The Future of the News Ecosystem

I've known Steven Johnson's work since reading Mind Wide Open. I missed his talk at SxSW, but thanks to the connection with the topic and idea, I am now reading it on his blog. [hat tip Bruno Giussani]

In our conversation last week we talked about we media and the question of what would happen to the democratic process if journalists didn't have work anymore. In the past, we also discussed whether we would pay for news in a form different than newspapers.

We could have some form of freemium, as suggested first by Chris Anderson - perhaps free general information, then a cost for a deeper dive. This was also the finding of an AP-sponsored report on the news consumption of young-adult readers. These are the two issues at play:

1. what happens if newspapers disappear as businesses?
2. is the crucial information we need going to disappear with them?

In fact, the main question Johnson asked in his talk (and post) is what is the future of news itself? He then goes back to the future by examining the evolution of tech news - the first to be online, given that the systems and code were written by people interested in technology.

The other example Johnson shares is that of political news. If you're looking for an essay that explains why the decline of newspapers does not spell the end of democracy, Yonchai Benkler of The New Republic offers some thoughts. According to Benkler, the primary elements of the networked public sphere will be:

1. Surviving elements of the old system, changed.
2. Small-scale commercial media.
3. New, volunteer-driven party presses.
4. Newly effective nonprofits.
5. Individuals in networks.

I will do a deep dive on each one of these areas as part of my series on new media, which could easily become the news in media. We already see that there is more content than in the past. There is also more granularity. And today there are tools that will allow you to aggregate that content so it is meaningful to you - location-based, or with tags, for example.

I'm online many hours a week, and yet I cannot say I find all the news I need just through my own resources and navigation. As Johnson observes and as we discussed here, we do need guides. As of January, print circulation had declined from 62 million to 49 million while online audience has grown from zero to 75 million over that period.

Which means that the implied motto of every paper in the country should be: all the news that’s fit to link. A word on linking - why is it newspapers and news media sources have such a hard time linking to worthwhile content that is not their own in the body of the articles? Have you noticed that, too?

I agree with him on the one variable that is creating confusion and impeding progress towards a new model online - time. All of these changes in the news business are happening fast. Whenever something happens that fast, the reaction is to cling onto what worked in the past, thus missing the opportunity to work on what could be.

There are plenty of questions open about the future of the news ecosystem. Who's going to pay journalists? One idea I floated here is writing for PaidContent, which may give them employment and us more reliable online publications, but doesn't answer the main question on investigative reporting and international journalism.

The perception of bloggers is still that of folks writing from home in their pajamas. Perhaps we're writing from home, mostly because many of us do our writing as a second shift over a day job, but that doesn't mean we're not professionals with skills and training and knowledge we can bring to bear.

This is a charged conversation - that of free vs paid for news content. You can tell from some of the comments on Johnson's post. But what I observed before, what I've seen at the online properties of newspapers and new organizations, has been quite instructive. If we bemoan the loss of intelligent and conscientious news reporting about the people, it's certainly not apparent in reading those comments.

In fact, they resemble more offensive and non nonsensical ramblings than comments offered by interested citizens. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that we have not had civic involvement even in the news consumption for quite a while. Is there a way to disagree respectfully? Or to offer something in its stead?

I propose that the future of the news ecosystem is filled with possibilities not just for tech or politics - for many, even for all, topics. Wikipedia anyone? And it's up to readers like you to elevate the many conversations we're having to the rank of worthwhile in the ecosystem by resisting the urge to make it an echo chamber.

Seek out and promote those (sources and topics) who are writing and researching and putting attention on news items that while they may not be sexy or fashionable, contribute to the fabric of an intelligent and informed society. In the end, what the ecosystem means is that we get what we pay attention to and when we demand transparency we should hold ourselves to that very same standard.

[image by Steven Johnson]

Comments

[Barbara Ling, Virtual Coach]

I like your part about "Is there a way to disagree respectfully? Or to offer something in its stead?" - so many times I see people bash others wrt news ideas simply because they HAVE to be right or else.

I'd love to see that eradicated too.

[Mary H Ruth]

Great post. Inspiring. The transformation is grave, certainly. But when you think about it, newspapers only cost a quarter or two. Token fees like that could be requested, along with banner ads, and no hard copy production or delivery costs --- Why isn't this a viable proposition, a potentially profitable transition from newspapers to online formats? Why does the change have to mean disaster for the editorial tradition and journalism? The web is always hungry for ever more of that sort of stuff.

[Rachel Burkot]

What is the future of news, you ask? Simple - whatever gets us answers quickly. I think ten years down the line, the news media that survive will be those we run to to confirm a story right away. I think it will be largely internet-based - Twitter, Facebook, real-time services that give us answers right away. I think there will be new social media sites along these lines that we can't even imagine yet. But they will be fast.

[Tiffany Monhollon]

Very interesting analysis. I think it's fascinating (and somewhat terrifying) the concept that the quality of the news in an ecosystem like this depends more heavily on user engagement, critique, analysis.

Then again, maybe we haven't been demanding this from journalism for a while now, so will it really hurt democracy for the percieved "objectivity" of the news to be served up for what it perhaps really is already?

Interesting questions.

I think, as you mention, that filters will become key, and we will place more and more trust on organizations and entities that can help us filter content and ask the important questions about what we choose to consume in our "media diet" as one of my professors is known to call it.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Barbara - indeed, it's much easier to see faults and issues than it is to be constructive. In the end, we get the media we pay for and deserve. It's a bit extreme, but I know that the only way to make it a better for yourself is by acting on making it better.

@Mary - there was a considerable capital investment in the infrastructure created to support "print". And I constantly see reports that news print is profitable, still... ironically, we hear about when things go wrong.

@Rachel - I do wonder about the need for immediacy at (sometimes) the expense of context and depth. I agree that some news needs speed. But does it all?

@Tiffany - where I grew up, we had high civic engagement. Maybe it's because I didn't grow up here and do not know the ways in which people are engaged in their township, community, etc. for example, but I do not see it at the same level. Time and attention scarcity lead us down a proxy path - we place trust in sources, filters as you call them. I find tremendous value in trained/experienced journalists and reporters and hope we do find ways to have a model that supports their involvement.