Category: Business

Categories
Distribution Media Consumption

Why is Television like newspapers?

I’ve had an inordinate interest in how the news industry, particularly newspapers, are faring in the Internet age. It’s only relatively recently I realized why I thought that was even relevant to the fields I study – among them what is going to replace (or grow in parallel with) the current model of “Television”. Then it struck me…

Television is to newspapers and magazines what movies are to music.

In the music and movie models we’ve been used to, there is a direct transaction – payment is made to buy music (on disc or download) or to pay to view a movie (in a theater or by buying a DVD). This is a fundamentally different model than Television, where the content is “free” in return for your “attention” to advertising. Advertising supports both Television and newspapers and magazines.

Yes, people pay a small amount for newspapers and magazines, but that is nowhere near the cost of producing the magazine. Newspapers and magazines (I’ll just say “newspapers” from here but I include magazines) are heavily subsidized by advertising or they can’t survive. (Consider how many magazines have been closed in the last year all attributed to the “loss of advertising revenue”). Given that I don’t believe advertisers are coming back, what are the implications of the music experience for movie distribution, and the newspaper experience for television distribution. Without distribution there is no production.

The music industry has found that “infinite goods” – those that can be produced for close-to-zero (a digital copy) – has changed the market. Classic economics tells us that the sale price will trend toward  incremental cost of a sale. For music that’s zero or close to it because there is no scarcity. Scarcity, again classic economics tells us, is what drives up price: no scarcity and the price drops toward the marginal cost of producing the copy. (Yes, classic economics ignores the cost of production.)

The movie industry is finding some of the same dynamics happening, except that the movie industry has an advantage: the primary product is not the movie, but the “going to the movies” experience. Clearly the movie-going experience is more important than the movie otherwise attendance would have dropped dramatically as the quality of picture has dropped. Instead movie attendance is up despite audiences being treated like criminals with bag searches and, in some theaters, full body, airport-style scanners.

The smart people in the music industry have also realized that the business model they grew up with – where Record Companies actually had a role to play – is no longer viable. (When you have to sue your customers to “keep control” of your product, you have acknowledged a total failure of business model and you should be allowed – encouraged even – to go out of business.) So they’ve been deriving new business models that use the non-scarce good (the recorded music) to promote scarce goods – like concerts, experiences and merchandise.

Music, and movies, will continue to have “direct pay” models but they won’t be the same as in the past. (Nor should anyone who has two working neurons think the models can remain the same.)

It is newspapers and television that I’m worried about. The current models for both are unsustainable. Advertising revenue has dropped dramatically partly because of the current economic conditions, but long term because advertisers have better alternatives than renting some irrelevant eyeballs for 30 seconds at a time with a message that’s irrelevant to 99% of the audience who aren’t ready to buy your product right now.

Newspapers once provided a valuable service(s) that have been replaced by better models online. Craigslist has effectively killed the cash cow of classified advertisements because it’s a better model (free, instant). No-one really needs a newspaper to learn the session times for the local movies (available online) nor really, to decide what car they’ll buy next.

People, by and large, don’t need newspapers for news either. Not that most newspapers did that much “reporting” anyway. Surveys of typical local newspapers showed that they often have as few as five or six “real” stories (researched and written by staff reporters) not sourced from elsewhere. Most “news” comes from Associated Press, Reuters, people-in-foreign-countries, press releases, etc.

Worse, most newspapers (and television news) do not really vet their stories, taking away one of the major claims that we “need” professional journalists because, unlike bloggers, they “fact check”. (Really CBS? Who “fact checked” last night’s industry-lacky piece full of major errors on 60 Minutes?) It’s hard to make the case that the majority of professional journalists actually fact check anything. (Quick quiz – in any news story that you’ve been involved with and then seen the reporting, has it ever been completely accurate? Never in my experience, never.)

So, when the impetus for “demand” drops, and the money to produce evaporates because even the advertisers have a better way to do things, newspapers will, of necessity, die. That does not mean that great journalism will die, but it will be funded differently and have very different forms.

Television, including basic cable, is facing the same challenges: advertising revenue is drying up and unlikely to come back to previous levels, meaning the whole model is probably broken. Not this week, not next year, but long term Television as we know it is being destroyed by this lack of advertising revenue; the failure of the “players” to adapt business models, and that audiences for any given show are much smaller because there are so many choices.

