Tuesday
May262009
Thinking Macro
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 09:41PM
"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:
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!
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:
- How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence?
- How much does the viewer have to say about the days' news?
- What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
- What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as "old media?"
- 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!
Reader Comments (56)
Great questions, Natalie. Let me offer some insight from my perspective:
1. I want to interact with news that I get. When I hear something of interest, I want to share it with other interested people, but I really want to have a dialog with the people presenting the information. This is why I really like the BOL podcast. Your level of interaction with your user base is engaging. You present the news, then you discuss it. But you don’t stop there. You invite the consumer of your show to chime in with opinions and expertise that they may have. I think this adds to the value of the show. Additionally, I believe your spiral of silence reference is somewhat relevant, but limited in scope due to the relative level of insulation the Internet offers. Fear of reprisal is not as acute when people just don’t know you.
2. I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at here, but I think it depends what content you’re talking about and what motivates each viewer. I like to engage in conversations and debates on topics of interest to me. I tend to skim over other things that are of limited interest.
3. I think viewers want to trust that what they’re getting is the whole truth, without bias (to whatever extent that’s possible), and they want to feel like they can contribute in some way. I watch lots of political news and not one source is considered unbiased. I wish I knew of a source that gave me all sides of an argument and let me decide what side I want to come down on. Also, I’ve tried contacting these show host/commentators (Rachel Maddow, for one), and have never gotten any acknowledgement that my note was even received. I know these shows can’t read every email personally, but I don’t see any effort. I want to feel like the user is important.
4. I dismiss a broadcast as “old media” if it doesn’t try to engage the user in some way. That could be a Facebook page, Twitter @Replies, or even email. if the host/commentator isn’t trying to interact with users via that medium, then they’re just using it as a stage prop and it’s worthless.
5. If, by Gimmick, you mean the claim to the use of new media without embracing the benefits it offers, I think savvy users are put off by that. It’s viewed as un-genuine. However, I don’t think that embracing and leveraging of new media in otherwise traditional broadcast is gimmicky. It’s important for traditional broadcast to evolve as the viewer evolves because if they don’t, we’ll find other ways to consume our news.
I think this is an important topic and I think it’s noteworthy that you are addressing it. If Twitter and Facebook and FriendFeed and Digg and any of the other social networks are any indication, people want to be involved in ways that were not possible 10 years ago. We’re just looking for a news outlet that’s willing to make that available us. I watch MSNBC because I like the content, but I’m not happy with their level of interaction with their users. If you and CBS (presumably) are going to leapfrog them in terms of embracing the ‘new media,’ I will consider switching. I like to offer insight where I can, ask questions where I must and generally help the conversation move in directions that may increase the value of the show. Any network that offers me such opportunities will win major points in my book.
A great idea would be to have an option to view the broadcast in an Adobe Air App., simple, easy to install, and it floats, so the view will be able to check email, facebook, etc. Subtitles would be a great idea also, as well as "Key Ideas" (i.e. N Korea restarts nuclear plant) clearly displayed on the lower third title bar.
*Local News* and introduce commercials after a few months, attract viewers before they're chased away by annoying commercials.
This is the last idea for now...Archives, keep interesting segments, that are clearly "tagged" and easy to find, so the viewer can share clips s/he thought was interesting--thus attracting new viewers!
-Current events
-Round table discussion about a topic (not politics) use Skype for guests or in house.
-Comedy - example: fark.com
-Parity - spoofs of silly news. or just silly news.
-Don't cover the "Typical" main stream news. There is so much more that goes on and is worth reporting.
One more thing.
Keep it simple. To much fluff turns off viewers.
I think that it would be great to have a news source that is not a talking head from a major broadcast company.
1. My opinion is that the viewer wants to interact with the news in a way that they can somewhat shape it to their interests while still leaving room for general news. This means having seperate sections available for topics such as Tech, Economy, Special interest, whatver, etc, and one available that has all the stuff in it. I dont think viewers will be scared to voice their opinion becuase they will have no repercussions from it other than a few twitters or emails about it.
