Interesting answers to that question in the latest PEW study (PDF). For those of us with broadband, 49% got yesterday’s news from the radio…while 43% got it from the Internet. Will there come a time when more people get the news from the Internet than radio? If so, what does that mean for News/Talk radio? What does that mean for regional news networks like ours? [via Radio Marketing Nexus]
Scott Rosenberg recounts how he got the news that the next version of Windows will be delayed, and what that might mean for people in the news business:
As tech news goes today, so ultimately will go the rest of the news. It’s not the death of newspapers or pro journalism, but it’s further evidence that the pros face an extremely tough challenge: they’re rarely going to be first, so they’d damn well better be good. But it’s hard to hire enough good people to be good at everything; a newsroom has only so many seats, and the Web’s supply of amateur experts, anonymous insiders and random kibitzers with an occasional insight is limitless. The pros had better prepare to be outgunned.
This competition will force journalists to stop being lazy and to find and reconnect with what is unique about their work, now that so much of what they used to do is being done for free, and often well, by amateurs.
If I had the time (and the nerve), it might be interesting to look at every story one of our networks did for the past 30 days. Put a check-mark beside every story that was “original”…that we didn’t get from an affiliate, a news releases, or from some other source.
The next question might be: Did we do this story any differently or better than the other news organizations that covered it? Like the man said, we’re rarely going to be first, so we damn well better be good. [via Scripting News]
That’s one of the findings in a new Harris Poll of about 3,000 U.S. adults.
While broadcast television news appears to be the most popular medium sought, many adults also get their news several times a week or daily by going online to get news (64%), reading a local daily newspaper (63%), listening to radio news broadcasts (54%), listening to talk radio stations (37%), listening to satellite news programming (19%), and reading a national newspaper (18%).
Update: Table on Media Usage from Radio Business Report. The most disturbing stat? Radio news tied with online in the 59+ group. Shudder.
A bunch of ag reporters (including one of ours) are at a media event in Johnston, Iowa (near Des Moines), hosted by Pioneer (big ag company). Not sure how many of the reporters were blogging the event but a couple for sure. As I watched the blogs I started wondering, what is the “best” medium for covering an event like this.
While highly unlikely that a broadcast station (radio or TV) or network would cover a day-long event live…would that, in fact, be better coverage? Probably the closest thing to being there yourself but unless they put the video/audio online for later, on-demand acess (and did so almost immediately)…you’d have to catch it live or miss it completely. And live broadast coverage (TV or radio) would offer little opportunity for some context and perspective by the reporter covering the event.
Is it even remotely possible that a really well-done blog (with still images, video, audio, RSS feed, etc etc etc) could have advantages over traditonal live coverage of the event? My heart wants to say “no way,” but my head is saying, “maybe.”
I’ve been doing radio for almost 35 years and blogging for just four and this just blows my mind. And I could be missing something here. For example, the print reporter might argue that his/her 1,000 word story in tomorrow’s (or the day after) newspaper/magazine offers greater depth and insight and detail than a few short blog posts. Good point.
A TV guy might point out that his/her well-edited, high quality video package on the evening news is far superior to a few minutes of poorly-lighted video from a camcorder. True enough.
I’m not sure what the technical or content advantages radio has in this scenerio. I’ll get back to you.
This sounds heretical –more blog hype– until you actually watch a first-rate blogger cover an event and compare that to the more traditional media. And in the end, it will be the public that decides where to get the latest/best info.
The News-Press in Florida has dedicated two reporters called mobile journalists, or mojos who are equipped with digital cameras, MP3 recorders and wireless laptops. Their job is to find hyper-local stories that don’t get into the newspaper and to train members of the community to file directly to the Web site. [Blogspotting]
Does that sound like a fun job, or what? I wonder what kind of stories we might get if we accepted audio reports from people throughout the states we serve? (That sound you heard was the people in our newsrooms, screaming.) I can’t beleive someone isn’t already doing this. Think Flickr but “news” audio instead of images. Upload MP3 files to a big database, tagging each one (politics, St. Louis, sports, etc). Sure, you’d get a lot of crap but people would sort that out with some kind of “trust” rating system. The better stuff would float to the top…the crap would sink to the bottom.