What we’ve known as Television will have to evolved into a model that allows for “any program, any time, any device for a fair price” (i.e. a return that is similar to the return from advertising, not an attempt to get a 4x return as the Networks currently do with iTunes et. al).

I suspect that will, like with the Record companies and Movie Studios, leave the Networks out of the picture as middle-men imposed between producer and audience.

I don’t (yet) know what that model is going to be, or indeed if there will be only a single model, but the transformation of a nearly-70 year old business model based on scarcity (broadcast licenses) has to evolve when that scarcity no longer exists. And it no longer exists.

Categories
Business & Marketing Media Consumption

How will branded media replace advertising?

On last night’s Digital Production BuZZ, host Larry Jordan quizzed me on why I thought advertising was doomed and what would replace it.  I’m including the 6 minute interview here because it extends the thinking in my previous post on What will replace advertising? from a couple of days ago.

Philip Hodgetts on how branded media will replace advertising.

Update: Larry Jordan continues the conversation with his post: Where Are All the Ad Dollars Going.

Categories
Business & Marketing Distribution Media Consumption New Media

What will replace advertising?

Over the last two years I’ve been thinking extensively, and speaking on, about funding new media. (Want me to come speak on the subject at your group – email me!) It’s become increasingly obvious that advertising probably isn’t the way the majority of media will be funded in the future.

In the (relatively brief) period of mass media – Television, newspapers, magazine and radio – the publisher or license holder built an audience and then sold that audience to advertisers to push unrelated products and services to the audience who mostly didn’t care. With 70% of Americans desirous of paying to avoid advertising (counting me among them) you have to wonder how long the tedium of irrelevant advertising will be tolerated by audiences.

Even the web is a horrible experience unless you are smart enough to enable ad blocking and Click2Flash (Flash blocking in webkit displays system wide – OS X only afaik). With those two add-ons enabled the web doesn’t burn my eyes with the pain of flashing, jumping, irritating distractions. If my failure to ruin my experience of a site by blocking the ad sends the site off the net, so be it. I didn’t ask for the advertising.

Technically, of course, it’s not all advertising that’s horrible, just irrelevant advertising. Like watching a 45 minute show on Hulu and seeing the same fabric softener ad five times!!!! And Hulu has the temerity to complain that I’m using ad blocking! People don’t really mind relevant advertising, but so little of it is! In fact, for me about 99.9% of advertising is irrelevant. In maybe 200-300 hours of in-car listening to KNX1070 (LA News radio) I’ve heard one ad that was relevant (Windscreen chip repair). That is the only ad that doesn’t carpet KNX wall to wall! (Figures!)

So, I have a fairly hard-and-fast rule that I don’t buy from anyone who advertises to me. Send me junk mail, go out of my purchase consideration list.

Anyhow, I’m not alone. Not only is advertising losing its effectiveness, it turns people off (and yes, I have references for every assertion I make, I just don’t want to clutter the blog) and that’s just not going to be a way to build an audience.

But there’s a much bigger problem. There’s not enough advertising for any “new media” and “old media” is losing advertising support in dramatic amounts.

But most relevant of all. Advertising in someone else’s show makes no sense. The biggest advertising brands would be much better off with branded entertainment, where they would pay for the content and integrate the advertising. American Academic Mark Pesce, now at the Australian Film, TV and Radio School, coined the term “Hyperdistribution” where a single sponsor integrates ads relevant to the show’s audience and in the style of the show, and then it’s distributed anywhere and everywhere it can be. P2P and Bittorrent distribution is welcomed!

My friend Cirina Catania worked on a very successful series of branded media (online video) for Chivas Regal and I believe that this is the direction of the future: useful, interesting content that is, in some way, relevant to the brand and hooked back to the brand. Why torture audiences with irrelevant advertising when you can entertain them and still get the brand message across in a relevant way?

I’m clearly not the only one that thinks this. I recently found a great presentation called (correctly) The Audience is always right. Check it out and then make a comment.

Categories
Business & Marketing

Why do I love our customers?