2. The viewer has a lot to say about what happened in today's news because if it is interesting to them then they will share it with their friends and the news will propagate through the network of people. I don' think they have much to say to the broadcaster because they know the broadcaster will filter or take their feedback out of context if it even airs (this is the case with traditional TV broadcasts...)
3. I think if the viewer is watching the broadcast they are getting at least most of what they want out of it or they wouldn't be watching.
4. The things that make a web savvy person dismiss broadcasts as "old media" (ugh, these *** media terms are getting annoying) is the lack of a guaranteed ability to give feedback on their opinion to the broadcaster and get their voice heard. This is dismissed as old media because it is one way. One way news will eventually die out as people want to get their voice heard. A good example is Newspaper vs Buzz Out Loud. Newspaper has a few small handpicked letters that they put in their letters section. By contrast, BOL has at least 20% of the show devoted to listener feedback and discussion of the listeners opinion.
5. I have come to the conclusion that people dont really give a care about "new media" crap that is shoved into archaic television broadcasts. The TV station says "Follow us on Twitter" but it is just another avenue for broadcast.
I would love to have another show with interesting stuff like you described in your post, and espescially with great personalities like Molly (awesome rants!) to add some zest (sorry couldn't think of a better word) to the show. There are some shows that are good like loaded or TWiT or BOL and there are bad ones like "The feed" from g4 (Talking head alert, with 'hot girl' for initial viewership) that are basically the same as the kindle voice reading the newspaper to you (some of them have fatiguing voices like that too). I hope your forthcoming show will be a good one!
--amddude
I forgot,
Try to uncover stories that are not widely reported, stories that can make a difference.
I usually read the same story about 10 times in a day from all my newsfeeds and I’m sick of it by the end of the day, but I would probably like to know more details about that same story (that usually go unnoticed and don't get reported). Case and point: Your Loaded take on the whole Ghost app for the DSi, I loved that! Everyone reported about it today, but you were the only one that actually made me laugh and smile about it and in the process showed me how it actually works. You made me smile with a story about frightening ghosts around me, no less!
I want to learn something from my news and most importantly, I want to know how it affects me and my way of life and also, why not guide us in ways how we can contribute to solve a problem reported in the news. New media tools are perfect for this.
That would be true interaction: Not just commenting on the news, but actually being able to do something about it and making a difference. (granted, we won't be able to achieve world peace, heck even Sandra Bullock couldn’t do it!), but we can definitely make a difference in so many ways: Online petitions, supporting a cause, making a donation to something, even having the answer to a problem. We would use new media tools for all that.
How many times have you seen something reported on the news and you wanted to do something about it? If you had the means to interact and get your message across to the other party, wouldn’t you be more likely to do something about it and get more involved?
I’m not saying that this should be a everyday thing (maybe, who knows), but definitely your core audience is very vocal and involved in the things we do and talk about and you can definitely use this for a good cause or just to make us learn something new and that by the end of the day we are left with a smile our face and the satisfaction of knowing that we actually didn’t waste our time watching you and we got something from it (and who know, maybe we’ll watch it with our undivided attention instead of being on Facebook while we hear you in the backgound ;-) ).
It’s the wrong model, I’m sorry.
As you can abstract from the previous posts: a) no one cares what the layman thinks is newsworthy (dancing cats and American Idol comes to mind), and b) no one cares what the layman thinks about the news because they levy un-researched, uneducated, and unfounded accusations.
Try modifying the model: substitute the lay masses with experts. Use instant messaging, Twitter, etc. with a massive network of well informed individuals. That would actually be useful.
I hate to be so cynical, but that won’t work either. What is the product being discussed here? The networks don’t sell information, they sell ads – as a result they only run stories and comments that titillate or placate the average American.
I feel like I'm back in college writing papers but here goes.
Question 1 & 2:
I think everyone innately participates in anything that they find they are somewhat knowledgeable about or have a strong opinion about. Your 1st couple of questions reminds me of when we were all back in class and the professor explains a topic and asks for a reply. If you think you the have concept you give it a try and I hope you answer it the best you can. We choose if we want to participate or not but the difference now is that the pool of ideas is much larger.
