CHECK THIS OUT!
Newsweek just published an article predicting the death of user-generated content. It points out that the reading public is getting leery of the amateur content on the net and is looking for third-party validation.
In the tech world, we've gotten used to being able to throw up contributed articles at little or no cost on what remains of our media. The DesignLine sites at TechInsights were created for exactly that as were IB Systems, SoC Central and Extension Media. Objective journalism is the loss leader in this model. But the ability to differentiate between data and information has always been the hallmark of real journalism. Which was also the subject of an interview on DACzine this week. In that interview by Ed Sperling, the engineers at first were saying they can get whatever information they need from tradeshows and contributed articles, but at the end they had to admit they they no longer have the time or ability to actually filter the information for truth.
The only answers we have folks is to either start advertising again or start paying journalists directly to pick your information apart.
When user-generated is defined as contributed or generated by a corporation, of course readers will keep skeptical filters on high, because they will suspect (correctly, in most cases) they are being sold something.
ReplyDeleteWhen user-generated is defined as offered up by the amateur or little guy, Newsweek may be correct in thinking that many get tired of surprised prairie dogs or urine-drinking monkeys on YouTube, but we also must keep in mind that it is Newsweek saying this! The primary MSM sources are going to be naturally prejudiced against blogs, talkbacks, and partial professionalism.
A partial swing of the pendulum back to vetted content is good to see, and could save the butts of those of us in paid journalism. But long live amateur content. If I had to guess the ratio of music I listen to from unsigned bands or indie labels as compared to radio-friendly content from big labels, it's probably about 8:1, and the "professional" content is only likely to dwindle from there.
Hi Lou:
ReplyDeleteThe roundtable discussion at DVCon was a very educational experience for me. The discussion did seem to wrap around to a validation of certain concepts tied to a traditional journalistic sensibility.
Blogs can certainly be a source of excellent information (vs. data). Of course, that depends entirely on who's doing the blogging. My point was that agendas can creep in in very subtle ways.
Even well-intentional and knowledgeable bloggers can fail to provide a clear distinction between fact and opinion in their writing. Perhaps they're not trying to. They may not even know how. The reader is left to his/her own devices when it comes to discerning that distinction. Caveat emptor indeed, and yeah, the engineers at the roundtable (one a blogger himself) did have to admit that it takes time to sort it all out.
Now, this is not to say that the professional technology journalist is immune from having biases. But we hope that this is where our training, ethics, and experience come into play. We do make mistakes too, no doubt about it. But we're paid not to and the blogger isn't.
Limor Fix's input about *delivery* of information was, for me, the most interesting aspect of our discussion. It should provide fodder for media outlets as they ponder how to retain relevancy.
David, I noticed Limor got a little fuzzy when discussing who would pay for aggregation, verification, and push-delivery of info. Simple filters on an RSS feed, even using AI-like methods, don't replace living breathing editors.
ReplyDelete