Ch-ch-ch-changes
I know that I have been very critical of the Tribune (sometimes, of course, they deserve it). Therefore, when they do something right it's only fair to point that out as well.
The Tribune is clearly trying to embrace the 'new media.' They are focusing more on local news with an emphasis on interactivity at their website. They are pushing blogging among their staff. They are emphasizing their blogs within the paper.
They are trying to increase reader participation through their forums. They have even created a special forum called YourSpace! for readers to "post links to videos, other news stories and so on."
It's obvious that the folks at the Tribune have taken a hard look at what they believe to be the trends in media, and have taken steps to emulate or copy them. For that, they should be commended and I do.
I, personally, think that they have made one mistake, however. I do not think the mistake will be apparent in the short term, but taking a longer view will, I think, demonstrate one important fact about the 'new media' that is missing from the Tribune equation:
The growth, expansion, and blossoming of the 'new media,' the 'personal media,' or the 'media of one,' cannot and will not be controlled by or dependent on the behemoths of the old media. In other words, as laudable as the Tribune's efforts are, I do not think they will ultimately succeed in morphing into some sort of melded on and offline super outlet.
In the short term, they will succeed. They have the readership. They can tout their forums and blogs daily with their thousands of readers, and many readers will check them out. Their website is useful and practical, although greatly in need of several technical updates.
But in the long run, I don't think they can succeed because the internet is beyond control. They can emphasize local news in the paper, but the old media mindset will always allow growth of alternative sources. (The "old media mindset" might state that it is "only the journalists who have a role in development of the news stories; reader participation is good and interesting, but leave the news business to the pros.")
And, with all due respect to the writers, I enjoy the blogosphere precisely because it is not the same writers as we find in the paper. This community has many talented writers, and they don't all work in that brick building by the river.
The Tribune forums can be entertaining, but for the most part they seem dominated by the voices of a few (despite 2,600 registered members). They often degenerate into ad hominem attacks.
The YourSpace! feature is a fine idea, but it's been done.
Thus, while I think it is great that the Tribune is trying to move forward, I think the new paradigm will actually be something different.
Which brings me to the final point of this long-winded thought: What will the new media look like? Can on and off-line media be blended in a way that is new and interesting? Something beyond newspaper and newstation websites? How do you think it will look?
4 comments:
The strength of the Blogs and the weakness of the Tribune is simply talent. There are some reasonably informed and thoughtful thinkers here and on other local blogs. The Tribune can not afford to hire the talent you have posting here regularly. I may disagree with some posters but I recognize their intellect even if it led them to the wrong conclusion (did I mention the arrogance?;). You have some posts here where lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants, local politicians, USAF captains and business people are actively engaged in discussing issues facing our town. No matter the topic, there is often someone writing that is close to being an expert in the topic at hand. A Tribune reporter at best is a journalism major who may or may not have even talked to an expert and may be reporting on topics that they don’t fully understand. This is why many readers find inaccuracies when reading stories about issues they have a high degree of knowledge in.
The advantage the Trib has is that they do this full time on salary. Geeguy, don’t you wish your hobby had a revenue stream attached to it?
I agree with Geeguy that the Tribune is to be commended for embracing the new media.
I disagree that the Tribune is doomed to fail even in the long run. I suspect that the old media will embrace this new paradigm as a business model and make it work. It isn’t that I don’t believe the “offline super outlet” isn’t outmoded.
I too believe that a living network of interconnected writers and readers trumps the old model. It’s just that many of us are too busy or lazy to participate in reporting the news. Some of us (myself included) enjoy kicking back with the Sunday paper and absorbing the news of the day.
I still think that my daily newspaper is well worth the price, especially in comparison to the cost of other forms of media (movies, internet, television, satellite radio, etc.). Truth be known, I might be willing to give up all of the above before I relinquish my newspaper fix. So it may be a kernel of wishful thinking, but I suspect/hope that traditional “offline” reporting doesn’t go the way of the dinosaurs.
Yet I remain a stickler for actual reporting. If I want opinion or punditry, I’ll listen to talk-radio. What I cannot tolerate is bad journalism. It is not too much to ask that reporters report the news accurately. Wolfpack insults the profession when he suggests that a “reporter is at best is a journalism major who may or may not have even talked to an expert and may be reporting on topics that they don’t fully understand”.
Huh?
That is their job!. When Geeguy (admittedly not an expert on coal plants) can research and report on a topic in greater depth than our local paper (as a side-job no less) it doesn’t speak well for our local journalists. They are paid to talk to the experts, and report on the facts. Sheesh…
All I want is to be able to trust my local media. For example, if KRTV gives erroneous data on a subject I happen to have first-hand information about, I will find subsequent reports (on issues I may have no insight about) to be lacking, and may ultimately stop watching. Likewise, when the Tribune reports on issues I happen to have first-hand knowledge about, I hold them to a higher standard.
Ms. Cates was simply wrong and irresponsible at best. Ms. Wilmot, on the other hand, did a responsible job of reporting. Although I did not agree with a couple of the healthcare issues she reported on, I believe she did due diligence, and made a good-faith effort to report accurately.
So, I applaud the Tribune for embracing the new media. I hope and believe that the old media will persist in some mutated form that resembles its current self (ever try curling up by the fire with a good laptop? or sitting around the breakfast table with your family sharing the computer?). I just want a newspaper that reliably reports the news.
The hell with the Tribune. Too little and too late.
What you don't understand is that with the disintegration of dominant local media comes the disintegration of the local communtiy forum. If the Tribune disappears, no comparable news organization will take its place and stories will simply go unreported. Instead there will be ambulence chasing TV crews and bloggers passing off their baseless opinions as fact with no accountability. Journalism is essential for the survival of democratic representation.
Post a Comment