Question 3:
Viewers want the information without all the hype around it so they can formula their own thoughts about without having to filter unnecessary junk.
Question 4:
For the web savvy news person, things that I think that may categorize it being old is seeming not stream lined. It is the age of the web where we want our information fast and to the point, if it takes too long to convey the message it we simply move on to something else.
Question 5:
I would say some gimmicks do have their place in liven up the way information is delivered but sometimes it can over shadow the news it's self. Remember the whole thing with the hologram projection during the elections? Everyone was more intrigued with how that was done then the information the correspondent was presenting. As long as the gimmick adds in the delivery of the information, I don't think it's not that bad off.
Well, hope this helps and doesn't confuses you more. Man, I'm glad I didn't get essay questions from you when I was in college, they are really tough. I can see why you have been racking your brain about it.
Take care and Good luck, hope you find the answer you are looking for...
A truly interactive news show is one that allows users to both create and consume content. Current TV does this pretty well, with amateur reporters producing their own segments and the community voting on which segments make it to broadcast.
You can also read comments/questions on the air, take live calls, etc. But the real breakthroughs will come when the networks stop thinking of "new media" and "old media" as separate businesses and just focus on creating quality content across the board.
For example, when CNN covers a big event, they use their top anchors on the TV channel, but their live stream has a bunch of "new media" people chirping about Twitter and "going to the blogs." It feels so gimmicky that I'm actually sort of embarrassed for the anchors.
(Tangentially-related rant: Instead of dividing their networks into "new media" and "old media" entities, news organizations need to think of their businesses as simply "content creation", "distribution" and "ad sales." It shouldn't matter how I get my news, only that I get it from [your network here]. Supplemental content is fine, but don't punish me for choosing one distribution medium over another.)
On your show, I'd like to see you report the news in a way that reflects how you discover it. If a story breaks on Twitter, give attribution to the user so we can follow them. Show clips from YouTube when appropriate, and allow the people you're reporting on call via Skype to share their side of the story.
It's going to take some experimentation to find a format that works for the audience without feeling gimmicky, but I have faith in ya!
Natali,
Here're the big problems with "old media" news/current affairs shows: they too often cover topics the audience doesn't care about; when they interview people, the presenters focus on the wrong questions from the audience perspective; and much of the analysis is biased, and based on "what people in the news room think" rather than based on any kind of meaningful data.
I think the big opportunity that new technology offers is to really understand your audience. If you're doing the show live, this could be especially interesting.
For example...
Let's say there are ten potential stories you could feature, but there's time on air to cover five - your audience could tell you which five they care about the most - in ranked order. So, this can help with the running order of stores, and how much time you spend on each.
Or if you're interviewing someone live, the audience could give you the authority to ask your subject the really difficult questions, "Well, Mr X, I have to tell you the viewers really aren't impressed with you not answering the question. Let me give you another chance."
Or, the audience could give you high-quality data for analysis of a major story e.g. play a video clip, and with clever software, allow viewers who register and fill in a profile on your site, to record their reaction on a second-by-second basis - e.g. keep pressing "1" during the video if you like what's happening; and keep pressing "2" if you dislike what's happening. So we could all learn what the public thinks of the details of a story, broken down by age, political leaning, sex, nationality etc. For example - "When Obama started talking about Korea, women really didn't like what he was saying, but they reacted more positively when they saw he was taking a strong stance." Huge amounts of valuable insights into a story could be possible with this kind of thing.
Obviously, what you're able to do here depends on budget, size of the team etc. You get the idea, though: the more you understand the audience; the more you take their views into account in terms of show content; and the closer to real-time you can react to the audience, the better they might like the show.
