<< DAY OF THE CAT ~ MAIN ~ SLEEVELESSNESS CONDEMNED >>
RUPERT ON BLOGS
Fascinating speech from Rupert Murdoch to a bunch of US newspaper editors. Highlights:
What is happening right before us is, in short, a revolution in the way young people are accessing news. They don’t want to rely on the morning paper for their up-to-date information. They don’t want to rely on a God-like figure from above to tell them what’s important. And to carry the religion analogy a bit further, they certainly don’t want news presented as gospel.
Instead, they want their news on demand, when it works for them. They want control over their media, instead of being controlled by it. They want to question, to probe, to offer a different angle. Think about how blogs and message boards revealed that Kryptonite bicycle locks were vulnerable to a Bic pen. Or the Swiftboat incident. Or the swift departure of Dan Rather from CBS. One commentator, Jeff Jarvis , puts it this way: give the people control of media, they will use it. Don’t give people control of media, and you will lose them.
We have to refashion our web presence. It can’t just be what it too often is today: a bland repurposing of our print content. Instead, it will need to offer compelling and relevant content. Deep, deep local news. Relevant national and international news. Commentary and Debate. Gossip and humor.
The digital native doesn’t send a letter to the editor anymore. She goes online, and starts a blog. We need to be the destination for those bloggers. We need to encourage readers to think of the web as the place to go to engage our reporters and editors in more extended discussions about the way a particular story was reported or researched or presented.
At the same time, we may want to experiment with the concept of using bloggers to supplement our daily coverage of news on the net. There are of course inherent risks in this strategy – chief among them maintaining our standards for accuracy and reliability. Plainly, we can’t vouch for the quality of people who aren’t regularly employed by us – and bloggers could only add to the work done by our reporters, not replace them. But they may still serve a valuable purpose; broadening our coverage of the news; giving us new and fresh perspectives to issues; deepening our relationship to the communities we serve. So long as our readers understand the distinction between bloggers and our journalists, and so long as proper safeguards are utilized, this might be an idea worth exploring.
Murdoch has spoken! Smarter editors will pursue this blogging notion.
Boy, won’t heads be popping over at DU about this! Without looking, the tone will probably be: Senior RWDB Rupert Murdoch proclaims control over INTERNET and MSM complete! Blogging sheep gloat over how the Crushing Of Dissent Marches on!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 14 at 03:07 AM • permalinkI bought News shares in 1991 because Rupert Murdoch recognised the potential value of the Inbternet at that early date—while lefties and academics had not yet heard of it. I haven’t regretted my decision.
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 04 14 at 05:39 AM • permalinkRupert is Right!
Here in my little corner of the world it is not uncommon for our local newspaper to allow only one letter to the editor per month-person. Which on the whole isn’t all that bad, it would be the same three or four eight-balls every day.
None the less with my blog: Blogger Beer I can comment away with little limits. Of course I don’t have the same readership as the newspaper, not yet at least.
Cheers.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on 2005 04 14 at 07:40 AM • permalinkRupert is right, of course, however I had a chuckle at this bit :
“There are of course inherent risks in this strategy – chief among them maintaining our standards for accuracy and reliability.”
The risks being what? Standards of accuracy and reliability might rise? A few sharp bloggers nipping at the heels of News editors would see to that.
Posted by James Waterton on 2005 04 14 at 11:11 AM • permalinkBlogs fill a need. If the need was fulfilled by newspapers and other MSM, then blogs would go to the wayside.
For example, I’ve been reading the NYT’s editorial page for about one year now. I’ve noticed during that time that with regards to Letters to the Editor the ratio of liberal to conservative writers is anywhere from 3 to 1 to 8 to 1. Letters printed about the Columbia University imbroglio is a case in point. The Lawrence Summers controversy is another.
One is about all the conservative opinions Gail Collins will allow. This is simply over-the-top bias, plain and simple. (And don’t get me started about the SMH’s letters to the editor page).
Posted by wronwright on 2005 04 14 at 11:17 AM • permalinkInteresting interview on the Media Report (ABC Radio National) this week with David Penberthy, new editor of the Daily Telegraph.
He lamented the tendency of some schools of journalism to engage more in a conversation amongst themselves than to direct their discourse to their readership.
I believe this becomes even worse when the whole paper appears to be directed to a narrow section of the community, as reflected in the choice of “letters to the editor” - see comment #10 above. Editors might say that these reflect their readership and that they publish in proportion to the letters received. It is, however, salutary for them to reflect that they may have lost so many readers that they no longer have a conversation going with a cross section of the community. I would certainly no longer bother to read the letters in the SMH. I do look regularly to see who is being featured on the op. ed. page.
I think that the last election here, and the US election, proved how out of touch the major media people are with the electorates - i.e “people”.
Blogs will continue to emulate turbocharged D10 Dozers as long as this remains the case.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Good news, right wing death beasts! Since Murdoch is the fount of all evil (well, unless you’re pointing at Karl Rove, or Cheney, or the Jews… damn, we got a Bellagio water show of founts of all evil...), all the good lefty press are honor*snerk*bound to do the exact opposite of what he suggests. Soon our diabolical influence will go unchallenged.
EXcellent....