i dunno, really
matt y. asks, what is the deal with new media, anyways?
and i say, i dunno. i mean, actually i can say what i think it means, or what i'm starting to think it means, or what i'm interested in, anyways, but that's still all just forming in my head and is probably best saved for a later post when i'm not just blathering all over the place.
but anyway, for now, these are the main points i think are important:
new media is RSS.
new media is citizen journalism (and this does, to me, include blogging). also google ohmynews for reference.
new media is new distribution devices for media (ie electronic devices, cells, pdas, ipods, MAYBE electronic paper but i dunno, and stuff that is yet to be invented).
new media is transparency (as cliche a buzzword as that has become, it's still true).
new media is niche marketing.
new media is not being SO EFFING AFRAID of change and innovation. i've only been in journalism school for two weeks, and i'm not going to lie to you: there are a million brilliant people here, but there are just as many people who can't see why print journalism might one day die out. why the newspaper in its current form is a pain in the ass, physically speaking, to read. why subscriptions are falling. why staff reporters are being cut. why doing the NYtimes select is a bad, very bad, worst idea, ever. why blogs are FUN and awesome and good and filled with great personalities. why this bullshit standard about newspaper "accuracy" compared to bloggers is such CRAP! hello, um, didn't the new york times make at least two major errors in the past week? the crap with geraldo and saying some memo was written by john roberts when it, uh, wasn't? how many people read the corrections pages newspapers? NO ONE WHO IS NOT 95 AND CANTANKEROUS. so you might never know an error was made unless the error itself makes the news. blogs make errors, it's true, but they're almost always immediately called out and corrected in such a way that the original error and the correction stand so that everyone can see the process.
new media is yahoo and google becoming content creators. seriously, yos. they are going to rival major newspapers within 10 years for content and news that they provide. think i lie? yahoo has already hired kevin sites to report for them on war zones, and hired a number of financial columnists to write for them. don't doubt that google maps is thinking about the day they can integrate their local search with some sort of entertainment database - you'll search an area for "bars", the options will come up, and you'll be able to click on the bar names to read google reviews about them. maybe they will integrate user content. probably. who knows. but yahoo and google are not just going to be leaping off points for the internet ; they will become major content creators, and major destinations.
new media is not:
trying to define what a blog, or blogging, is. IF ONE MORE PANEL IS HELD I WILL THROW 72-POUND MELONS AT EVERYONE'S HEAD. see jeff jarvis for more.
new media is not merely putting the content from print papers online and hoping that the act of putting it online with, like, a photo will make it hip and awesome and readable.
new media is not about overthrowing traditional media entities and having BLOGGERS RULE THE EARTH. seriously. trad media people are TERRIFIED, is what i have learned, about blogging. it is almost funny. hello, it is a complement to what yall are doing, and a way to enhance your product and draw more readers in.
new media is not about shitty blog reporting. good reporting will ALWAYS have a place in media, in my opinion. that's why the nytimes is fucked when it locks its pundits up in a pay-for-play castle - sorry, but anyone can say what they can say, since they are basically just bloviating out of their butts. i can hear that stuff from people for free, people who love and know so much about what they're writing that they do it for the joy of it. what i CANNOT get from bloggers is accounts from across the world or tips from major highup sources in the know. maybe one day, but not now. i need good, intelligent reporters for that.
...
wow. i went on a bit of a rant there. blame it on the drinks i had tonight at the medill happy hour. but anyway, it's what i think, for better or worse. and you?
UPDATE: the worst part about this post is that most of the people reading this site ALREADY KNOW all of this stuff. so i'm just rambling redundantly. and i know you all know it. but the fact is, i have been utterly amazed in the past two weeks about how little other people know about any of the stuff mentioned above. hardly anyone in my class, as far as i can tell, reads blogs or knows what RSS is. no one understands why it might be easier to read a paper in tabloid form or on a pda than in a normal modern newspaper. many, many people are worried about blogs and think they're ruining journalism. basically, i feel like up until medill i've been in this little perfect bubble where everyone gets all this new media stuff - even people who have no interest in studying it or creating it, but just use it as part of their day-to-day existence - and now i'm facing, oh, the other 97% of the world, and i need to explain everything. so humor me.
