Thinking Macro

"Old media" and "new media" are such throw away buzz terms. What do they even mean? "Old media" seems to refer to video tape, talking heads, stuffy, stodgy, one-way news dissemination, while "new media" is Flip Cams, live streams, Twitter and social networks. But so what? Has the information evolved just because I can live stream myself blow drying my hair? Is social media a gimmick that gives the viewer the illusion of interaction with the news?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately as I take on new projects. I've heard several "old media" reporters mull this over and say things like "brand recognition" and "network loyalty" and "viewer interaction." Okay. So how do we evolve our broadcasts beyond simply reading Twitter? I think you'll agree with me that so much of that seems forced. For instance, the YouTube questions that CNN used during the presidential debates were questions they most certainly could have come up with themselves. And when a news network uses Twitter, they read responses that they most certainly could have received over email. How is this groundbreaking?

I have been writing a pilot for a new Webcast on CBSNews.com. We will be running tests of this broadcast for the next few weeks until we figure out a working format. I am struggling with these questions:

1. How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence?


2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days' news?


3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?


4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as "old media?"


5. Does the viewer care about "new media" gimmicks in their news broadcast?

I want my new broadcast to be something you watch while you are sitting at home with your laptop in your lap at night, either answering emails, playing games, surfing Facebook, or sitting with your spouse while they watch some embarrassing reality show. I want you to watch it, absorb the days' news, engage with it, learn from it, and talk back to to it. Live, of course. I want you to hear and be heard. But I am so deathly afraid of the gimmick trap. I don't want to use YouTube videos just because it sounds cool. I'm not going to rely on Twitter just because it is the new black. But I do want to incorporate all of that. So I ask you, dear reader, what do you think? What do YOU want? I know you don't want a talking head just spitting the news out to you as he/she reads a TelePrompTer. I know you don't want to watch me read Twitter and tell you "This is what you think!" I know you don't want extreme political opinions. And I know that adding 6-8 pundits to a broadcast does not make it 6-8 times more interesting. But what does make it more interesting?

Incidentally, the broadcast I am working on is not a technology newscast. It is a general newscast. I am not moving out of technology news. I am just attempting to expand my horizons beyond my regular beat. In a high-tech way of course!

Earlier this afternoon I Tweeted that I was feeling overwhelmed. Maybe it was because I was hurting my brain in thinking so macro. (Or maybe it was because I was hungry.) I said that I might ask for your help and now I am. I am crowdsourcing the questions above. Please have a two-page double-spaced synthesis paper on my desk by morning. Or a simple blog comment will do.

Thank you!

Comments

[Marc]

I can see why you were overwhelmed! I think breaking a news show into varied segments would be cool (instead of being a talking head). It would satisfy the bored or those with attention deficits. You can livestream news, talk about current trends, have pre-recorded segments where you investigate questions burning in people's minds, interview interesting people, have people email/call/tweet questions and queries... you can do a whole lot!

[Nathan Lowhorn]

Ok, that actually made my brain hurt a little too. :)

Your #3 stood out to me. What frustrates me the most about "old media" is how slow it tends to be? With the things I'm interested in, I know all I need to know just by following my particular feeds in Google Reader and participating in certain forums. When I hear a tech story on TV, it's usually so old that I want to scream just a little....especially local news. :) The new media should be incorporated with the old in such a way to make the latter more timely.

[Joey]

I agree - the information's the same, there's just a lot of new and rehashed ways of getting it.

One powerful thing, though, with this constant stream of information that I love is trends. Scanning the Twitter sidebar a lot of the time the trends generally relate to top news stories, but sometimes you get interesting ones, such as today when I saw #3wordsaftersex.

I think if interesting trends were brought up (perhaps not #3wordsaftersex), stuff that people are talking about but that might not be getting much attention in mainstream news, that would be something interesting.

