When you think about the news business before Internet access became ubiquitous, people relied on journalists to gain vicarious access to world leaders and experts. Reporters did interviews, distilled the information and reported the results. That distillation process has always been a weak link, but in general the news organizations with the best reporters (e.g., the NYT) had the most credibility which had a direct impact on readership.

Now in a world of Tweets, blogs, Youtube videos, chat rooms and various other online resources people have somewhat more direct access to leaders and experts. I say “somewhat” because while many statements from leaders/experts are now available directly on line, much of the information is filtered. You get spin, not reporting. But you get spin from a much broader collection of sources — many of whom did not have a voice when we had to rely on a journalist to distill information for us. There has long been an adage in the news business that the real bias in reporting is not in the information that is presented, it is in what is left out. Now it is harder to leave stuff out.

Here’s where the issue of aggregation comes into play. Have many consumers of information become adept at distilling raw information to form their own opinions? You no longer have to rely on a reporter, a newspaper or a network to put things in perspective. In fact, we’ve learned that reporters, newspapers and networks probably never were that objective in presenting the facts anyway.

That really begs the question of whether people will ever be willing to pay for information — assuming the information is top-notch, reliable and timely? Or will people be happy to gather information from a multitude of free sources, some of known questionable authority, and form an opinion on their own?

I think there is a legitimate chicken/egg debate over whether readership/viewing habits declined because information providers entered into unholy alliances with advertisers; or whether information providers consorted with advertisers to cover the shortfall in revenue brought about by people turning to alternate sources of information. I tend to believe a broad-base change in approach to information gathering brought about by 24×7 access to the Internet is the root cause of the problems newspapers, magazines and networks are seeing today. Obviously there are other contributing factors (e.g., the economy, the impact of technology, etc.) . But I think the real issue is people just don’t value trusted sources of information as much as they once did.

The implementation of multi-media on newspaper sites came from what was perceived as interest by the readership and was going to save newspapers? Clicks are decreasing on many sites across the country. Is it less interest, or poor quality?
What does well is “hard news” raw video and if can get a calf and monkey in focus…your golden.

Still no strong ideas for revenue on the web?

Now the thought is less free web forcing readers back to a print publication where advertisers know what they are paying for or premium web subscriptions.

Why are we on the verge of seeing major magazines closing who now provide both a quality web and print product?

If you have ever been involved in readership focus groups, readers don’t know what the hell they like. They only know what they don’t like.

This of course points to the scary and exciting possibilities for non-profit organizations that might fill the vacuum left by traditional newspapers.

Now I am wondering how will the television news follow this trend?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/strategic-vision-polls-exhibit-unusual.html

This is the kind of stuff we need more of since the newspapers won’t be doing it much longer.