New media and old media aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, as I’ve pointed out many times, quite a few Big Media companies are having quite a bit of success with new media. Viacom and News Corp. are two shining examples.

When it comes to blogs, again, I never stated that there wasn’t a market for blogs and Web 2.0 services in general. My position is that the market is, for the most part, significantly smaller than what Web 2.0 proponents believe it is.

Regarding my points: these are figures provided in the State of the News Media 2008 report and I think you’re reading far too much into them.

The first point simply highlights that, while blogs are a hot “meme” and many believe them to be having a significant impact on the way news and information is reported, the number of people reading them is smaller than one would expect given the amount of “hype.”

For instance, there has been significant talk about how much influence some political bloggers exhibit. Yet Harris Interactive found that 56% of Americans don’t read political blogs at all, and only 1 in 5 reads them regularly.

This does not marginalize political blogs. They are what they are. What it does demonstrate is that, for all of the discussion about the impact of political blogs, for instance, most Americans don’t even read them.

In regards to the second point, while I’m not sure that USA Today is properly classified as an “entertainment” newspaper, let’s assume it is. If 3 of the top 10 newspapers are “entertainment” newspapers, that ostensibly means that 70% of the top 10 newspapers are “information” newspapers. If the research showing that 50% of blogs are read for entertainment is accurate, there is a 20% difference in this area between newspapers and blogs. And if 70% of the top 10 newspapers are “information” newspapers while only 15% of blogs are “information” blogs, there is a 55% difference in this area.

Obviously, this is a very rough and less-than-satisfying comparison (in my opinion), but I have no doubt that the general trends are probably fairly accurate.

Finally, of course you’re going to see a significant growth in blog publishing and readership since 2000. Internet penetration during this time has increased and the “market” for blogs developed after 2000. That tells us little more than, “Blogs have experienced rapid growth since their birth” which is true of almost any new “medium.” So what?

Here’s the context:

1. Blogs are an interesting phenomenon and they do have a place in the market. Their role in the market has been overhyped but this is to be expected as most new phenomena are prone to hype.

2. “Old Media” is embracing new distribution methods but this realistically won’t happen overnight. Blogs are a distribution medium. Their existence doesn’t inherently impact the way news and information are “created.”

3. As a commenter named Ken Luallen stated here:

“The web is a great distribution model but there’s very little actual reporting being done. Content on the web comes almost entirely from newspapers and TV stations, and those are dying. Every once in awhile a blogger comes up with a good tidbit of information – say, on a politician – but the legwork that actual *develops* the full story is done by old media. Blogs and websites have not stepped in to take the role of traditional journalists at all.”

My discussion of content production versus content distribution is relevant to this topic.

Thanks for your reply. It was stimulating as usual.

I’ll start this reply by addressing the “us vs. them” mentality. I don’t believe the new media vs. old media issue (for lack of better words) is “us vs. them” or a “zero-sum gain.” It’s seductive to think like this because everyone loves a good fight, but it’s just not true. As I mentioned before, new media can fill the gaps and create new spaces.

I have a subscription to the Economist (old media) which I love, yet I still read many blogs. Why? Because the blogs cover topics that the Economist doesn’t. Clearly, once we get past the “us vs. them” mentality, the opportunities are obvious.

I read your article “The democratisation of news media – another Web 2.0 myth” and was left thinking it was too soon. It’s too early and too easy to point at blogs and show where they fall short. You’re key points:

“- Research shows blogs and public affairs Web sites attract a smaller audience than expected.”

Who expected this number? What does this even mean? It would be more helpful and informative to show the total traffic generated by blogs, by year, since 2000. This will clearly show an increase in traffic, which is the point. Blogs are growing whether they live up to someone’s expectations or not; there is a need for blogs.

“- Nearly half of Americans who read blogs read them for entertainment while only 15% read them for news and information.”

Show the total number of Americans that read blogs, by year, since 2000. I’m sure these numbers are going up. Then, for each year, show how many read for entertainment. These numbers would provide more information.

Also, just look at the circulation of the top 10 newspapers. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html) 3 of the top 10 are “entertainment” newspapers (USA Today, Daily News, Inquirer). You’re applying a double standard; people like to read for entertainment, it doesn’t matter if they read a newspaper or a blog.

I say this with respect, but your article and the research it was based on wasn’t helpful because the information has little context.

To address the rest of your reply, I don’t think blogs or citizen journalists need to be profitable or mainstream to be valuable. If I write a post (even this reply), that’s read by 10 people and helps them, that’s a win. Because blogging is so cheap now, I and many others can continue helping people in small or large numbers. These numbers add up and fill in the gaps, no one blog needs to do this because many, collectively, can.

The old media’s distribution methods and their corporate structures are in trouble, but there is, and will always be, value in “professional” information. However, this info can always be augmented and enhanced by others.

Thanks,

Greg
SoUrban.net
beYOU.tv

Regarding blogs: outside of the technology space, I think you’ll find that blogs are a lot less popular than many technologists and bloggers think they are. You might want to read my post entitled “The democratisation of news media – another Web 2.0 myth.” It discusses the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s State of the News Media 2008 report. Two important highlights:

- Research shows blogs and public affairs Web sites attract a smaller audience than expected.
- Nearly half of Americans who read blogs read them for entertainment while only 15% read them for news and information.

Obviously, there are blogs that have great informational content but for the most part, blogs, especially those outside of the technology space, simply regurgitate news and content from the mainstream media. Some throw in opinion and frankly, much of that opinion amounts to little more than incoherent babble.

So what’s the solution? How can Web 2.0 be fixed?

The truth is that Web 2.0 doesn’t have a technology problem that needs fixing. What Web 2.0 needs is perspective. Instead of pretending that Web 2.0 services are the best thing since sliced bread and that Twitter, Digg, Facebook, blogs, et. al. are going to kill off Big Media, those involved with Web 2.0 would be served best by recognizing that, to use your words, some Web 2.0 services can “fill” certain “gaps.”

Many of these services will never go mainstream and many will have a marginal impact on the world at large; few of these services reasonably require large amounts of funding and even fewer fill billion-dollar gaps.

A healthy does of reality that helps Web 2.0 ideologues see the forest for the trees is what’s in order. Hopefully the economy’s impact on Silicon Valley will provide the perspective that’s needed.

I’m a fan, but I’ve gotta tell you, the anti Web 2.0 stance is getting old. Instead of telling us why Web 2.0 sucks, you should tell us how to fix it.

For example, if giving everyone a voice (blogs, Twitter, etc) is a bad idea, what’s the solution? Why did blogging become so popular to begin with?

Blogs are popular because they are hyper focused and fast. I get more, relevant info and opinion, from blogs (including this one) than from newspapers, TV and radio.

So what’s the solution? Old media clearly had gaps, which new media fills. That’s just supply and demand.

I also appreciate the irony of an anti Web 2.0 blog that features YouTube clips.

I’ll check back soon, I hope you reply!

Thanks,

Greg
SoUrban.net
beYOU.tv

You otherwise make some great points about romanticizing these technologies, but I think it’s really hard for someone so obviously deeply embedded and invested in the industry to realize that most people in the “real world” don’t actually know that much about Web 2.0 or care for the insulated world of, say, the blogosphere.

I think most people don’t really want to share/contribute to “the world”… they wanna groom & gossip with one another… viva facebook!