As a statewide radio network, we sometimes struggle to get news from areas where we have no affiliate. Would it make sense for us to be recruiting and training “citizen reporters?” We have about 60 radio station affiliates in each of the states we serve. And not all of them have full-time reporters. What if we had digital stringers in 600 cities and towns throughout the state? What if we weren’t limited to 4 minute newscasts and 10 second sound bites?
Local radio stations could building this kind of news gathering effort. I remember when newspapers featured “community highlight” columns written by people in the small towns they served. It’s probably still being done.
Okay. I’m tired of thinking about this.
According to a piece by C. W. Nevius on SFGate.com, Dave Barry has left the newspaper business. A little more than a year ago, Barry announced that he was taking a sabbatical from his column, and has now decided to make the break permanent. The reason, he stresses, was not that he had a lack of faith in the industry, but that he was ready to move on. Still, he has grave doubts about the future of newspapers.
And the story talks about Barry’s blog and his interest in podcasting. Is this a very funny rat, leaving a sinking ship? I never read Barry’s column in a newspaper but hit his blog frequently. Somehow this seems…significant. [Thanks, David]
Bonneville International says it is launching a major initiative to recruit new talent to create radio news content that appeals to young listeners. Bonneville says it is out to recruit on-air talent, reporters, producers, production personnel, and website developers for its new initiative.
“The company’s new venture will seek to deliver a product that entertains, provides needed depth that currently might be found only on some public-radio stations, and provides news through the perspective of Generations X and Y,” Bonneville said in a statement.
My old friend Morris (one of the Lost News Boys) sent this along and it appears to have come from the Radio Business Report.
Does “needed depth currently found on some public-radio stations” appeal to those in Gen X and Y? I mean, do you cover different stories? Do you cover the same stories but with some hipper, younger presentation? Is it even possible to lure young web-heads back to the radio for their news?
And what if your best news trick is covering the state legislature and government news? Do we/can we fit into such a format?
Cub Reporter Bob Hague sends along this link to an interview with James Baughman, head of Journalism/Communications at UW Madison. Bob says what started as a discussion of celebrity journalism spread to political blogs. Baughman thinks they’re going to be great for political geeks, but is pretty pessimistic about new media’s impact on the electorate. [Thanks, Bobby.]
“Nobody should “go into online news.” Or “TV news” or “newspaper news” or “radio news.” Just go into news. The great thing about the web is that it’s bringing all these sources together. The artificial-wall snobbery can go hang. We’re “journalists” and your platform of choice is meaningless; you’ll need to know ’em all. Specialize, absolutely. But make yourself indispensable.” – Lost Remote’s Steve Safran [via Buzz Machine]
Yahoo Chief Operating Officer Dan Rosensweig on traditional media: “We don’t know who your editors are. All our lives we read stuff written by people we don’t know that’s edited by people we don’t know, who might have an agenda.” [News.com article by Charles Cooper]
Why do we readers need to know anything about the people that write and edit the news? Can’t we just take it as a matter of faith (there’s that religion theme again) that they are professional journalists and we can trust what they say and write?
I am not a journalist, and whatever it is I am doing here, it is not journalism. But if you’ve been reading smays.com for a while, you know that. In fact, you know a hell of a lot about me. If I’ve held anything back, it’s been unconscious. Does that make anything I write any more believable? I can’t answer for you but from my perspective the answer is clearly yes. I’ve been reading Dave Winer’s Scripting News for four or five years and the guy has some strong opinions. Anyone who reads that blog knows exactly what they are. It makes it easier for me to evaluate what he writes and reports.
But some would insist I trust and believe what Jason Blair was reporting in the New York Times just because it was the NYT. Oops.