Monday, 24 November 2008


One of the things we have learnt over the last few months is the power of the " new media" the blogs, websites, U Tube Myspace etc.

We were always avid almost obsessive readers of news and listeners to the broadcast media. Now we only get the weekend editions and only listen to RNZ morning report- its definitely lefty but it does set agendas. These days we read the online editions of most major papers, cherry picking stories that interest us. We now read overseas papers on line like The Australian. Today it has a very interesting piece that follows on from the previous post. It covers a report that looks at what is being billed as the "perfect storm" for traditional media. We reckon it is smack on.

This from the Australian

JOURNALISTS have been warned they cannot be spectators if they are to survive the new world of media fragmentation and digitalisation -- an environment dubbed a "perfect storm".

"A report, Life in the Clickstream: The Future of Journalism, released today by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, warns that the Western media industry faces "two years of carnage", squeezed by the global economic meltdown and the unravelling of traditional economic models.

The report reveals that more than 12,000 journalists worldwide have lost their jobs so far this year.

Thats a lot of journos and we have seen some serious downsizing here in NZ as well.

Media Alliance federal secretary Christopher Warren says journalism has traditionally thrived on the emergence of disruptive technologies even as economic models have changed.

"Like all crises, the challenges journalism faces are rewriting everything we thought we knew about the news media and causing us to question the basis on which the industry has survived and flourished," Warren says.

The shifts experienced in the media are "exciting and disquieting", and journalists are using technology to find new and progressive ways to keep the public informed, he says. It's "disquieting because the mainstream industry is in such turmoil".

And the way that journalists are doing their jobs has changed significantly. We here this from our mainstream journo friends all the time. They have to write stories fit for publishing throughout the day whereas once they were chasing one deadline.

The report reveals the introduction of new technology and shrinking workforces has resulted in more than 70 per cent of journalists reporting increased workloads, with 43 per cent saying they have "increased a lot".

More than 55 per cent received no compensation for increased work and 57 per cent say they received no training for their changing roles and were expected to pick it up as they go along.

We think that the following in right on the money

The report also looks at what might evolve if mainstream news organisations collapse, citing research from the City University of New York that postulates an organic news organisation could evolve.

Based on bloggers, video shooters and photographers, it would be augmented by community managers, program developers artists and run by just a handful of editors, all on an annual budget of $2.1 million.

The report concludes that all stakeholders need to be active in shaping the future, providing adequate training and ending work intensification.

SuperBlog anyone?


Barnsley Bill said...

Interesting. A number of us have been hypothesissing on just such a setup for a while..

Barnsley Bill said...

hypothesising as well.. Doh.
It will need professional sub editors.

Anonymous said...

The MSM no longer exists to provide news, rather it exists to provide a platform for advertising. When radio dj's jokngly comment that they must stop the music for a couple of minutes "to pay the bills", they aren't joking.
So what will happen to all that advertising spend. It is already moving into the blogosphere in varying degrees.

Anonymous said...

Do we have the situation where a smart PR operative can release a statement knowing a besieged journalist has to quickly get a story on line without delving into the real facts? The news is now a rolling story where the balanced story may emerge several hours later, but the average reader has seen the first story and is too busy to read the follow up? The first influence is always the most important and the lasting impression for most.

Is it now necessary for the cynic to be the reader and not the reporter?

This still does not explain some political reporting on the evening news where the "reporter" has had several hours to investigate the facts behind a press release.... I understand why both the left and right accuse the media of bias.