonder if it is worth it.
Cable certainly isn’t worth it for a student, likely overburdened by student loan debt, with not that many job prospects in the current economy, who can get specifically online what they want they want to watch.
I know more and more friends actually in broadcasting, from people in their 20s, through boomers to retired folks, who are canceling their cable and relying on over-the-air HD antennas or HD USB antennas plugged into their laptops to watch broadcasts and who watch everything else online.
Enjoying their current multimillion dollar incomes, the cable companies aren’t noticing. Yet
Just as newspapers didn’t notice a decade ago.
The networks around the world are likely feeling a bit of a chill wind, but they prefer to continue on a consultant driven path to who knows where.
Journalism students are an indicator species.
I am not saying (yet) that journalism schools give up their mission.
But let’s get real. The majority of students in journalism school or working on student newspapers these days are entering the profession knowing that the media is in a big mess and they still want to be journalists. That really is reason for optimism.
So J-schools, it’s time to stop worrying about the delivery system, the newspapers, the television, the web or whatever appears out of the silicon universe a year or two from now.
Do what you should be doing. Teach strong story telling. No matter what the medium.
Did I say that journalism students are an indicator species?
Yes. I did.
That mean’s there’s good news for journalism.
From the young folks I know, from the ones I’ve met either in person or online, I have confidence that the new generation of journalism students and young working journalists will be remembered as “a greatest generation” and I will tell you why in my next post in a couple of days.
Journalism students ARE an indicator species.
On Nov. 6, 2009, I was invited to speak to student newspaper journalists at the PULSE conference at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario about how to survive the coming years as a visual journalist.
Here, as promised, is a PDF copy of my talk, with the appropriate web links.
(Large file, right click and save as appropriate to your software)
The Tao of News
The Creative Guide to Research blog and site have “retired.” Some of the hints for research will be included in the new site.