As I transition into a role I never thought I’d have – software product manager/developer – I’ve come to love “pushy clients”! Although I don’t write the code for our products, I’m usually involved in the design and particularly user interface. Greg writes the code rather brilliantly.

Our first piece of software – driven by a strong idea of mine – is First Cuts - the assisted editing tool for long form documentary filmmakers. Finisher was the suggestion of Loren Miller during the beta period, and the use of Sequence Markers to force b-roll was the suggestion of Digital Production BuZZ producer, Cirina Catania.

The work we did there gave us a leg-up with FCP XML so when Ted Schilowitz of RED Digital Cinema asked if we knew someone who could, basically, create something functionally similar to Avid’s Autosync (part of Media Composer) for Final Cut Pro users, leading to Sync-N-Link a few months later.

Later than intended because we were about ready to release it and ran the concept past Jim Mathers of the Digital Cinema Society and he said that in the independent markets that he works in, editors tend to sync multi-track (dual system) audio after the edit. Dang a delay but Greg made it happen. That’s something you can’t do with Media Composer.

If, however, you compare Sync-N-Link then with the current version – set for a substantial update shortly – there have been so many new features added, and bugs fixed, that we could not have found without our early customers. We did try beta testing but found that few beta testers have time to put into testing, despite their best intentions. (Which reminds me, “sorry Boris for not much feedback the last two times I tested for you”.)

Likewise, the whole Sequence Clip Reporter application came about because I had demonstrated miniME and exceLogger at LAFCPUG. A friend said “what you really should do…” and we did. Then we had some great feedback from (yes) a beta tester and fabulous feedback from an early customer, who was “I love it but could it also….” and now it does.

Sequence Clip Reporter was only released about seven weeks ago, and yet it’s now at version 1.5, with an interface overhaul (more feedback) and a raft of new, customer-driven features.

So, if you use a piece of software and have a feature request, let people know. Everyone who develops software loves to know how people use it and how they can make it better – yes, even Apple, although they’ll never tell you. (Someone reads, categorizes and files every feature request and bug report.) In fact, FCP XML v5 has a bug fix for a problem Greg reported (from a customer) and a new feature that also came about because we couldn’t accommodate a feature request from a customer. (Sound reel was not being exported in the XML until V5.) So we know Apple do respond.

What I particularly enjoy is that we’re not a big company, where it takes time to iterate a new version, QA it and get it out. And thankfully none of our applications are (yet) anywhere near as complex as the simplest Pro App or NLE. It’s just so great to get a feature request from a (potential) customer and have the first (very rough) draft of the app by the next day. (There’s a huge gap between that working prototype and a full application, not all of which is to do with the function of the app.)

Or get a feature request from a customer – or a problem they have – and being able to push out an update for everyone within a day or two days. Or even solve a problem that isn’t caused by out software, but where Greg’s XML expertise is able to “save the day”.

So, provide that feedback. Tell people how you use their software (tell us for sure). It’s likely to gain you a feature, or even a whole application.

Categories
Business & Marketing Distribution Item of Interest

Why do I have two inconsistent positions about copyright?

Just lately I’ve been dealing with a content aggregation site (or two) that had articles from this blog listed in their articles directory. Worse still is that the site is designed to distribute articles to other sites. I don’t mind the idea: if a writer wants wider distribution, then it probably makes sense to syndicate the article there, than have it sit in obscurity.

I had to fight fairly hard to get my articles out of their system because I had not put them in that system and didn’t want the articles syndicated wildly. Now I do have some syndication organized (if you’re reading this on Toolfarm, thanks) but I don’t want this content distributed anywhere I haven’t directly authorized.

The articles were removed but only after I re-served the DMCA takedown notice on the owner of the domain name, as the normal site admins were not acting in according with the provisions of a DMCA Takedown notice. (I actually thought I’d have trouble when I realized, from the domain registration, that the company was actually in Israel, which isn’t actually covered by US Copyright law! Fortunately they did the right thing.)

We were talking about this over dinner and I realized I had a double standard going on. Not necessarily a bad thing but any internal inconsistency is alway s worth examining.

