A Nerd's Take On The Future Of News Media
There are a lot of new technologies which already affect news consumption and future business models. As a nerd, I'm excited by the new tech, particularly mobile, including new display systems and pervasive connectivity.
However, the tech is secondary, not nearly as important as repairing some current issues with trust and curation.
As a news media guy, I'm an amateur, relying on large part on people who really know the business. Frequent engagement in social media helps, and most importantly, 14 years in online customer service gives me a good feel for the ground truth and attitude online.
Trust is the new black, as I like to say. The great opportunity for news organizations is to constructively demonstrate trustworthy reporting, and to visibly do so.
News curation, that is, selecting what's news and should be visible, that's an equally big deal.
Here's the deal...
An increasingly media savvy online public sees that recent major problems involved some really good journalism, particularly the current financial crisis, and also that "weapons of mass destruction" thing. Good reporters told us that something was amiss in both situations, and we did see some really good journalism in both cases.
However, the really good journalism was buried, not curated into the front pages, and then, infrequently if at all repeated. As news consumers, if big news is not prominently displayed, and then repeated, it's a tree falling in the forest.
So, these major news organizations reported on matters of great importance to the world, but the curation model failed to really warn the public about those issues, in any way that genuinely delivered the message.
Many of us feel that professional news curation, editing, failed us deeply. We still hope that this approach will be viable in the future, and I feel it'll happen.
It's a cliche now, but I hear that the kids don't look for professionally curated news, they feel that news will find them. Yakov Smirnoff style: old model, you find news; new model, news finds you. That is, we would look around for a newspaper or TV news show previously; now, we subscribe to the Twitter or Facebook feeds of those friends who have a passion for news. I see this everyday in the feeds I read.
The new model for news curation and selection, I feel, will be a balance of professional editing and collaborative news filtering. In one incarnation, news organizations will look at feeds from highly respected news fans, and that will drive stories that are featured more prominently.
Now, remember that "trust is the new black."
The contemporary model for trustworthiness is "objectivity" but the commonplace observation is that it's failed to inspire trust. That is, the audience just doesn't trust news organizations overall, with some exceptions. (It's also a common observation that many news leaders aren't listening to this, which is difficult news to process.)
One reason for this loss of faith is the failure of curation; per above, people ask about the lack of sustained warnings regarding big stories like the two cited previously.
Another is a failure that a number of commentators have perceived, that "objectivity" is a major destroyer of trust.
In presenting two sides of a story, news organizations will allow both sides to present their positions. That sounds fair, but it's common practice to give those opportunities to "front groups," or "astroturfers," people who are paid to deceive the public in specific matters. This has been very well investigated, documented, and reported. It's a major problem in the public forum, for example, in the health care reform debate, badly hurting our country.
However, most of the reporting has been confined to one-day reports in niche publications like The Consumerist, a vehicle of Consumer Reports, one of the most trusted publications in America. Consumerist did a great report based on research by the Center for Media and Democracy. (Disclaimer: for that reason, I've joined the Consumer Reports board.)
This is a challenge, and an opportunity.
The successful news organizations of the future will pursue models for news curation/selection which is a hybrid of professional editing and collaboration among talented consumers.
A major opportunity is to be found by rejecting the involvement of professional disinformation groups. New models for fairness in reporting will balance the current vision. That's probably captured in the statement that "transparency is the new objectivity."
The deal is that the future of news organizations will be determined by emergent trends which are already visible. There's a lot of challenge there, which is to say, lots of opportunity.
Follow Craig Newmark on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craignewmark
Peter Scheer: With news jobs vanishing, why are journalism schools still enrolling students?
BY PETER SCHEER As I read about the latest contractions in the newsroom of the New York Times (100 reporters and editors) and the San...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Speculation on the future of news, media, etc. etc. is all the rage right now. Everyone is popping up with an opinion. Michael Eisner - never one to keep quiet - even talks about the Future of Television... while on a duck hunting trip no less...
http://mankabros.com/chairmans-blog/2009/10/the-future-of-television-as-to.html
There's only two resources I could ever really "trust" as news - unbiased and balanced. That is NPR and The Christian Science Monitor (and no, I'm not religious - but try picking it up some time.)
