Bloggers v. Print Media, round 809832
It’s been a tough week for print media… the bloggers have been ganging up on them again. First I stumbled across this TechCrunch piece - If “Real Journalism†Fails As A Business, Should Government Step In? It actually was an interesting read - it talked about whether the tough times print media is having now warrants government backing to keep it afloat. The answer from them and the various things they link out to is no.
Personally, I probably agree with it, but I’m not so sure that it’s as gigantic a problem as they suggest. That is depending on how things are structured the government may not have as much control over media as they believe, but who knows, maybe they will. The BBC seems to do ok, at least. And Fox isn’t the paragon of independent reporting.. But still.. the real annoying part comes in the parting shot:
Print media is wonderful, and it would be a shame to ever see it fail. But these are businesses that need to sustain themselves in one way or another. Looking for a government handout to perpetuate a quaint but outdated way of life is the last resort of the desperate.
See that? They can go through almost a whole article without being dicks, but they can’t - it’s a psychological imperative. As a perl programmer, I’m quite used to this technique. First they say something nice (but patronizing) about the thing they obviously despise - that sets them up as an impartial commentator. Then they hit you with a really annoying condescending view of it. Seriously. Did Arrington just call the NYTimes a “quaint but outdated way of life”? Seriously? Argh! Why! WHY??!!
Sigh, then still annoyed at that one, I come across Don MacAskill’s post (who’s posts I generally love) entitled “Why traditional ‘print’ media is doomed.” ARGH! First off, why does everyone need to use “quotes” in their titles? Any sizzle, Don’s problem and the reason that “print” media is doomed is that they sometimes make it hard to link to an article. Ok, ok, that’s just a symptom - the problem is that Don’s figured out that every print media business is a pure advertising play and that these companies can’t understand that simple fact. I wonder if these entrenched business with huge income streams and readership numbers that Arrington would kill to have, have a bit more of a complicated reality… hmm…
It is true (at least in my experience) that many of the higher ups at print media companies do not understand the internet and consequently fear it - doing irrational things in defense of their print business. Nevertheless, as time goes on and people get more clued in, little by little this is changing. They watch what their peers are doing and what is successful and what isn’t and they are beginning to get it. It’d be nice if the pace of change was faster but at least there is change.
These are all bright people, they just work in a business that seems at first glance to be completely at odds with the free digital distribution system that the internet provides. It is reasonable for them to fear it a bit. Some will fail before figuring out a viable web strategy, sure. But this endless suggestion that print media is doomed is just a grating awful meme that the blogoweb loves. Just like any business in any industry that’s been disrupted, it takes time to internalize this disruption and modify to embrace it - some will be more successful than others - but the industry itself is not likely to end tomorrow because a few companies are opposed to having people link to their content. Seriously. It isn’t.