The corollary to all this, though, is that no-one is going to want to watch you reading through Twitter streams, or stumbling over trying to interpret real-time statistics etc. Not only is that gimmicky, it's also uninteresting. So, for this kind of thing to work well, I think you'd need someone to do that in the background, and talk to you in your ear, and maybe prepare visuals. That way - you're informed of what the audience is thinking, while remaining focused on presenting to the audience. Not saying it has to be *super* slick, just not amateur ;-)
Anyways, that's my two cents...
Nothing like jumping in with both feet Natali!
1. I want to interact through delivery. In other words, if I want to watch a story online, I want to have options through the story to follow links, other stories or viewpoints on the same subject.
2. Truthfully, any time (especially on radio) a caller speaks, I tune out. If I knew I could expect an insightful well thought out comment, I would be interested. Unfortunately, most times this is not the case. A parallel would be the "man on the street" interview on the local news. The reporter does not want to dig far for an interview, as such the "interviewee" is the guy or gal standing there who just wants to be on TV, has nothing important to say, and can't believe their nice neighbor Jeffrey ate all of those people.
3. Timeliness. Granted more time goes in to putting a package together, but when it's ready, put it online. I know "they" want people to tune in at 6 or the top of the hour because of advertising dollars, but times are a changing.
4. See #3. Just because we have always done it a certain way, doesn't mean it is the best way to do it. Broadcast media delivered via the web should always be in true perpetual motion. In place of a talking head, you would have an app. The viewer would chose what is important to them and in what order to watch the stories.
5. Others have fleshed this out rather well. Although I rely on my feeds a lot, I have found myself using news tweets quite often. Mostly because the print media puts them out there immediately. I would like to subscribe to news topics like following someone on Twitter. For instance, if I want to follow every story about "North Korea", I would follow the "North Korea" stories. As soon as a NK story pops up, I'm notified via Twitter, email, homing pigeon, or whatever...
Good luck!
Mike
Test
First off, wow! That's quite a project you're working on there. Second, I wish you all the luck in the world with it.
I've read a couple of the comments (too many long ones to finish them all) and it seems you'll have a whole load of healthy opinions. All I can say in response to your queries (and forgive me if they have be already stated):
1) Viewer participation is simply the way of the future. I don't see the whole media dynamic so much as "old vs. new" unless it's a circumstance where a media group actively works against the changing landscape instead of trying to adapt to it.
All of these new social vehicles that allow news providers/media groups great ways to get a quicker response from their customers and tailor their products for them. The problem I think is that these news providers are no longer providing their viewers with much in the way of information and more in the way of glaze. There's no depth to a lot of reports. Media groups are not necessarily focused on informing their viewers so they don't have to focus on providing their customers with the same level of depth.
Viewer participation is vital for news providers to redevelop themselves into better businesses which can then try to better inform their viewers. News providers can only improve with smarter viewers who then in turn push the news provider to become a better company (ala a "circle of life" kind of deal).
2) I'm personally partial to roundtable discussions on a given topic. A problem with this is the current pundit network that goes on in the background where people, supposedly informed on a topic, are fighting to just get their face on the magical picture box. There's no reason roundtables cannot still exist but with actually informed individuals talking on a subject. I don't want to see another experience as I did last night: one of the cable news channels had on George Lopez to discuss President Obama's new Supreme Court Justice nomination. Both insulting and highly offensive.
3) Lastly--I think I answered your other questions above--there's nothing wrong with experimenting with "new media" gimmicks. Simply let the viewer know that you're experimenting to see how it works for yourselves and your viewers (see "circle of life" above). Just as long as you don't look desperate/pathetic in your gimmick choices (see CNN's holograms during election night).
I can honestly see what you're talking about as a sort of 21st Century 60 Minutes if it all comes together right. Remember the key is using smart technology to truly inform your viewers using truly informed individuals.
Well, I hope this helps out and good luck to you chica. Finding out about two Latinas advancing in society on the same day is always a great thing. Keep it up.
What an exciting prospect, already by asking an audience without calling for demographics you are engaging with a potential market and asking them what would they want, good start.