The rest has always been tainted by earning a profit and private interests. But even the few "reliable" news/journalistic resources are not always completely reliable. Sometimes they even get their facts incorrect.
Is there such thing as a perfectly unbiased or fair news resource? No. However that being said, some do come closer than others when it comes to integrity.
But even Huffington Post - one shouldn't take this seriously as a news resource. There's plenty of times I've called out misleading/sensationalized headlines. It's a good reading, but I don't ever quite trust what's written here.
i love HP also, but you have a point about leading headlines. but its mostly a news aggregator anyway
NPR i dont really trust. i remember clearly during the financial collapse last year, they had completely worthless analysts. dont read enough of CSM to say, but you are right, its worth reading.
Interesting comments, but come on Mr. Newmark. You talk of the future of News Media and you haven't updated your own craigslist website with Web 2.0 technologies to embrace that New Media or Social Networking for that matter. Craigslist hasn't changed since it was started partially by you. Moreover, you have been resistant to calls to update your site to embrace the technologies you are enamored with. Time to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.
Craigslist works quite well already -- I respect Mr. Newmark a great deal for "not fixing what ain't broken" rather than following the herd with new gimmicks.
Sure, there is definitely room for improvement, but it's smart not to change too fast, because you run the risk of confusing your users and losing their *trust*. Like he's saying above: Trust first, technology second.
I beg to differ. Craigslist already has that trust. However the site has effectively "sat still" while emerging "Web 2.0" technologies have proliferated. When it gets so bad that the preferred way to use craigslist isn't via the the website itselft, but via an paid for iPhone app like craigslist mobile, it's time for a makeover kid! ;) Moreover, the website has some fraud and security issues, some that could've been resolved by technology. So why not get some college students studying web design to give craigslist "Tha Hookup!"?
Here is proof of the US media having a strong liberal bias. Here is study done at UCLA, the University of Missouri and Stanford. Don’t bother quoting the media matters study saying this UCLA study is flawed. Media matters is further left than Rush Limbaugh is right. This UCLA study was conducted by hundreds of people which takes out the bias. Here is the proof:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
This information is 5 and 4 years old respectively.
Yes, there is bias in the media...the most dastardly coming from the right....see Pew Research Center report.
First of all, Pew is a left of center think tank. That organization is pushing an agenda so i dont believe anything coming out of that place. Also, the UCLA study goes on to talk about studies done in 1996, 1986 and the early seventies that show the same results. That our media has a "strong liberal influence". Our media has always been liberal. So to compensate for this FOX News and talk radio got started to even things out. Now you guys cry foul because youre upset there are conservative news outlets now.
Wow! you've got it so right. I would only offer one observation(and I'm not a conspiracy theorist) It seems clear that the political mainstream media are deeply in bed with Washington's line, press realeases, and propaganda. So all the excellent innovations you suggest aren't worth a dime since they serve and speak the for same master. Consequently then, Big Brother is in charge.
Like every US industry, profit corrupts the media.
Yet - I fully agree with you, Craig! The new paradigm forces the media to pay attention to not only the facts, but the opinions of its audience, rather than the advertisers.
There are so many outlets now.
Think about this balloon boy story - so many were skeptical, and they were right!
While journalism had its golden age, it has become quite tarnished over time. Everything is skewed by marketing and grandiosity.
It often came down to one male - older, white, well-off - to give the thumb up or down to a story. I do hope things are changing...
Good article overall but I would dispute your point that the WMD and the coverage of the financial crisis were badly curated by the mainstream news... these stories were plastered across front pages for weeks, if not months.
I'd be interested to know what you mean by consumers being 'increasingly media savvy' - do you mean they know more about the media or more about what's in the media. I don't think either statement is true.