One advantage Twitter does have is speed and mobility. Here's an interview with Biz Stone on those subjects:

http://www.lifehackingmovie.com/2009/05/20/biz-stone-on-twitter-interview-podcast/

[BNC]

# How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast?

Look at it this way, how bad do we want to get ourselves heard by a huge audience? very much so and if we have to get ourselves smack dap in the middle of a news room we will do it.

# How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?

There is as many opinions as there are people, people want to get their opinion through and that is a fact. Just stop at the next accident and you find those people circling the area to lay their opinions on the fellow rubbernecks.

# What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?

Let's face it the headlines has become steadily more boring as we go deeper into recession, maybe the broadcast stations should cut down on the amount of news and make the news that are actually there more interesting.

# What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”

I remember twitter back a while when there was a shooting in a emigrant center in New York, people were talking back and forth figuring out how to listen in on the Police radios in the area, it was a guy from Spain that figured it out and we were exchanging news about the incident all day, you can not get that kind of interaction from "old media"

# Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?

Oh I think they care, there is something exiting about being able to reach the news casters on air, like when they have a twitter account, you know they will see your tweet when you send them one, it is just great.

Summary: As a viewer I want as many details as possible, if that means using the Internet which is does I Say out with "old media" in with "new media"

Just my opinion, good luck with it all Natali.

[Phillymac@gmail.com]

You're asking great questions, which is a great start. As you've found though, there are no easy answers. Let me ask you some questions.

1. How do you expect a viewer/listener to interact? Especially if you're doing something live, what avenues are you planning on using? Chat channels? FriendFeed rooms? Twitter hashtags? Will you allow users to interact with you through live video? Skype or iChat channels? Do you want to be able to edit or screen that kind of feedback?

2. I love multiple person engagements. I think it would be great if you can provide someone who really is a devil's advocate to your position. No, you don't need a Dvorak, but a Molly Wood type (or Molly herself!) would be great. I also like a male/female balance when possible. That's just me. It's what I enjoy the most (thus one of the reasons I was a BOL listener since it's start). The most important thing to provide in a pundit though is someone I can respect, male or female, young or old - they need to have real cred in that topic.

3. Don't include twitter because it's "new media" - include twitter because it provides a relevant topic for discussion. It's a tool like any other, it's not the special sauce that will make a broadcast hip or cool. Include twitter, facebook, youtube or whatever because it's part of how you dialog. It has to be an extension of you, of how you do things - if it's not, then you'll look as goofy as these Fox News at 10:00 anchors that are suddenly trying to be "cool" after striving so long to be "the news you can turn to."

I think I cross-pollenated the answers, but I think I did answer all the questions. Sorry it's not two page double spaced. Rock it now!

Best,
Phillip
http://phillymacmedia.com

PS At the top of this Post a Comment area I did not see what each of the three fields was for in Safari 4 beta. Hope they came out OK.

[Colin]

Yikes. Tough tough questions. The only comment i can make about ' old media' and why i don't like traditional TV news is i don't get to choose whats important to me; wherein with the web ( or newspaper ) i can scan through and read what i want. Not sure how that translates into something like this. Definately a big project to tackle!

[Ikcor]

You are wise to ask these questions. My suggestion to you would be to use the viewer feedback much as a radio station does. People call and email all of the time, and these are filtered by a producer, who forwards the most relevant and interesting ones to the host(s). Live calls on the air can be a nightmare, so I would stick to "new media" sources like twitter, chat, etc.

The best types of feedback that the users can provide are:

1. Followup questions
2. Additional information
3. "Well actually" corrections
4. Opposing viewpoints

Just think of the BOL chat room, only filtered.

As for the spiral of silence, that normally only applies to public settings. With twitter, etc., people remain relatively anonymous and don't worry about reprisals (see Trolls).

Good luck!

[Geoff]

But what does make it more interesting? ....

Genuine dialogue on difficult issues. I am so tired of the predictable dance between Dems and Republicans. Old media (and sometimes new media) provide the stage for the dance. Obama made some effort but was shut down so its biz as usual. The media, old and new, should force politicians to answer questions and engage in real dialogue, and real solutions. Bring in a mediator and have a real discussion. Thanks Natali!