I was remarking that I am fairly certain there’s at least one school or college that’s using my HD Survival Handbook as a class text, which is not exactly being used in accordance with a single-user license that is the normal purchase. (BTW, we’re always happy to do very attractive bulk pricing for anyone that wants to reuse in a school or commercial organization, as we did recently.) But the thing is I wasn’t particularly upset by it. Sure, I would prefer that they made an arrangement with us for official distribution, but the thing is, I didn’t have any proof that they were doing something wrong. There may be a way that just the teach uses the work as a reference.

If I had actual proof put in my face – such as a student saying that the HD Survival Handbook was actually on a student-accessible server at her college – I would have to act. (In that case I sent a nice email to the original purchaser at that college stating what the student had said and he immediately made it right.) When I say “have to act” I actually mean it. Should an author not act on flagrant breach of the licensing conditions, there are circumstances where the author can lose the copyright exclusivity.

So I was struck with my apparent double standard. I am less worried about meticulously keeping the commercial writings only to those who purchased, than I am about these thoughts being widespread.  Partly that was because the instance with the aggregation site did not have link-backs to this site – the uploader had substituted links to their site, and the content was misused – wrong tags and confusing descriptions. My name even appeared on an article I didn’t write! But it’s also because a lot of what I write here are the beginnings of my thinking about something, or they’re going to be (or have come from) commercial writings.

Mostly, I think, it’s because the commercial products were written to be distributed widely. Plus, if there is a whole class or two that are using my work as their textbook, I’m still being compensated with reputation building. I’m not unhappy with the thought that a whole generation of student will grow up thinking that I provide accurate, understandable and useful information. I figure that will lead to some compensation some day. The portion that does pay for the downloads, and I like to think that’s the majority, make the project well and truly worthwhile, and frankly, I don’t think those students would have paid anyway! Whatever money a student has should be kept for the truly important things… 😉

Here though, I’m writing as much to clear my thinking or have a record of something I’m fired-up about as anything. I don’t have advertising on the site and don’t expect it will be a commercial return. I do hope that it’s reputation building, and when you reproduce this work without authorization, you’re taking my reputation and using it for your own purposes. And I don’t like that.

PS

What I consider highly appropriate is to make reference to a post, summarize the main points – perhaps quote a paragraph or two – and then link to the permalink for the article here. (Click on the article headline and the URL will be the permanent link.) That type of use is a compliment.

Categories
The Business of Production Video Technology

Why might large post houses be heading for the elephant graveyard?

My friend James Gardiner wrote an interesting post “Are large Post Houses a sunset industry?” and it set me thinking. Now James is writing from an Australian perspective and “large post house” and “boutique” post house have quite different expectations of size than the Australian context. (For example, Alpha Dogs in Burbank bill themselves as a “boutique” post house but in Sydney or Melbourne they’d be one of the larger post houses.)

In general principle he’s right. The economics of the large post facilities (really factories) of the size of IVC, FotoKem, Ascent Media’s various facilities are changing. They probably always have been. And certainly there are signs that the very large post-focused facility in New York and Los Angeles are threatened. Long-term post Burbank post factory Matchframe sold a majority stake for just $300,000 (mostly because of long term debt it is presumed). The costs of maintaining the “heavy iron” of a big post facility can be millions a year.

In general principle I agree with James: these large facilities are probably a sunset industry. But he identified one point that I wanted to expand on.

What a big post house bring to the table is more then just services, they bring know how and knowledge.  You KNOW it is going to work.

That alone is the reason that there will (almost certainly) be facilities like these big post factories: at least in LA and NY. These facilities are large enough to be able to experiment and invest in discovering the best workflows (as, indeed, do the people at Alpha Dogs et. al.) and technologies.

But knowledge gets shared. This is one of the absolutely best things about the current Internet Era: knowledge is freely shared in ways it never could be before.

Look at RED workflows. The RED Digital Cinema camera is a big step forward in performance-for-price and a new class of digital cinema camera. When it was first released the tools and workflow where completely unexplored. None of the major NLE companies had native support for the new wavelet codec and working between NLE and color correction caused nightmares.

Two years on and there are established “best practice” workflows across Final Cut Pro, Media Composer and Premiere Pro. Pretty much anyone who does a little research can find a workflow that’s tested. Where did the posts you find when you do that Internet search come from? People who have solved a problem, sharing the solution with other who have the same problem.