In the UK we have iPM (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/) on BBC Radio 4, it is a blog which generates discussion and leads and then it is a weekly radio show acting on what the blog has been talking about and greatly involves the audience. It is a BBC Radio 4 show which means it has an older demographic but they have all responded well to this. The reason for mentioning is I think they go some way to deliverying a show which meets audience questions, using technology and in a very welcoming manner.
I lived in the US for 3 years and would equate Radio 4 listeners to NPR, but the local station I volunteered at (KPMU) were barely on top of Podcasts so it would mean the main netwroks would need to do it. That means it will need to be more mainstream than I believe it needs to be. I feel that Twitter can bring the instantaneous nature of topics (like DIGG) to the broadcast, unlike the news which is old. Your gap looks to me to be the now - not what happened today, but what is happening now. This is exemplified by the Hudson plane, earthquakes and even that poor fella who was arrested in the middle east.
1. How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence?
Rather than having a must see show, it sounds you are wanting a 'background show'. It runs on meta brain listening similar to how I am listening to Man Utd being beaten by Barcelona while writing.
2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
There will be opinions which can be shared via numerous methods, but maybe they can be categorised or tagged and then % shown of the state of play, add some geographic data and it is already painting a differnet story to any old news networks. A story like our current politicians and their expenses would certainly get an opinion from the most retiscent viewer.
3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
Opportunity (but not need) to interact and share but in a more passive way than stopping life and picking up hte phone or taking an email. The benefit of text, twitter, skype etc, all lower the barriers to connecting and that is what can be utilised.
4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”
In my opinion some newscasts can be patronising, biased, ilinformed, edited and unnecessarily late in sharing the information. Tickers and overly graphic led stories are really not making the news any more interesting or effective!
5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?
As long as it is not the lead reason for the show, as identified by earlier comments, I wager your audience would be unphased with the use of "new media" and those who are not yet aware of it could be directed to a location for their definitions and not dumb anything down.
Good luck mulling it over, a new project is always exciting to get one up in the morning :)
Mark
First off, congrats on the pilot! That's pretty exciting.
I think your concern about using Twitter, YouTube, etc. being gimmicky is quite valid. My previous employer is a software company that contracts projects for small insurance companies. They’ve recently decided to start a Facebook page for marketing purposes, but I think that’s kind of pointless. I doubt most people on Facebook is going to care about a small software company and the target audience probably won’t even have a Facebook account. I declare epic fail on this idea.
Whatever you decide to do for your show, it has to make sense, and not forced. I think a lot of people would like the opportunity to be able to ask questions about a story. A lot of newscasts just give brief summaries. In most cases, that’s fine. Sometimes, it would be nice to be able to get more details and to be able to ask question, kind of like when you’re discussing a topic with your friends.
If used to add value to the show, I think it would work great. Of course, as with “old media”, you have to exercise a bit of caution so the pranksters don’t disrupt the show. Although media is about entertainment value, so maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Just not over the top like Jerry Springer. ;)
Best of luck! I'll be tuning in to check out the show when it comes out.
First off, wow! That's quite a project you're working on there. Second, I wish you all the luck in the world with it.
I've read a couple of the comments (too many long ones to finish them all) and it seems you'll have a whole load of healthy opinions. All I can say in response to your queries (and forgive me if they have be already stated):
1) Viewer participation is simply the way of the future. I don't see the whole media dynamic so much as "old vs. new" unless it's a circumstance where a media group actively works against the changing landscape instead of trying to adapt to it.
All of these new social vehicles that allow news providers/media groups great ways to get a quicker response from their customers and tailor their products for them. The problem I think is that these news providers are no longer providing their viewers with much in the way of information and more in the way of glaze. There's no depth to a lot of reports. Media groups are not necessarily focused on informing their viewers so they don't have to focus on providing their customers with the same level of depth.
Viewer participation is vital for news providers to redevelop themselves into better businesses which can then try to better inform their viewers. News providers can only improve with smarter viewers who then in turn push the news provider to become a better company (ala a "circle of life" kind of deal).