[oakie]

How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence?

people dont necessarily mind being "talked at" by a broadcast, as they understand ventriloquism is a one-way street. they simply want their own questions answered by the end of the broadcast... but of course, some type of interaction is required to do that.

How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?

only enough to answer everyone's questions about the news presented. it's gone far beyond "old media's" reporting of "what, where, when, why, and how."

What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?

answers and entertainment, to be blunt. if your questions arent being answered, the viewer will tune out. in addition, the source material has to have entertainment value. if you report on something your viewers arent interested in, say, "organic sawdust for hamsters" on a tech oriented show, you're obviously going to lose them.

What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”

i dont see "old media" as you defined it in your argument. i see it as the inability to monetize their material enough for widespread distribution with a cripplingly slow dissemination method. the internet has given everyone an instant voice on today's news. no one chats over yesterday's news from a paper with friends at a cafe anymore.

Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?

honestly? i dont believe so. i believe the viewer only cares about their "15 minutes" by having their questions and comments addressed by the talking heads. "twitter" simply seems to be the name of that method to get your opinion redistributed publicly, and thus in a way validated.

[john]

I like your concept. It is very hard for me to watch the 'Old News'. I have to record it and then try to find time to watch it while competing with a wife and two kids wanting to watch other shows. The idea of being able to sit down with my netbook and watch the news appeals to me. I would like to be able to drill down into more details about the stories that I read or watch. Some times I'll google a news items to try and find out more details, but usually get overwhelmed by the number of hits. Links to where you did your research, related information, etc would be helpful. This will allow me to get additional information on the topics that interest me.

[Michael Gaines]

Natali,
These are important points to make, and it's good that someone in your position is bringing them up. There will always be a place for old media, at least for the foreseeable future. I think it'll be a while before things change over completely.

That said, here are my thoughts on it.

The world is different now. People write emails, not letters. They voice their opinions on blogs and web sites. How much of "old media" was saved due to "new technology" (eg: Jericho)? I think that there can be a middle ground where old media works with new technology to at the very least have some form of interaction.

But does everything NEED to be interactive? Do I NEED to talk back with the people that bring the media to us? It depends on the personalities of the newscasters and the culture of how the news is broadcast. For example, I don't see "old media" broadcasters caring about what's on Twitter. When was the last time there was a Tweetup with the people from a New York news show? And yet, I'll interact with you, Tom, Jason, Molly, and Veronica because that's the culture that has been created around what you all do. In fact, interacting with you all seems natural because none of you put up a barrier that says "read only". Maybe start there. Bring in some form of interaction without it taking over the whole show.

To answer some of your questions:

1) As I said before, in my opinion, it depends on the culture of the show. I've seen shows that rattle off chat room text which is a terrible distraction. Interaction needs a balance. I always thought The Screen Savers and Call For Help had that down perfectly.

2) Hard to say. How much DO they know about the news?

3) Here's a personal example. When TechTV died, I felt like there was nowhere else to go to watch responsible tech news every day. Sure there are blogs and such, but TechTV did it right and it wasn't until Techzilla and BOL came around afterwards that I didn't feel like there was a gap in tech news. Look at what people want and fill that gap.

4) One word: sensationalism. I hate it. Hate, hate, hate. I don't even like it in blog titles.

5) Maybe. In my opinion, it has to be done in a way that's not obtrusive. Reading emails/comments at the end of a show is a good way to read back what's no more than 60 minutes old and still not interrupt the flow of the show.

This is something I've been thinking about as well. I've been struggling with moving in a new direction and trying to find something that will appeal to an audience while keeping it interesting.

Good luck on your new show!

[oakie]

oops. i misread the second question.

How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?

honestly, nothing very pertinent, but it's a lot of it. they just want to say it NOW, when the news is fresh in their head; i find it akin to two people at a table, one reading the paper and stumbles across something shocking enough to share and the discussion that results from it.