Frankly, this information sharing is what made my reputation. As a very early adopter of NLE (specifically a very early adopter of Media 100) I ran into problems earlier than those who purchased later. I also discovered email groups in early 1997 and benefited from the shared experience of the Media 100 Email List of fellow travelers dealing with NLE in the mid 1990’s. (All digital for more than a decade now.)

I don’t know what form the future post-house/factory will be, but what will survive are the “centers of knowledge” because ultimately that’s more important than expensive, but infrequent access to high-priced technology.  The latter will continually get cheaper and people will find smarter, faster ways to do things, that ultimately become best practice and the “norm” again.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out two of our own tools that can give a FCP facility and edge: Sync-N-Link synchronizes dual system video and audio in minutes rather than hours, or if you’re working with an edited Sequence replacing camera audio with multi-track in hours instead of weeks. Sync-N-Link is already being used across a lot of Network and Cable series.

Producers have been printing out EDLs and trying to match them to a spreadsheet to report clip usage or music usage: a tedious task for sure, but one that can be automated with Sequence Clip Reporter, which just takes the pain out of creating a video, audio or combined report, including a reel-by-reel report if that’s what you need.

Categories
Apple Interesting Technology Video Technology

What is QuickTime X?

With the release of Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) this week, we finally get to see QuickTime X.

Simply put, QuickTime X is, as predicted, a simplified media player and simplified architecture optimized for playback of linear video streams. Most of what made QuickTime interesting to interactive authorers back a few years, is not present in QuickTime X.

We gain some new features: 2.2 gamma, screen capture and easily publish to major online video sharing sites. Screen capture is a nice addition and easy sharing probably would have been predictable if we’d seen Final Cut Pro 7 earlier.

The 2.2 gamma will no doubt take some time to get full adoption but at least it provides a way for us to add or change a color profile. Files with color profiles automatically adjust display to look correct on all screen. (At least, that’s the theory.) Within the Final Cut Studio it seems that correct gamma will be maintained *if* conversions are done with Compressor and not QuickTime 7’s Pro Player.

Chapter display has changed from a pop-up text list to thumbnail images. Better for consumer focused movies; less good for professionals.

Fortunately, it’s not an either/or. You can choose to install QuickTime 7.6 in addition to QuickTime X. If you try and access a movie that requires QT 7 features, users will be prompted to install QT 7 (aka “the real QuickTime!). If you want to make sure it’s installed, Apple have instructions on installing it.

So that’s the story of QuickTime X – a simple, consumer-focused player with a modern-looking interface, just as I predicted a little over a year ago.

Added 8/31 Just got this off a QT Apple email list. It’s not an official word from Apple but I think it sums it up well:

Quicktime X at this time isn’t a replacement to Quicktime 7, just allows faster multi-threaded playback of some of the older codecs.

Added 9/1 Ars Technica has a deep article on the difference between QT X and QT 7 and how QTkit negotiates between them,  that confirms I got my “educated guesses” right and provides more depth in how Apple achieves this.

Categories
Business & Marketing Random Thought

Where is the value in $15 million a year for a spokesmodel?

I have to say I was horrified to read that Ryan Seacrest was getting $15 million a year to host American Idol. To host, not produce, not to book a studio, not to actually produce anything but to host. To read a teleprompter and walk without falling over.

I’ve never met Mr Seacrest and I have no personal animosity but $15 million  a year to host a talent show seems just wrong. Way out of balance with anything real.  This is a 3x increase in salary over what he’s been getting – $5 million a year – for the same job.

That same amount of money would produce six episodes of Mad Men including paying all the far more talented cast (hey, they can act); paying the crew; locations; editors; facilities and presumably profit for the producers. All instead of paying one person to turn up.

I cannot believe that any one person brings that much value to a show. It just seems way out of balance to anything reasonable and human and really, tells me why the whole industry needs to be made over anew.

Equally stomach churning are the  sums paid to the CEOs of the major media companies, even when the results they turn in are “disappointing” to say the least.  Disney CEO Robert Iger earned $30.6 million last year while presiding over a 26% drop in profit at Disney? Where is the shareholder revolt? Why are they not demanding an $8 million drop in salary package?

It’s not just Iger; the rest of the crowd of losing value media company heads are all paid outrageous sums of money for the value they (don’t) bring to the companies they head.

