Comments on: Of media typhoons and media tycoons http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/09/20/of-media-typhoons-and-media-tycoons/ Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: chyron http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/09/20/of-media-typhoons-and-media-tycoons/#comment-14832 Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:39:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1975#comment-14832 Greatest victim of new technology is not media – maybe established corps will go the dinosaur road, but there will always be demand for reliable, _verified_ information – but attention span of general populace.
We are literally buried under mountains of news and opinions thus greatest strength of old-fashioned media is underappreciated – i mean follow-ups of news.
Basically stories which affect us for years to came are pushed off the newsfeeds by newest events and gigs – and not as important ones. Reuters is also guilty of that – look at frontpage and try to locate recent multi-part article about illegal kid exchange ring, this story which is textbook example of good investigative journalism is “old news” so you basically must resort to “search” option to find it.
Another result of this informational avalanche is fragmentation of information field – if something is not current breaking news and outside of one’s specific area of interest, then usually it’s totally outside of one’ self-imposed information ghetto. This problem existed for generations (“i only read sports and necrologs(tm)”) but now while any kind of unclassified data is literally two clicks away – most people are just uninterested, and nobody have enough time to be really informed.

]]>
By: tmc http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/09/20/of-media-typhoons-and-media-tycoons/#comment-14820 Sun, 22 Sep 2013 15:36:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1975#comment-14820 Did it really take you this long Jack, to see that Rossetto was right? Or did you fear the reprisals of such an article? No matter, at least you finally voiced what has been apparent for years.

In a way !@bluepanther is right. With the vast mix of available information on the internet, much of it just regeritated from other sources, who took it form others, who probably took it from an old main stream media outlet, we internet news junkies long for them to embrace the new world order. I troll Reuters for exactly that reason. Real reporting by real investigative reporters and professional journalist. And luckily most of the Joe and Jose six-packs don’t know it exists, so these comment sections can be very interesting. Sometimes rivaling the articles themselves. I hope that more of the older news outlets realize that they just need to drop the old business model, not the business. There is still demand for real, quality news. Just like before. But the model changed. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Keep your real journalist. Get technology people to help them deliver their product. Get new business and marketing folks to help compete in the new world. Your market has grown from how far you can ship the papers to how many languages can you quickly translate to. Get rid of the old manufacturing plant. I won’t pay for it anymore. Don’t try to make me pay for that old beast by making me pay to read your site. There are to many out there and I need to compare yours with others. I can’t afford to pay for all of the sites, so I’ll just skip those that demand it. You need to learn how to make your money on advertising. Remember how you used to do that? Don’t let scroogle steal all your advertising and metadata. Sell it to them instead.

]]>
By: bluepanther http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/09/20/of-media-typhoons-and-media-tycoons/#comment-14817 Sun, 22 Sep 2013 02:42:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1975#comment-14817 Yes, yes, yes, the digital tsunami has provided some amusing sideshows in journalism. It can be endlessly entertaining to slum among the blogs and websites created by 20-somethings who can provide droll, arch, or ironic commentary of the day’s events. And of course the web has provided easy access to global voices and specialized sources. But where do you go when you need REAL information and solid analysis? To the few “old media” players who have withstood the howling gales of technology, globalization, and fickle fashion and still remain reliable and credible. For example, Reuters or the BBC. Or the FT or Wall Street Journal. Of course they are kept on their tops by new competitors like Bloomberg, etc. and the icons of old media are perpetually threatened by the blast of global competition. For me, for example, the once “essential” New York TImes has become less compelling because I can easily access and compare its news coverage and editorial analysis with that from a rich variety of other American, European or Asian media. “Gatekeepers” of opinion are now dead but you still need organizations that can afford to send a GOOD correspondent somewhere. And to enjoy that, consumers of quality news do have to pay.

]]>
By: ptiffany http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/09/20/of-media-typhoons-and-media-tycoons/#comment-14816 Sat, 21 Sep 2013 22:28:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1975#comment-14816 When using the term “digital”, should we assume that really means online or InterNet-based?

Newspapers have been authored and published “digitally” or electronically – i.e with computers – for decades.

These inaccurate terms in this article make it seem like the ramblings of dinosaurs who still lament the passing of newsprint. Get over it.

Let’s discuss globalization and how to stop that as well.

]]>