[Brett Henry]

1. How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence?
I think that the entire newscast shouldnt be based around user input but I feel that some good ways to deal with it are as follows:
you can divide it into segments meaning have a general/important news update and then you can have the viewers vote on what topics they want to hear next week (video games,foreign news, etc). Another segment could be actual interaction with the viewers via webcam or some chat element, the webcam could be subject to the spiral of silence but it usually doesnt hurt that bad but the chat client could be annonymous and you can choose either to have a nickname or use your actual name. In the interactive segment you could select one or more topics covered that day and interact with the viewers (of course let them know about when to be on). I would also allow the viewers to submit their own ideas for topics to be covered because sometimes people can have really good ideas that you would never think of, they could also have the option of you acknowledging who submitted it or not.
2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
Well depending on your target audience and the content people could have a lot. If it is a little bit of everything I think it would get the best response because there will always be something to spark some people.
3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
I personally feel no power as a viewer as what content will be displayed for example on a lot of broadcasts I often will hit days at a time where I have no interest in what is being broadcasted. I also feel a lack of intimacy with the viewing audience on the part of the people producing the show.
4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”
Lack of interactivity and user input as well as the way it is presented. To elaborate on the first part your general newscast rarely takes into account the people when picking the actual news they just pick what they feel the viewer will want to see which is often not the same thing. For example the news shows so much bad news often people want some good news. As to the second part of my argument I feel that sending of one medium dates different casts, even those that show on just one website are often written off. I think that if you do, for example: podcasts and a regular cast and maybe like a ticker on the main site it would be more new information friendly.
5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?
I do because I personally like to be involved and I dont always have a set time frame when I can sit down and watch the news so new media gimmicks work fine for me.

I want my new broadcast to be something you watch while you are sitting at home with your laptop in your lap at night, either answering emails, playing games, surfing Facebook, or sitting with your spouse while they watch some embarrassing reality show. I want you to watch it, absorb the days’ news, engage with it, learn from it, and talk back to to it. Live, of course. I want you to hear and be heard. But I am so deathly afraid of the gimmick trap. I don’t want to use YouTube videos just because it sounds cool. I’m not going to rely on Twitter just because it is the new black. But I do want to incorporate all of that. So I ask you, dear reader, what do you think? What do YOU want? I know you don’t want a talking head just spitting the news out to you as he/she reads a TelePrompTer. I know you don’t want to watch me read Twitter and tell you “This is what you think!” I know you don’t want extreme political opinions. And I know that adding 6-8 pundits to a broadcast does not make it 6-8 times more interesting. But what does make it more interesting?
I think what would make it more interesting is as I said throwing out some power to the people and recoginition of their ideas. I think if you are really willing to invest time in it here is a good general idea for how you could set it up:

Early on in the day make a broadcast of some interesting things currently going on and maybe some of the topics that were submitted that you found especially clever. Then leave it open ended and ask the viewers to submit what they think about the days topics and the news that you covered and maybe submit their own ideas for things.
Later on in the day (prolly like 4 or 5) broadcast a second one that combines the comments of the viewers of the early broadcast and then does live interaction with people (via webcam, chat client, or both).

Keep in mind these are only rough ideas so they may not be amazing but they are my opinion and you kind of asked for it :)

[Robert J. Lindsay]

I think if you remain fair,straight down the middle in your reporting would be something new for CBS.And what ever you do don't show favoritism toward any political party,because people are sick of that.Good luck,I just hope the general news business doesn't corrupt you. Robert

[Marco Donjuan]

Hi Natali, I´ll try to remain as brief as possible:

1. A lot, at least I do find useful that I can comment and express an opinion on a certain subject/note given on a broadcast (I do that on Loaded regularly) because I know that even if my annotation is not featured, it was at least read and taken into account.
2. Depends, sometimes a single piece of news becomes very repetitive leaving the viewer little to comment about it; but again it depends on the importance of each.
3. Good question, viewers want a broadcast that it´s easy to watch, that it's not to long and that offers something new once in a while like... live viewer questions/comments or viewer recommended content. Something that makes viewers feel part of it. That helps getting engaged :)
4. Talking-reading heads... definitely
5. Don't think too much about the "gimmick" factor... You are a great, very talented woman (there goes the unsolicited flattery) that have always known how to (and not to) use emerging technologies. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube... you name it, are just tools that you *can* use, not that you *must* use, keep that in mind because if your new broadcast is not tech centered, Non tech-savyy viewers may have a hard time getting use to the "gimmicks"

Don't give yourself a hard time thinking so Macro, sometimes it's better to let things just flow by...