2) I'm personally partial to roundtable discussions on a given topic. A problem with this is the current pundit network that goes on in the background where people, supposedly informed on a topic, are fighting to just get their face on the magical picture box. There's no reason roundtables cannot still exist but with actually informed individuals talking on a subject. I don't want to see another experience as I did last night: one of the cable news channels had on George Lopez to discuss President Obama's new Supreme Court Justice nomination. Both insulting and highly offensive.
3) Lastly--I think I answered your other questions above--there's nothing wrong with experimenting with "new media" gimmicks. Simply let the viewer know that you're experimenting to see how it works for yourselves and your viewers (see "circle of life" above). Just as long as you don't look desperate/pathetic in your gimmick choices (see CNN's holograms during election night).
I can honestly see what you're talking about as a sort of 21st Century 60 Minutes if it all comes together right. Remember the key is using smart technology to truly inform your viewers using truly informed individuals.
Well, I hope this helps out and good luck to you chica. Finding out about two Latinas advancing in society on the same day is always a great thing. Keep it up.
1. How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence? As a online only viewer of television I would like all of the broadcasts I watch to be interactive and would not have any fear of voicing my opinions regardless of what others think.
2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news? I think the viewers have a lot to say about the days news, but I am more interested in the quality of what they have say.
3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting? I want more knowledge from the broadcast not just news. One podcast that does this simply but effectively is "Marketplace Whiteboard" from American Public Media. They explained the "Credit Default Swap" and its role in the financial collapse in a way many people could understand.
4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?” They do not offer an easy online alternate route to watching the full program like a podcast or stream, although it has been getting better. Even if they do offer a good online viewing experience the program is always delayed until after the television version has broadcasted.
5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast? I do not mind "new media" as long as it serves a purpose and is not just for show.
Lets be blunt shall we? Only use Twitter/Facebook/Youtube if it works. If you use it as a legitimate way of communication between cast and viewer than it will go a long way in progressing the effectiveness of the show. If you slap it on the screen it will be like that annoying friend that everyone secretly hates ( if you don't think there is one in your group of friends it's probably you :-) ) but puts up with them just because you know their not going away. Trust me, nobody wants that.:-)
Ahh, the "spiral of silence". Oppression in it's most passive-aggressive form. Treat the show like a beautiful woman. Make it accessible enough for the timid to comment/interact but keep the information flow open enough so that the bold won't feel restricted. Anonymous post/emails maybe? Twitter could work well with that because of the character limit.
Listen to the viewers. If something isn't working improve it or get rid of it. I myself as well as most of the modern tech generation disregard any form of useless info or tech that gets in the way of what we want. Sadly patients is not a virtue in today's society. Keep it simple to navigate. If your goal is to have people kicking back with a laptop at the end of a day getting their news fix don't make it complicated or over encumbering.
Speed!!! Find a format that runs smooth and dosen't take forever to load. Maybe break up the news cast into sections like a newspaper. Front Page, Sports, Tech... Anything that can get us to the info we are looking for faster.
Get entertaining news anchormen. I don't want to see a blank stare or a fake laugh. Find people that understand what their talking about so they can comment on the subject or add humor to it. I don't want someone giving me the specs and features on a second gen iPhone that can't figure out how to text.
Spice up the set. Nothing says "old media" like pant suits and fake wooden desks with small stacks of useless paper on top for the anchormen to mindlessly ( not to mention uselessly ) shuffle. A good rule of thumb is if you wouldn't watch/use it why would we. Youth is the demographic, play to it.
Creativity and usefulness is what's gonna make this work. That goes for both sides of the viewing spectrum. Keep an open mind to suggestions and tweaks. LISTEN TO THE VIEWERS FEED BACK!!!! I can't stress that enough.
more bookmarks of experts' blogs is what i want/need. so use crowdsourcing technologies (e.g., prediction markets) to identify experts who are then-unheralded, then showcase these folks. to get a feel for the possibilities skim moneyball by michael lewis a/o the wisdom of crowds by james surowiecki a/o, of course, crowdsourcing by ??
