Often, faltering traditional media companies blame the Internet for their woes, but does the problem actually lie in misunderstanding the nature of their business?
Most firms believe that they are in the business of distributing content through discrete channels, and that mischaracterization often leads to poor strategy and execution. (Read on for some of the latest examples.)
If you make television shows, films or music, your business is actually the audience business. The same goes for books, magazines and newspapers. Michael J . Wolf, former President of MTV Networks, put it this way when I spoke with him. “Television companies are in the programming business and the brand business. When you look at a network like Syfy, or Cartoon Network, or Nickelodeon, they mean something.”
Let’s hope more media companies will quickly learn what kind of business they’re actually in — before they go out of business.
As someone who was a journalist for over a decade, I can certainly identify with the idealism of trying to change the world by uncovering the truth, only to come face to face with the reality that things are a lot more complicated.
Here’s an excerpt from Samuelson’s essay.
This was a common conceit among journalists of my generation. We would reveal what was hidden, muddled or distorted. The truth would set everyone free. It sustained good government. We were democracy’s watchdogs and clarifiers. One thing I learned is that these satisfying ideas are at best simplifications–and at worst illusions. Truth comes in infinite varieties; every story can have many narratives. There are always new facts, and sometimes today’s indisputable fact qualifies or rebuts yesterday’s.
I started with the naive notion that, by exposing and explaining how the world worked, I would in some small way contribute to better government and a saner society. What I discovered firsthand is what I already knew intuitively: Democracy is a messy, often shortsighted, unreasoned and selfish process. People have interests, beliefs and prejudices that, once firmly entrenched, are not easily dislodged–and certainly not by logic or evidence.
As for me, I believe in fighting for our ideals–no matter what reality might be.
While I don’t agree with the article entirely, it does raise good points on the need to vet stories posted and spread through social networks, and the kind of dedication and courage it takes for journalists to actually cover news events.
I stumbled upon this brilliant presentation by David Gillespie, thanks to Misty Belardo’s tweet, and I just wanted to share it with you and give my own views about it.
Be warned, though, it has 263 slides, but it’s worth going through the whole presentation and digesting all this food for thought.
I think this incident once again shows how social media is making the news a shared experience. This, of course, is also a double-edged sword, because on the one hand, it brings the news to people who might normally not be interested in watching the news or visiting news sites. On the other hand, some may point out that this might, pardon the pun, inflate the importance of certain news items. Not to downplay the importance of the news, because I’m personally hoping the boy is all right, but as some Twitter users have already pointed out, CNN seems to have given too much coverage to it, considering other important things happening in the world, like, you know, wars and natural disasters.