I'm glad that you opened this to us, your readers/viewers. Here's hoping your upcoming newscast be a blast, as every other endeavor you do.

-Marco from México

[Don Crossman]

First, I'm pretty old. 57 in fact, but I develop web applications for a living, so I sort of span both worlds. I tweet, but can still construct a sentence.

You have asked good questions, and I can only tell you my current view of media in general. It needs to find itself. I don't want local news from CBS, and I don't want global news from my local newspaper's web site.

I recently helped a friend develop a Wordpress site for news specifically about a community of 2500. This is the future of news. Find a niche and fill it, and "they will come."

I couldn't care less about "new media" vs. "old media." That's just BS. There's "good media" and "bad media."

Number one is story. Number two is story. You get the idea. If you have a good story to tell, people will gather around to listen to you. If you tell it really well, people will pester you to death to get you to tell them another story.

I think that's all there is to it. If you have a good story, it will tell YOU how to tell it. Just listen.

[José Luis]

Hi Natali,

I think that you should look at all these “new media” tools as a means to an end.

The basic premise, from what I can read, is that you want to tell us the news of the day in your very lovable way, that’s great! From there on, take this premise as your starting point. First and foremost, think about what you want to do will your show. Now think about how you want to achieve such things or with what tools are you going to do it. From there forward, try to implement the tools at your disposal to solve the problem.

Say for example that you talk about the weekend’s shuttle landing. CNN and others probably contacted their resident “expert” and got them on the show via a satellite feed. Now, you obviously won’t be able to rent a satellite feed for your segment nor you have a large research department to help you, but that’s where the “new media” tools become your allies. As you may be very well aware, most of us that watch your shows (ie. B.O.L.) are pretty smart people, so you should consider having your resident panel of experts on a wide range of subjects so they can help you tell the news they way you want them to and most importantly, so we as your audience can relate to them. We don’t want an old hag how doesn’t have a clue what a computer is talking to us about things we care in a language that we do not understand. We want someone that we can relate to and who live their lives around the same things we do, that’s really missing from old media, as they need to cater to a large audience. You have an incredible opportunity to become very successful with a niche audience (just because is a niche audience doesn’t mean it has to be small).

How are you going to know about their level of expertise? Well, that’s what new media is for. A little poking around their online profiles, their Twitter feeds, podcasts and you should have a pretty good idea about them. This is also a great way to know your audience. Just because someone doesn’t have a degree doesn’t mean that they don’t know a lot about a subject. Some of the most passionate people I know, love what they do and don’t have a single piece of paper to prove their expertise.

And please, don’t try to fit all these tools around you, it should always be the other way around. You and the news should always be at the center of the show and the most important thing. Everything else is just a fad. Google is just the new Lycos and Twitter will not always be the most talked about thing in town.

As for interaction, some people will always love to talk and other will just stand there and listen. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Also remember that not one opinion is necessary more important than another. Try to keep a fair balance between both sides on a subject and always be fair to both of them and you should not have any problems with the “spiral of silence”.

I’m not saying you that you should always have experts on the show, but everyday folks almost always have something interesting to say. I can assure you that most of the people that will comment on this post, don’t have a Communications degree, but you will most definitely will get some great ideas from their contribution.

And finally, please, I beg you. Don’t make the same mistake that “old media” is making: Don’t use a tool or service just because it’s “cool” or because everybody is doing it. You don’t have to use every single thing out there to make your show a success, you just need to use what works for you and your audience. It may not be Twitter, it may very well be. You won’t know until you try. And now is the time to do it! Once you have your set of goals, work this tools around you, your audience and your show and I can assure you that you will be successful.