Here’s my solution. Set a limit to the maximum ratio the highest and lowest paid employees of a company can earn. You want to increase the CEO salary, then everyone’s salary goes up to share in the (obviously great) results. Set the ratio at 100:1 if you like, but set a ratio that cannot be broken.

Until there’s some sanity I’ll be putting my efforts into demolishing that industry to start over afresh.

Categories
Business & Marketing Distribution Random Thought

What if there was no copyright on “music and the arts”?

Over at Techdirt, Mike Masnick wrote an interesting article suggesting that copyright on “art or music” may be unconstitutional. Now, I don’t expect the Supreme Court to rule that way any time soon – there’s not even a case before them – but it did make me wonder what would be different if copyright didn’t exist on film, television, music, architecture and other creative arts.

I thoroughly recommend reading Mike’s article, but the gist of the argument is that the Constitution provides for a “Limited Period” (originally 14 years, not 50 years past the death of the author) for “authors” (only, no descendants or corporate owners) “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. Useful Arts apparently being the business of invention in the language of the day. No mention of almost all our current copyright system.

We wouldn’t have the RIAA suing its best customers. The RIAA, MPAA and their kind around the world would have to work out how to compete, which is simple: provide a good product at a fair price and provide it conveniently. Without the crutch of copyright to protect a dying business model (and a highly profitable one, so it’s understandable they don’t want to adjust to the new reality) they would have to compete.

After all, television has been giving its content away pretty much since day one. Of course others (advertisers) pay for the privilege of interrupting the program with something irrelevant, which is why I’d rather pay a fair amount for my ad free copies, thanks.

If there was no copyright, then digital copies would abound, and content creators would either have to add value to their official (paid) version; or bundle advertising so closely with the show that it doesn’t appear like advertising. (In fact I believe the future of advertising is branded media, but that’s a post for another day.)

Of course, it can be done. iTunes and Amazon’s music store sell music that is fairly readily available via various P2P mechanisms. Every one of the 4 Billion songs Apple has sold has been available free.

Perhaps content could be free after a period of time, and people will pay for immediacy. This is the strategy the Direct TV hoped would give them more customers by showing Friday Night Lights on Direct TV before their outing on NBC. (See my earlier article on how the numbers stack up for new media, on how that program is being funded and what a fair price would be for a viewer.)

People will pay for convenience and simplicity – both reasons why iTunes has been such a successful model, despite charging way too much for television and movie content.

There are dozens of ways that television, and new media production, could fund itself if there was the necessity and they couldn’t fall back on copyright. In fact in my “Making a living from new media” seminar, I outline 13 different ways that free media can lead to a decent middle class income.

If “Hollywood” wasn’t covered by copyright, how different would it be?

Categories
Business & Marketing Media Consumption

How has technology changed news reporting?

I’ve been thinking a lot over the last couple of months about news. In fact somewhere within me is brewing a book on the way that the Internet and technology has changed news so when the Digital Production BuZZ asked me to comment on the subject this week, it forced me to put some of the thoughts into a coherent form. Hopefully last night’s interview (my segment starts 20 minutes in) was, but I’d like to share those thoughts with you here.

I think most people are aware that the newspaper industry, in particular, is in trouble. The Internet and modern technology have changed the way we get and consume news. It’s also changed the way the way the news itself is gathered.

There are several ways that the Internet  and technology have changed news and I’m sure my thoughts here are going to only skim the surface. First, a little history. Back in the days PI (Pre-Internet) – really just on 15 years ago – news was hard to come by. We didn’t get information internationally, or even nationally, without the newspaper and to a lesser degree radio and Television but mostly the newspaper. The entire contents of an hour-long evening news bulletin would not take up the space of the front page of most newspapers of record, so it was to newspapers we looked for local, national and international news.

I used to be a 3-paper-a-day man back in Australia. The local newspaper for local news; the State-Capital based newspaper of record and the National financial news for, well national financial news. (I was a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors in those days, and had a keen interest in such things.)

I haven’t read a newspaper on a regular basis in 10 or more years! These days I get my news via RSS into an aggregator. My general (local, national, and international) news comes from eight major sources: AP, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NY Times, CNET, Sydney Morning Herald and Yahoo Technology News across two countries. But I’m only interested in a fraction of what they report.