I think one of the major differences between the idea of 'old' and 'new' media is the fact that 'new' media is far more candid, off the cuff and far more human. The factors of initial and immediate reporting seem to encompass the characteristics of personal information.
To give example to what I mean by an analogy: Old media would be more like going to a giant arena, watching someone perform or speak or evangelize. It's a massive undertaking that has many and many of hands and effort to amass something huge and spectacular in every essence of the word. It holds more weight and far more grandeur and stands to be professional, structured and intense without ANY fault. It believes that fault is a major problem that will not be accepted. It is staunch, forceful, without remorse, and is cold and clinical in every sense. The soul and passion has been stripped out to appeal to every single person watching to the point that the people watching DO NOT really have a choice of whether to like it or not. It is what it has intended to be and will not waver, much like an old man in the 50s. He wants his meat and potatoes and will scream bloody murder if he does not get it. And that will put just about every person in that auditorium watching this gigantic presentation in that spiral of silence.
'New' media is far more agile. It's fresh and open and tiny. It's a whisper in your ear, it is a tap on your shoulder, it is there waiting for you when you want it and will give it to you in whatever style you wish. To continue the analogy it would be like meeting the person that is speaking on that huge stage, or that actor that said those lines, or sitting down with a director of a company, or any situation really whatever the individual may be a part of it. It is direct and it is intimate. Though it has it's polish, it really doesn't have to shoot to impress, rather just give the viewer what exactly they are looking for.
Think of this... the newspaper has select space for certain articles. Those articles need to be edited or bloated to the point where they must fill the space to pad the advertising. The same happens with television. Plus how many times have you seen an older reporter/presenter laugh or smile or show any sign of personality.
I think the new media is putting the human touch back into it. Much like you Natali, you will put in a quip here and there, and personally I enjoy that. Does it bias the material? Well...I suppose if people are weak minded sure. But isn't presenting them with a clinically washed and hard edged version of the news also biasing them into being uninterested and detatched from the stories at hand?
Frankly what people have to say about the news, this whole interactive social aspect of media, is really unimportant and usually breeds one of two things in my mind: Major disappointment in the status quo based on poor grammar, ignorance, and flat out nameless/faceless communication(which I will touch on in a second), and also massive frustration as flame wars break out from one second to the next. Should the user have control over the presentation? I don't think so. But I do believe there should be different formats in which the info is presented. If there is interaction it is fine, but to have an entire show based on interaction is somewhat frustrating as a viewer. Why do I want to be interrupted by some dork who knows sweet fuck all about any topic just because he was chosen by the producer to be put on air?
However if it is an interactive format that you're looking at then maybe you should look at perhaps having an interactive, immediate voting system built into the show. You could read off topics or subjects(perhaps even suggested by viewers, or maybe by specialists of the set topic), and then have the 'audience' vote yes or no, show the onscreen graphic, and have the reaction direct and immediate, and then discuss with some of those that pressed the yes or no buttons and see where the opinions are coming from.
The only person that gets off on having a say is the person who is saying it. Just because someone else says what I want to say doesn't mean I will enjoy the ingestion of their retort or point. But if I am included in an on-air voting system, you could debate TONS of subjects and people would definitely sign in to add their votes to the show, if not to interact in the discussion but also to watch their contribution be a part of something, to feel like they are a part of something. One single person can't make a difference without MASSIVE drastic measures. But democracy is a great tool. We know it. We embrace it...or try to...it's a lie anyway. But we really do enjoy having our say and feeling our say isn't just a tiny voice but a massive ROAR.
You could set the set up like a game show. Much like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? with the play at home on your own computer. Have two chairs on a glass floor with a light setup that has red and blue bars starting from under your seats and have them trail into the background and up the wall behind you with a large LCD readout showing percentages of yes or no and you could ask to tally and the light bars would creep along showing instant reactionary counts to the votes.
This way you could control your topics of discussion with yes or no(and even have a maybe or other bar in white and ask one or two of them why they said maybe if its pertinent). It would leave you open to disseminate the assholes, vulgar people, or people who are just plain egotistical and talk too much on one subject...much like I have here :| haha
Anyway... that's my idea.