Also, please remember: Not everyone is made of gold, and hence, you are not bound to make everyone happy, but, as long as you stay happy with what you do and how you do it, it will always be reflected on the things that you do. Last week’s show from SFO proved it: you looked and sounded happier than in recent months (probably because you where home) and that was instantly reflected on your performance and your work.

I hope this helps and sorry if it was too long.

Thanks for making our lives a little bit better and keep up the good work!

[Bob Watson]

One way that I see difference between "old" and "new" media is the difference
between a lecture and a discussion session. When I was in high school ( back
in the 60's) school was basically lecture. The teacher would tell us the facts
that we should know and then we would memorize them and repeat them on
the next test. The only classes that I really enjoyed were an honors physics
class and an english lit class where we read facts outside of class and then
discussed them in class. The discussions were moderated by the teacher
but they were pretty far ranging, in physics for example, we would discuss
what our responsibility was as prospective scientists. We talked about the
development of nuclear energy and ultimately the development of the atomic
bomb (the results of which we were living with each day - these were the days
of "duck and cover" drills). In literature we discussed the Kennedy assassination
in relation to Hamlet (was Kennedy a tragic figure like Hamlet?) In both cases
we had to learn facts first. Just having an opinion without a real understanding
of what you are talking about seems to remind me a little too much of the last
eight years. You can't have a gut feeling if your gut is not being guided by your
brain. But once facts are established, they can be interpreted in light of your
own sense of morality and the life experiences that you have. So a news
broadcast or a new paper article establishes the base of knowledge and the
editorial page gives differing view of what these facts mean. Things like
blogs and twitter allow a discussion to happen. Of course the anonymity of
a blog entry or tweet allows you to sometimes express ideas that you might
not face to face. I work as a software engineer and I embrace all that is geek
so I know a lot of quiet, shy people who are very opinionated when they blog.

Having said that I think that the "new" media, if viewers are doing it get the
most out of it requires a lot of work. You need to a) understand the issues
that are being discussed. b) have spent some time thinking about what they
mean. c) express your opinion clearly. And remember it is just your opinion,
not a delivery of revelation from heaven.

So a news media that both informs about events and then allows for discussion
is tricky. The inform part has to be free of bias. The discussion requires a lot
of work on the part of all participants. Some people don't want to take the time
they just want to hear about what is going on in the world and be able to tell
the television an opinion without having done any work. Others want to discuss
things to get other peoples ideas and to express their own.

The technology that is developing around blogs is just a way people have of
sitting around a campfire and talking about what is going on in the world.
Now you and I can discuss the world events even though you live in NYC and
I live in the southwest. The idea of being able to discuss things with people
who have a varied amount of experience and knowledge is what makes this
use of technology exciting to me. In my office all of the people are basically
tree-hugging liberals so we just re-inforce our options we don't really discuss
them. Being able to listen some one else's opinion and have them listen to
yours helps each person grow from the experience.

A webcast that involves the audience is difficult because of the parts I talked
about above. Giving information, digesting the information, deciding what it
means and expressing my ideas about the topic. This all takes some time
and the details of how you do this are not something that I don't really know
about. But discussion groups have been done before and I know that a
good moderator can make them effective. So a webcast is just an expanded
discussion group of many people in a lot of different locations. Picking topics
that people will be interested in will also be difficult but experience should help.

I am not sure if any of this is relevant or helpful, but thanks for listening.

[stewieX]

There is only so much interaction that is possible when reporting the news. News is something that is factual, and unchangeable. However in an attempt to capture your audience, news deliverance should be quick and to the point while not leaving out any important details. This however opens up a great angle to view New Media with an Old Media mind. While trying not to bore your audience with mundane information that does not further the point of the story, you could have experts, or witnesses for whatever the story may be that field questions from online viewers who want extra details 'beyond' the main point.