There is two problems with media today, First of all you wouldn't want them to say anything "Off-Center" about one of their advertisers. And, in the 3 or 4 seconds they give for an"opinion" from "both" sides of the aisle someone is always told we are out of time, then they go to a commercial. Number two, I don't want opinionated news, just give me the facts let me draw my own conclusions. You can't pour water down my back and tell me its raining, If I need an opinion there is more than enough news services for an opinion approved by their Drug company, or insurance company advertisers. I would like to find a news service with a backbone, compile a list of Congressmen and how much was paid to them to make sure health care reform failed. My Blue Cross just went up 20% a week ,Why because lobbyist have to make money, too.
Not a damn thing is going to change regarding "trust" unless the news media gets a new business model - one that's not entirely advertiser dependent.
Ad supported news is the problem...that's the same corps funding the misinformation we get now.
Let's don't just transfer the misinformation to new distribution methods.
One other thing, its not that people don't *want* to dig deeper. They should be provided the links to dig deeper, its that simple. The ridiculous habit of publications not linking to external sources is absurd. I've read several articles where even URLs are not linked.
I would take it a few steps further. Not only curation, but analysis and *perspective*. The lack of putting things into perspective allows all kinds of wacky opinions to weigh more heavily than the core issues. We hear about all the crazy healthcare stories and can't follow the narrative, because media is not providing us with any consistent narrative. We are being distracted by all the sensational aspects of these issues and we lose focus on the importance of the issue as a whole.
Its more than transparency, and its more than a curation issue. Its a perspective issue.
And that, my friends, is a journalistic integrity issue. You don't bring 2 opposing viewpoints into every single issue and give the impression that its a 50/50 debate. For example, climate change is accepted by every reasonable person and 99% of scientists and yet stories on it (esp on tv) waste valuable hours covering the controversy. WHY? Where is the journalistic integrity in that?
Absolutely correct, Ryan...
The media has become sensationalist and motivated completely by viewership. The opposing view, of ANY issue, is given equal credence to verifiable fact. Though a despicable abomination, it remains a current reality. Walter Cronkite is turning over in his grave...........
Good point on the 'front group'.
I often listen to NPR, and I occaionally tune in to the middle of a reasonably sounding, but just plain wrong, or very biased speach, and am thinking to myself, what is this person thinking, only to find out it is yet another Heritage foundation, or other thinktank person invited on for the sake of 'Balance'.
The various news agencies can easily call these people up and get a good quote or an entertaining interview, but they never get people who are not pushing an agenda.
Meanwhile you have independent statistician Nate Silver, who while having a personal political bias, is still able to talk about the statistics of the political process without letting that get in the way.
Who do you think I find more credable?
This is a great piece. I think that the future of news media will include some organizing component as Craig suggests. Those people who are "broadcasters" (with 500-1000 friends on FB) will coordinate and be able to share and drive messaging on their areas of specialization. This is what happened with Amazon and to some extent with ebay. The question is how to best coordinate and democratize these efforts? And how to train organizer/journalists in how to ongoingly serve the public interest.
An excellent analysis, Craig. Trust, especially in the 21st C when we are all so closely linked, is a core component of every interaction.
Not least of all, trustworthiness in the curation of the news we read is a key attribute in the success of the news organisations we turn to. Those that have earned our trust see us turn to them directly, for the others, we are turning away in droves. It is this factor that is amongst the key influences in the massive model shift required of the traditional news media in order to ensure they survive.
Based on behavior in recent years, the CNNs, Foxs and News Limiteds of this world have a long journey back to earn any trust, let alone yours or mine, I'd say.
The bigger picture is that 'news' has become entertainment, put out on a grade-school intellectual level, motivated by corporate profit. It's cheaper and they get more viewers by having some talking head give his opinion or say outrageous things than to have foreign correspondents or to go out and do thorough investigative reporting. There are more people in shopping malls than at libraries. Getting the facts and truth is not easy, and I am very dis-trustful and suspicious of almost every source. The Huff Post brings together a lot of great sources. I hope Arianna will run for public office some day! We should strengthen public radio and tv, and assure its objectivity to be like BBC, where they just report the news without theatrics and silly graphics with whoosh sounds!.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
