"I had leg cramps"...you'd better believe that such is also news!
I hope this doesn't get me kicked out of school, but I agree..."Facts, hot or cold, cannot be protected by copyright since there is no author of them."
News was never meant to be sold. Those who thought they sold it in the past, only sold early access to it and didn't seem to realize it. Now that the internet freely gives that access, it's time to innovate...or die!
The internet isn't necessarily killing journalism...it's redefining it. Now I don't have to hear from only people who went to school to learn how to spin the facts.
I can hear from anyone...people who are at the scene when it happens, or people who are feeling the pinch the most, or people who are not necessarily motivated by financial or political gain, or people who actually understand the technical jargon associated with the specific subject they're reporting about.
Yes, the internet makes it easier for the facts to be distorted...but it also makes it easier and faster for those distortions to be discovered and corrected.
No, we don't need the traditional media companies to give us news anymore...not now that we have the likes of Facebook and Twitter...we however need them to put some spin on the news, prioritize them, and compartmentalize them for neater consumption.
The media companies should focus not on how to sell more news but on how to create a respectable name/brand associated with integrity, accuracy, and final authority. The public may come to hear what big media has to say about the matter (after the fact) especially if their brand holds that position of authority (or even notoriety), yet you can be certain they won't pay for it, at least not in the traditional sense that we're used to.
There was an earthquake in DC...of course there was an earthquake in DC...my friend who actually heard the rumble tweeted about it...immediately it happened...and hundreds of people retweeted it...immediately! I didn't need to hear it on CNN. I'd probably be interested in what Anderson or Rick or even Jeanne Moos has to say about it...wait...scratch that...most of that is already available on Twitter.
Big media shouldn't waste time trying to sell journalism; instead they should nurture and 'sell' their journalists. If your journalists have thousands of followers on Twitter, you should be trying to figure out how to leverage that following.
I had leg cramps yesterday and some stranger thousands of miles away now knows it!
News was never meant to be sold. Those who thought they sold it in the past, only sold early access to it and didn't seem to realize it. Now that the internet freely gives that access, it's time to innovate...or die!
The internet isn't necessarily killing journalism...it's redefining it. Now I don't have to hear from only people who went to school to learn how to spin the facts.
I can hear from anyone...people who are at the scene when it happens, or people who are feeling the pinch the most, or people who are not necessarily motivated by financial or political gain, or people who actually understand the technical jargon associated with the specific subject they're reporting about.
Yes, the internet makes it easier for the facts to be distorted...but it also makes it easier and faster for those distortions to be discovered and corrected.
No, we don't need the traditional media companies to give us news anymore...not now that we have the likes of Facebook and Twitter...we however need them to put some spin on the news, prioritize them, and compartmentalize them for neater consumption.
The media companies should focus not on how to sell more news but on how to create a respectable name/brand associated with integrity, accuracy, and final authority. The public may come to hear what big media has to say about the matter (after the fact) especially if their brand holds that position of authority (or even notoriety), yet you can be certain they won't pay for it, at least not in the traditional sense that we're used to.
There was an earthquake in DC...of course there was an earthquake in DC...my friend who actually heard the rumble tweeted about it...immediately it happened...and hundreds of people retweeted it...immediately! I didn't need to hear it on CNN. I'd probably be interested in what Anderson or Rick or even Jeanne Moos has to say about it...wait...scratch that...most of that is already available on Twitter.
Big media shouldn't waste time trying to sell journalism; instead they should nurture and 'sell' their journalists. If your journalists have thousands of followers on Twitter, you should be trying to figure out how to leverage that following.
I had leg cramps yesterday and some stranger thousands of miles away now knows it!
that true but the thing is that no matter how you want to report news, personal bias always kicks in. everyone has their point of view and their own ethical belief. the machievellians believe that-- get what you want no matter who it hurts (manipulation) someothers think of others before anything else. also peoples interpretation of what they heard is always diffrent. the best way to get the clear news is to be an eye withness yourself.
ReplyDelete