Another idea adding to this, although a gimmick, would be to allow the viewers for lack of a better word to "Digg" or Bury short news stories. If the majority vote is in favor of learning more about a story, you could focus on it either with viewer questions or by simply going more in depth with your coverage.

Everyone wants to believe they have a voice and an avenue to express it through. I believe viewers would appreciate the interaction they would gain access to when Old Media grows up. An example of this line already being blurred is a show you were a regular satellite feed guest on, Attack of the Show on G4TV. Although some things they try are gimmicky it never seems forced, it just seems 'fun'. As far as blurring the line with everyday news, substitute fun for being 'informative' and it will never come across as forced.

Good luck Natali, I can't wait to tune in.

[Jonathan]

"Don’t make the same mistake that 'old media' is making: Don’t use a tool or service just because it’s 'cool' or because everybody is doing it."

I would agree with Jose Luis here; the most gimmicky thing you could do is do what I have seen some newscasts do - the "look at us - we're using Twitter!" that comes across as desperate.

Social media like Facebook and Twitter give you an excellent sounding board - getting feedback on ideas, etc. Their strength is their immediacy. Use them to solicit follow-up questions for your on-air guests, for "man/woman on the street" quick opinions on the day's news. Don't overuse them, though.

[Brian]

I think you are being groomed to take a major news anchor position higher up in CBS. This really confirms that theory. Not bad for a kid from a forgettable city like Fremont, California.

[Terrence Cheek]

I^m a media head and what keeps me watching my favorite news broadcast and shows are good content, and the host. I haft to beleive that the host truly beleive in the content that their covering. An I also love it when the host is light on their feet example lay down a serious news story, but when a light and funny peice of news come through the cycle they are not afraid to have a smile and a laugh. An about the youtube and twitter stuff I find it very funny when I see these ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, excuse me Natali (Coughing very abruptly as I types) CBS, and Fox people say this you can follow me on twitter or write on my facebook board. Its like what!!! because we whom love this stuff and follow internet news, we who live on the twitters, youtubes, and facebooks of the world found these spots make them boom and boom, and then they swoop in with their suits like hay we know what it is lol. But for the peeps who know about it, its cool if they use the media.

[Jeffrey J Johnson]

1. It seems to me that most people do or would fall into the spiral of silence but the audience that you are polling here would be much more likely to be those who would want to interact. The big problem that I see here is that even if ten percent of those watching wished to interact during a live show would be unwieldy for even a moderately successful program. Unfortunately I work whenBOL and The 404 do their shows so have never been able to be in the chat room but you have seen how difficult it is to interact with them I am sure. Along with the large number of people actually wanting to interact seriously, keeping out the stupid comments would seem to be difficult. I can think of some things that could maybe be done but can not believe you or those around you would not have already thought of them. Having said all that I do think there are a large number of people who would like to interact.
2. Many people have a lot to say on the days' news but will have difficulty either expressing themselves succinctly or at all. They may also wish to get into a conversation as apposed to making statements. This may be a skilled that could be learned by those who participate but will definitely take time.
3. The ability to question the "facts" seems like my biggest want. I mostly listen to NPR and BBC for my news because they seem to at least attempt to show more than one side of a story. I also like that the people speaking seem to have an actual understanding of the stories they are covering.
4. Besides the normal, it takes to long to get the story out there, I repeat the above statement. I am not looking for people to give their interpretations of things but an understanding of the story is nice and maybe some context of the world events. The news stories that are reported are not done so in a vacuum but part of a much larger world and this needs to be addressed. Along with this is an appreciation that I am not an idiot, which is what it feels like "they" (old media) think I am. I do not claim to be up on all the world politics or the intricacies of international relations but I do not need things dumbed down for me either, challenge me a little.
5. Unfortunately gimmicks are just that gimmicks. While somethings can be come tools that allow for better interaction or greater understanding they are just that. Trying things out is fine but the most important tool for news broadcast is the mind of both the on air personality and the viewer.