Online live vote, subject controlled by your yes or no questions(have viewers write in too), have one specialist on the subject(say like Anna David on sex), and then have an immediate census on the fly shown in an exciting empowering way. Give people some control, and then talk to them through Skype or something after each reaction. Randomly talk to them, let them have discussions with the specialist, etc.
I think there are some things that 'old media' does well that I would like to see more of. 'Old media' is much better at analyzing news than 'new media' is (I am speaking generally, since there are plenty examples of TV news shows that do not analyze well at all).
I think if you took time to analyze the news and waited for a conversation to grow around a topic before moving on, it might feel a bit like an old media broadcast, but there would be a much better conversation to draw from. Once you pick through all of the comments and get to what people are really asking, then you will have quality content. That is what I want. I can get up to the minute news, but I have to really hunt for a quality discussion online.
As far as what is wrong with 'old media', is that it is to static. It is not portable. I can only get it on cable TV or only on the radio (with a few exceptions of course). And I cannot join the conversation. Even with call in radio, I don't have time to call in the second I have a comment. None of that is flexible.
That all being said, I think if you stay flexible and open to comments you are already a step ahead.
Hi Natali,
Been a fan of your show on CNET for awhile now. In answer to your query about "old media vs. "new Media" I can clearly tell you that as a viewer I am simply that. I cannot change the news, I cannot engage the news that is being fed to me. I can choose to get my news from a source or variety of sources I like. I like all the new technology that is out. I will not necessarily use it, but I like people to keep innovating and thinking of new ideas. I would like my news to be "news". Just like it used to be, non-biased and up to me to figure out what I think, rather than being told how I should feel. I think "news" as entertainment in the 24hr game has taken away serious journalism and keeps people on constant edge. It can be overwhelming to just listen to the news. Breaking news should be something serious, something to be made aware of. It should not be so and so celebrity is in or out of rehab. It should not be an over zealous fear inciting report on a killer flu that with common sense you will likely not get or be affected by. I have rambled on too much. Hope this helps on some level. Keep up the great work on BOL and your other shows.
Later,
JOe
Interesting and challenging because it's hard to avoid creating a newcast that is simply regurgitating information people already know.
I never had a great interest in Twitter, but gave in recently to see what the craic was. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but it seems like I get headline news with links to stories, and then the same headline with a link to the same story every 10 seconds or so. There are too many sources disseminating "news" by simply aggregating the work of others.
This seems to fly in the face of what I thought was the Twitter-effect - multi-way sharing of opinions and real-time updates of events/situations.
That's where I would aim for in a new newscast to set myself apart from 'old media' - multiple contributors, and real-time question and answer sessions between experts and the man on the street.
How impromptu could you make the show?
Could you follow the days hottest topics then line up people to share opinions (video, Tweets, email, phone, whatever) live on the show?
'Could you take burning questions at the top of the show and answer them or find expert commentators by the end?
Would this garner a faithful following of both information seekers and contributors?
Mix in some 'traditional' reporting on current affairs or pre-prepared reports and I think even I might be tempted away from Ultimate Dancing with the Idol on Ice!
Sorry, it's not double-spaced.
http://tinyurl.com/r2tqyn" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/r2tqyn
I do enjoy posting if I have an idea or comment. Feedback on comments can be rough but I am getting use to negative feedback.
I enjoy breaking news feeds and live video. I like discussions with groups like the CBS groups over live stream during the election with Katie Couric.
High Quality HD Video. I have the connection speed I get disappointed when it is not available.
I like video podcast with special guest and regular citizens who can be counted on to be reasonably responsible (not overly swearing)
I use Twitter Search to see what news is Breaking, trending topics. Maybe a show discussing Trending Topics, You could call your show Trending Topics
Natali you will do a great job just like you did with Loaded. I look forward to seeing you on CBS news. BOL (Best Of Luck)
Sincerely
Jimmie