Mark Cuban posts on silly questions from reporters in the wake of the Pistons-Pacers brawl. What I find particularly interesting, though, are the reader comments, where I see a clear sampling of unscientific market research in support of our Journalism 2.0 concepts. (If a blog is a focus group, do you call it a "blocus group"?)
The problem is one that should scare anyone in any industry -- misaligned expectations of customers (readers), manufacturers (reporters), management and owners.
- Customers expect the media to entertain them, and to deliver a fair and unbiased account.
- A commenter says: I've heard countless complaints about ESPN's "analysts" (former
players) doing a terrible job of providing objectivity. How many of
those complaining will actually respond by NOT watching ESPN anymore?
While
there's no question we have every right to demand more from our media,
bitching about their shortcomings, while continuing to faithfully tune
in to watch/read/listen to their coverage, is reinforcing the very
media behaviours we loathe.
- Manufacturers expect to be given the resources they need to thoroughly report and tell stories.
- Management expects to be able to deliver maximum readership with minimal resources, and while making sure they don't offend any potential customers (readers or advertisers).
- Owners, who are a disparate group of public stockholders, expect an quarterly ROI, manifested solely in the value of a share.
Note points of concern not common to any two parties in that list: The whole truth and a time horizon longer than 90 days.
Meantime, there is a misconception that the media holds some sort of public trust -- This causes the customers to simultaneously put too much stock into the information they're given by the media and to feel too distant and disconnected (as with a government entity) to do anything about it. (The only exception to this would be NPR and PBS, who, as publicly funded entities, do have a public trust. And don't give me that hooey about TV broadcasters and their license to the airwaves. That concept became outdated with cable TV.)
The problems of that misconception are compunded by the media companies, who cling to that "trust" as some sort of entitlement, or worse, moral authority. That's why Jayson Blair and Rathergate happens. That's why the voice of good reporters is sacrificed to the inverted pyramid quote-counterquote style of reportage.
A commenter says: There is a great deal about the media that needs to be changed as they
have taken on the self-endulging view that they are our second
governemnt and will tell us what is and is not important and will tell
us what we need to know and how much we need to know... makes you
wonder just who the good guys are anymore
Folks, the fact is that media is a business, just like Wal-Mart, or your corner dry cleaners, or the Dallas Mavericks. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be doing a much better job, but the reason isn't any kind of Excalibur-annointed trust -- it's because that's what the market wants and needs.
The true disconnect exists because the mainstream media has not woken up to the changes in technology that have brought about a disintermediation -- No longer does your local newspaper, or even the major networks, hold a monopoly in terms of bringing you news. There was a time when they did, and there was a good buck to be made in trying to be all things to all people.
Today, that's no longer the case. And the MSM hasn't figured that out. That's why we think that the Journalism 2.0 world means specializing only in areas where you're providing truly unique content, instead of contributing to the "me too" chorus. It means putting opinion into the news, opinion that's been earned by extensive reportage.
(There's a great quote in The Paper, where managing editor Michael Keaton tells Randy Quaid: You're not a columnist-- you're a reporter who writes long.)
A commenter says: The media in this country has become a bloated mass of quick fix
journalism and repetitive overanalysis. It is not going to get better
as technology advances, and that is a shame.
Another says: It would be nice to live in a world where journalists report useful things, but that'd be a world where money didn't exist.
I say: Not if we have anything to say about it.
Since so much of our ad model depends on responsible user tracking, 
Recent Comments
ABC screwed the pooch
Advertising hero