Comments on: Mainstream Media Aflame

By: DashThirtyDash

DashThirtyDash — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:49:24 +0000

While there are significant changes in how messages and news are transmitted to audiences – Todd points out that it’s time for clients to take even harder looks at blogosphere opportunities – I disagree that there is less opportunity for coverage.
On the contrary: if clients and their counselors (or even readers) will be smart about their offerings, there is even more opportunity to appear in MSM publications.
News outlets, especially dead tree publications, are diverging into distinct elements: Digital and print. Some messages rely on words, some are more effectively delivered through multimedia.
Some are rich narratives that demand the intimacy of paper; you’re mesmerized on the train and clutch the paper. You’re enraptured by the back story so you take it with you and read it in bed. It’s the same reason gravitate toward fine novels: Rich story telling is captivating.
The same story can be told in pithy, snarky bursts. Maybe, to fall on the cliche, a picture is worth a thousand words. Or in the age of YouTube or the video iPod, maybe a moving image is priceless. Mainstream publications are ramping up their digital capabilities, but many newsrooms still lack the technological sophistication to make things happen. This is a time when careful spoonfeeding can take place.

By: Ike

Ike — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:17:07 +0000

Blair hit it right with the “impact” statement – but it is a paraphrase of something John Stossel wrote about a while back.

Most often, the important things happening around us happen [i]slow[/i]. The trends, the influence. The context that shapes who we are and how we think about what we see.

It is a case of micro-analyzing the bark, ignoring the tree as a whole, and forgetting there was ever a forest to begin with.

By: Geoff Livingston

Geoff Livingston — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:24:54 +0000

I just think the media’s unable to face their actual communities and provide them the information they want. Then they rely on sensationalism, which works, short term, but long-term continues to hurt trust. I mean, who takes the New York Post seriously?

It’s a continued evolution. The ones that fail to adapt to the new environment are suffering. And will continue to suffer.

Then look at USAToday.com. Phenomenal increases in readership. And why, because they allow User Generated commenting on their stories… Good and bad. It’s still re-purposed content, but it’s getting closer.

P.S. It’s highly likely WSJ was a pre-acquisition purge requested by the buyer.