Technology Killed the Media Stars

It is no secret that the shift from traditional media (newspapers, television, radio) to the online social scene (blogs, tweets, social networks) is upon us.  It is also no secret that the employers and employees of traditional media have been late to adopt the new media wave.  I personally cannot relate to these individuals, but I can sympathize with their plight.  I mean, really, who wants to hear that some “kid” in their basement is getting more attention than a news journalist who graduated with a degree in journalism and has over 15 years experience in the business?  That is certainly a hard pill to swallow.  Of course, as all of us know…it rarely is just some “kid” in a basement; instead it’s typically a 20-something year-old in an affordable apartment building who has been blogging passionately and truthfully about a particular subject for quite some time.  This is what large, traditional media corporations fail to understand.

The Silicon Alley Insider recently featured a post about Jeff Jarvis and his claim that “journalists are in fact responsible for the death of print.”  A very strong claim from Jarvis that was met with some understanding criticism amongst some traditional journalists.  Jarvis makes bold but accurate statements urging journalists to take responsibility for the fate of journalism.  Instead of merely gloating over the demise of print, he speaks at conferences, sits down with newspaper companies, and empowers the journalism community to innovate and make change.  Jarvis clearly understands that the future of news media is changing rapidly, and in an industry of slow-movers, he exemplifies someone who actually “gets it”.

Of course, the new wave of social media affects more than just newspapers and its journalists; it extends to, and challenges the television and radio platforms as well.  Gary Vaynerchuk posted a brilliant video (see below) reacting to radio superstar Howard Stern’s thoughts on social media.  Gary Vaynerchuk is another prime example of someone who simply “gets it”.  He has successfully utilized the power of social media to build a very strong personal brand, and encourages us all to do the same.  (FYI: I have yet to see a Gary Vaynerchuk video that I didn’t like and that wasn’t 100% honest and inspiring)

“Old school” traditional media professionals feel that social media has devalued the overall quality of news.  They want to believe that they are the only people qualified to deliver news and information to the masses.  What they fail to understand is that “kid” in his basement spends more time talking, writing, and reading about a specific blog topic more so than most “professional” journalists.  That “kid” did not develop a loyal following of readers by accident.

The barriers of entry are low, maybe even non-existent when it comes to social media.  Despite this fact, readers are more discerning than ever, and expect a lot more than they ever have before.  The new wave of social media has finally brought transparency to the world of information.  The large corporations who refuse to acknowledge this fact are in for a rude awakening.

  • First off...thanks for the comments. You have raised some great questions and made some great points.

    As for Jarvis's claim...I cannot speak for him, but I believe he was talking about journalism in general. Yes, journalists are paid to report, and rarely have a choice of which platform they utilize. I think above all else, he wanted to raise awareness of a new social media platform, and to deny it completely can likely result in journalistic suicide. He urges traditional media corporations to embrace and adapt to the new wave of social media...which I think you will agree...will continue to grow and revolutionize the flow of information.

    Your point about large-scale investigations is extremely valid. It's hard to see how a blogger or small team of bloggers can produce reports that can compete with a NY Times that has millions of dollars designated towards a single cause as you say. With that said, I still feel as though journalists and media organizations are far better off utilizing social media (i.e. blog posts, social networks, etc.) as opposed to print.

    I do believe many traditional media journalists (40 and up) do not give the credit that quality bloggers deserve. I said in the post that these individuals fail to understand that these bloggers are passionate and knowledgeable about their particular topic...and in many cases write, read, and talk about that topic more so than a particular journalist. I never insulted the work of journalist...I simply made a point that many "old school" journalists feel like a blogging is completely illegitimate, when in fact, it is just the opposite.

    Bottom line is this...journalists have had a great big barrier in front of them and their readers for a long time. Now that the internet and social media in particular has broken that down, they feel threatened, and I don't blame them. A certain theme will remain constant no matter what, and that is, the good writers (albeit journalists or bloggers) will succeed, and the bozos will ultimately fade away. Social media has just supplied us with a more efficient and effective way to communicate.
  • lunaticllama
    I'm not very sympathetic to Jeff Javirs's claim that journalists should be blamed for the problems of major news organizations. Journalists are paid to be journalists i.e. cover coherently the issue area they are given and produce news items on that topic. That the management of news organizations cannot find a way to generate the profits of earlier times delivering that content to consumers cannot per se be the fault of journalists. It's simply not the job of journalists to make "old" media organizations profitable; producing good news stories is.

    That distinction aside. It's unclear to me how new media platforms can finance the slow, investigative work that old media organizations pay people to do. To cite one recent example, the NY Times dug through various records and found that 90% of the retirees from the Long Island Railroad were also getting disability payments. This led to an ongoing investigation by the railroad as well as the state attorney general. Gathering that information requires significant investment, at least in terms of time (how much time do NY Times journalists spend tracking down false leads about possible corruption in Albany?). To mention another example, NY Times spends $3 million a year on their Baghdad bureau. That bureau produces good news that is incredibly hard to obtain and undoubtedly, both the public and bloggers gain from that on-the-ground reporting (how many news bloggers benefit from having NY Times publish stories on Iraq? I'd say nearly all of them). How new media can replace that coverage is hard for me to imagine.

    Lastly, you say old journalists have an inferiority complex vis-a-vis bloggers and and then in the next sentence suggest that bloggers have more expertise than journalists. It's hypocritical to suggest journalists are wrong to criticize bloggers for their lack of ability in producing news content and then to criticize journalists for their lack of ability in producing good news content.

    You catch the Jeff Jarvis / Ron Rosenbaum spat this week? It gets personal:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2204372/
    http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/12/there-the...
blog comments powered by Disqus