But these are just eight of the nearly 300 RSS feeds that feed me the news I’m really interested in. No newspaper would ever be likely to give me that personalized look at the world as it evolves. Plus, I don’t have to wait 24 hours to get “aged news” (as Jason Jones put it on The Daily Show).

Now, back PI we needed the same AP article reproduced in the local paper in each market because that’s how we got the news. These days we only need the source – the original source which is rarely a newspaper or AP – and a link. It annoys me that the same story appears 20 times or more in one set of news feeds, duplicated from the same AP article and rarely with any editorial influence or rewriting.

In fact, I think you’ll find a good portion of most papers are simple rewrites of press releases or AP stories, with very little real reporting being done at all.

Blog aggregators like the Huffington Post and to an increasing degree, AOL who has more than doubled the number of reporters in the last year hiring those discarded by mainstream media, are creating their own reporting and commentary networks. News is coming directly from the source. We don’t need an AP or NYT outpost in Iran during an uprising. We get news from Iran, from The Tehran Bureau or Global Voices Online (a blog aggregator who knows which bloggers to trust).

As an indication of how much the news industry has changed, The Tehran Bureau, published by volunteers out a small suburban house in Massachusetts, has had very accurate and detailed information about what is going on in Iran while the mainstream media have been sidelined by the officials in the country and not able to report. Their information was being quoted and “reported” by mainstream media who can’t get coverage from their traditional channels.

None of this could happen without the Internet infrastructure and specific technologies that sit on top of it, and sometimes link into other technologies like the cellular phone network’s SMS system.

It was a blogger who bought down Dan Rather by revealing that the papers purporting to reveal irregularities with President George W. Bush’s service in the Air National Guard were fake. There are dozens of such incidents where bloggers,with time and the Internet at their disposal, have broken dozens of stories, with more accuracy and greater detail than the mainstream media. (Frankly the accuracy rate of mainstream media is pretty appalling.)

It was a cell phone recording that affected the balance of power in the Senate in the 2006 mid-term elections when a Democrat staffer recorded George Allen’s infamous “Maccaca” comment that, arguably, lost him his almost certain return to the Senate.

It was the cell phone video of “Neda” being shot in the civil disobendience after the Iranian election that helped inspire more people to come out in opposition to the Government of the country.

With millions and millions of cell phones in consumer’s hands it’s now more likely than not that a camera will be at the scene of a major incident. The first picture of Flight 1549 in the Hudson was from Janis Krums’ iPhone on the ferry that was first on the scene to pick up the passengers. Naturally he shared the photo via Twitter. (It was 34 minutes later that MSNBC interviewed him.)

Twitter was first to break the news, again. People have sent tweets from within the midst of the news, including instances where people have tweeted their involvement in a disaster like Mike Wilson, a passenger on board Continental’s Flight 1404, which skidded off the runway at Denver airport and burst into flames. Mike tweeted right after he escaped out of the plane’s emergency chutes and posted a picture of the foam-covered aircraft long before any traditional media was even aware of the accident.

When a Turkish Airlines Boeing landed short and broke apart at Amsterdam’s Schipol, the first word to the public was a Tweet, sent out by a fellow who lives near the airport. (FlightGlobal.com)

Twitter has become a major news source, such that there are now sites, like BreakingTweets.com, dedicated to breaking news on Twitter as a news site in addition to Twitter’s own Breaking News page. If you want the up-to-the minute news, you follow Twitter it seems.

Even if newspapers and the Associated Press ultimately fail, as they are most likely to, I still see a bright future for journalism, just not in the traditional places.

There is one more aspect to “news and the Internet” and that’s the social one. Many of the source I subscribe to in my RSS reader are bloggers who write in the space. I may miss an article or resource but Scott Simmons (on his own site or at ProVideoCoalition.com), Oliver Peters, Larry Jordan, Shane Ross, Lawrence (Larry) Jordan, John Chapell, or Norm Hollyn are there to find the things I miss and bring them to my attention. (Of course, usually with some insightful writing in between.)

I don’t have to read everything or be everywhere because the social networks I participate in create a new network far more valuable to me than the best efforts of the Associated Press!