I'm Naive, and News Doesn't Matter
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
So over the weekend, events have occurred and more and more people are stepping closer to insanity. I for one invite this inevitability; this provides an escape for reality. I sift through life with a waffle iron and destroy a path in which I can walk. Oh and I make waffles. What doesn't make sense are people who think that value and price are the same thing. If my grandma gave me a prized vase she loved very dearly but was worth a dollar, I would consider it valuable but financially useless.
David Simon, the executive producer of HBO's The Wire, and ... a former newspaper reporter, had his opinion on the Washington Post, and oh how I love the Washington Post, saying:
"Isn't the news itself still valuable to anyone? In any format, through any medium -- isn't an understanding of the events of the day still a salable commodity? Or were we kidding ourselves? Was a newspaper a viable entity only so long as it had classifieds, comics and the latest sports scores?"
I know this seems like a repost, but the paragraph cries for a retort. Mike, from Techdirt, seemed a bit soft on Simon. He cries about newspapers not being salable and the fact they are not trying moving on to newer, even better business models, and then he has the gall to pronounce that newsprint is anachronical. This article has all the passion of a pair of tit mice. He contradicts himself sorta, naturally newsprint is anachronical (it's made of paper... damn paper); some are even saying that TV is becoming anachronical. HBO is moving forward, Netflix is making it easier, etc.; these are all part of the trend towards a digital age that's been ignored for the last decade. Whether its because of patent hoarding trollers, industry giants creating fictional gates or the launching of theWar on Piratism (does that work?), the internet and its digital innovation have been held back but people are finally looking to the greener pasture over yonder. Maybe I'm naive but I believe Simon wants to hold his last firm hand on what could possibly end an era. Begin anew? Yes! Newspapers all around the world are striving to keep up but even portals like Yahoo or social trending sites (I might have made that up) like Digg are ahead. Techdirt has numerous articles on business models
that newspapers could use to levy themselves in this age.
that newspapers could use to levy themselves in this age.
Something that annoyed me however was that all of the links throughout the article point to keywords in the Washington Post website like they are Wikiwords and irrelevantly give me information not even associated with the topic at hand. Maybe that's not his fault and he didn't link anything (webmaster Jim Bob thought it be nice to spruce it up), but the fact is they are irrelevant. I thought I was going to find evidence of this so called "decline in advertising". Little did I know, he was also wrong. Again, I may have this words mixed but it seems to me someone isn't doing their research. And what the hell does "department-store consolidation and the decline in advertising" mean being together? Why do I keep seeing this? Someone fill me in here.
But I digress..
So I am being a bit naive, but Simon's whole argument seems a bit contradictory when he rolls into showing how the automotive industry had the same problem from horse-and-buggy to motorised vehicles. At the same time, horse-and-buggy may not be a capitol income for getting somewhere but is still useful in the sense of weddings, romantic strolls through the city, etc. The point is even if products/information become obsolete in whatever they were mainly used, there is usually a new way to use them. Often times like in the case of the horse-and-buggy go from a transportation standard to recreation option. I'm not saying this is where newspapers are leading but its not like this isn't a remote possibility.
So, Simon continues on and it's almost as if he realizes his own folly to the title of his post: "...high-end journalism doesn't take the form of consistent and sophisticated coverage of issues, but of special projects and five-part series on selected topics -- a distraction designed not to convince readers that a newspaper aggressively brings the world to them each day, but to convince a prize committee that someone, somewhere, deserves a plaque." Is he crying about this change on newspaper usage? Or, is this a plea that newspapers should listen to and work its way into the digital world?
I am at a loss here, what are we suppose to think? I'm probably missing a lot of points here, but I believe that newspapers need to adapt to the changing world and find a way to capitalise on it. With an increasing number of business models embracing the freedom of the internet, it shouldn't be a problem. Then again, maybe I'm being naive.
0 comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