The things that do make it more interesting is the intelligent analysis of stories. Having a point of view is human, hiding the point of view and disregarding an intellect opposition is where I have the issue. Bring us intelligent reporting and discussions on the stories, those are the important things.

You have let out little snippets every now and again that indicate to me you do think about things deeply and would love to hear your thoughts, the more intelligent a discourse we have out in the world the more people may think in something other than sound bits. Have smart people whose opinions are different than yours but will actually discuss them, include the audience to bring out points that you may have missed. A must, I feel, is that an environment must be fostered where every sentence is not carved in stone. In a live show that is reporting news, what one thinks about a subject will come out and it is appropriate that it should but as such things will come out where opinions will change, which is only right. We, both you and the audience, have to allow for this to happen there must be a dialog and as such what is though will evolve and no one should be punished for thinking one way and than have their thoughts on a subject changed.

[John McMillion]

Hi Natali,

"What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?"

My dream broadcast would go like this. A news segment on say, the California state budget, is aired. Arnold says, we're going to have to make some cuts in education, health care, etc... Those keywords trigger a semantic-based pop-up, I can interact with, and when expanded, show aggregated data with a 10-year history on the budget.

Charts showing what the budget for each area has been, so I can see if the levels were raised thanks to all the property tax revenues from the housing boom and are now just needing to be re-adjusted to pre-boom levels, or are in fact being cut below their historical trend lines. Then I can add other metrics such as average test scores for education spending, percentage of health care costs compared to the overall budget, or even Freakonomics type correlations. Micro and macro levels. Data verified from at least 3 authoritative sources and studies.

Basically, if you were in President Obama's shoes, and wanted to know something for sure, here's what people would give you.

All of this to information to provide the most accurate, objective picture, free of self interests. Then, have at least 2 experts on hand to debate both sides of the issue, continually drilling down, pulling out nugget after nugget of aggregated goodness.

['Zooks]

1. How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence?

That depends on the show, the personalities, and the audience - BOL makes it very easy to interact, for example, the show is like a comfy couch in a local cafe where friends show up to chit chat and drink entirely too much coffee.

Would I want to do that with Dan Rather? Yeah, not so much.

2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?

Should a viewer have any say?

I look at it this way, if I want specific stories, I have endless options to choose from, everything is a google away. (If I may use that as a verb). What makes a show good to me is a broad mix of stories - talk about the big stuff, and then surprise me with something I've never known about, or know little about, do it with passion and personality, and I'll be there every time.

Take, for example, our pal Molly Wood. It's not that I agree with her when she gets ranty, but when she does, she's generally well versed, has a strong opinion to start from, and clearly *cares* about what she's talking about.

I would'nt want to watch a show that features you just covering "whatever" stories, Natalie, or trying to please everyone by covering whatever the most vocal (and usually insulting) minority demands. That, i feel, would start the spiral of silence.

I would want to watch a show that has stories that interest *you*, what gets *you* fired up over, good or bad - and cover it and discuss it in *your* style. That, I will tune in for every time. (Pluralize that if there are more hosts planned)

Neal Stephenson is a cyberpunk author, but he wrote a story for Wired about laying trans-pacific telecommunications cables, that was one of the best features they ever had - it was superbly written, well researched, and clearly something he has a passion for.

I would never have asked for that story. And I'm damned glad I read it!

Besides, in today's short attention span world, you'd never get anywhere trying to let the viewer shape the content - it would change hourly, if not worse. You should define the show, not us.

3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
Links to the deeper story, more in depth coverage (not dummied down for the 10 o'clock news), and a feeling of community. Local news, if that's what I'm looking for.

4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”

Banners everywhere, an overwhelming and oppressive advertising presence, obvious scripts and a clear lack of any knowledge or care from the talking head, corporate and governmental censorship, and bias.

5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?

No. Gimmicks are just that, and best left to the hacks. If you bring to this new show what you bring to BOL, you won't need gimmicks - although they may be fun to play with from time to time.

Bring us what you always do, with passion and energy, and leave the gimmicks to those who have to scream and shout and pull stunts to get attention.