Ten Things That Will Happen to TV and Newspapers

Grim view of the future but, who knows, you may be right. I'll be in the library, reading.

Sorry, but this is webophilia garbage. Media companies know how to survive in times of change - they've done it before and have so much at sake now that they'll do it again.

Asking "why pay for content when you can get it for free" is a silly question. You pay for content (by hiring journalists) because that's what builds news audiences. Even with lots of information available, people still need trustworthy sources of news. Blogs and Cit-J cannot do that.

The YouTubes and the Wikis will continue to do well but the growth of such sites is not having any effect on online news audiences.

Garbage.

I think it's a great view of the future, wrenching the control of information from the hands of a few corporate powers dominating all the TV, film and news now. We just need to stay on Congress to protect net neutrality. The web has created a type of local information sharing we lost as part of media consolidation and the free exchange of ideas is an amazingly powerful tool for change.

So 'recommenders' will be the new cowboys trotting out into uncharted goods and services and reporting back their experiences. Interesting.

In the past a story became news because someone sitting in an office decided that it was news. Now even the most obscure story can get international exposure. That's generally a good thing. The danger of this information marketplace is that an individual whose work doesn't have to pass an editorial review can release material that seems true but isn't. Whereas in the past such a person could only reach a limited local audience, now that person can get international exposure with little effort. Some of the people exposed to that information are not smart enough or driven enough to verify references and cross-check facts. Others simply don't care and will follow anyone who believes the way they do.

Papers will survive. They will adjust and become diversified over print, and 'net media.

TV news will do something similar.

Computers and networks enhance other media. They don't replace them. If papers are failing now, it is because there is a lot of change going on. It doesn't mean the entire medium will die.

There is no doubt that the landscape has changed. Blogs and other forms of user contributed news are having a big impact on traditional media. I don't agreee with everything in this article, but yes things are changing. Those traditional media sources that don't move with the times will get left behind.

The 2 items that really stuck out to me are:

4. What you know will become more a case of what can you believe and who else believes it too. Confusion and uncertainty will have an impact on social and political life.

When has it been any other way?

7. Television companies will go shock-jock, increasingly focusing on the bizarre and the celebrity as talent moves onto the web as part of the creatives-pool. But they have to compete with vlogs that can do shocking much worse and hence much better.

I think they other major type that will compute is someone is who completely credible and tells the truth. We could use more of these types and I think they would be wildly successful. This country craves an unbiased (or atleast attempts to be or explains their bias) news reporter who focuses on facts.