How did the audience respond. Did they give you any feedback per what you had said. I think you are right on.

Good advice on hyperlocal.

When I see locals swarm national events or distant disasters that have nothing to contribute to their local audience beyond "we were there" and "here's locals who were there" I know they're just cutting their throats in the end. Blogs let the locals speak for themselves and share experiences unfiltered and in a conversation between comments (ie. take requests), which no 2:30-spot squeezed between fancy graphics intros can manage.

My impression of the main news media is that they still do not truly understand that we have entered the Information Age and left the Industrial Age. Many of them still have their mindset based on events prior to 1989 (the fall of the Berlin Wall and demise of the U.S.S.R.). The news media (TV and print) are going to under go significant changes and they denigrate those who are leading the way at their own expense and ignorance.

Wow Alan, that was terrific! Congratulations on being invited, you are actually MSM, no? I too wonder, how was the reception?

I'm a 'maven!' (lord knows, I've been called worse!)

I think the speech was nothing short of brilliant. I bet most of them ignored you.

Excellent analysis. A shot across the bow. Perhaps the MSM will start to understand that the "Law of the Blog" rules in this new century. I wonder how long it will take for the gatekeeper society to get the message. As Dan Rather should surely understand (unless he is a total blockhead) biased and untruthful journalism will be shredded in plain view of the world in a matter of minutes (not hours, days or weeks.)

What a great summary of a fast moving target.

What blogging does is compress the news cycle from 24 hours (at best) to ten minutes. I am constantly amazed to read stories from MSM which somehow seem familiar only to realize I had read the same content three days before on a blog.

Part of the success of blogging lies in its ability to swarm a story or an issue; but another huge part is that bloggers have practiced using the resources of the 'net, a lot.

In the Canadian blogosphere we have just gone through a little storm of threatened litigation. You can read about it here. A chap who is a former Prime Ministerial assistant and practicing lawyer was stared down by the pyjama clad simply because we had very much better access to information, legal resources, his prior track record of threatening litigation and, for that matter, the jacket copy from his various books.

The matter arose and was settled in a little over 48 hours.

Very well put. I hope it does some good.

How did they respond to the slide with Saddam leering at Edwards?

Just wanted to elaborate on the comment made above about the recent controversy in the Canadian blogosphere.

The chap who was making the legal threats is a prominent commentator and pundit in the mainstream TV and print media, in addition to his other roles. His career in the mainstream media was already well established before he entered the blogosphere.

The results of this controversy serve as a warning to mainstream media and their relationship to the blogosphere. If they are thinking they can annex or take-over the blogosphere, or even try to brow-beat it into operating according to their principles, they are gravely mistaken. In fact, if they try to do so, they may suffer irreparable harm to their public careers, which appears to have happened in this case.

I'm not sure the MSM will be able to make the adjustment. The basis for their business model - nay their very existence - is competition. Who can scoop whom? Who is the first to enlighten the masses. Who can bend the will of lesser beings to their own ideas. Above all else, who can deliver the most eyeballs to their advertisers.

The fundamental property of the internet is cooperation. That does not square well with any of the above.

That was terrific!

First of all - an fabulous talk, and I hope it stimulated some braincells a AP. Sapper6 in a comment above mentions the period between the fall of the Berlin wall and the fall of the Soviet Union. Yet that very time period may have been the birth of the information age as we talk about it now. PBS, of all people, began to offer Vremya (Time) the prime Soviet daily newscast available throughout the USSR with instantanious translation into English. I remember Gorbechov going to the Baltic countries and begging them on bended knee not to leave the Soviet Union. In a symbolic but yet a very real way this was a "tvlog" - we were watching offical Soviet TV trying to report the positive side of what anyone could see was the coming end of the USSR. As a postscript, my wife is Ukrainian from eastern Ukraine where Russian is the primary language. We are able to pick up 4 Russian language TV stations via satellite and one of them is Moscow Kanal 1 - and their prime news show is Vremya - little changed from the late 80s and early 90s - even the theme is the same.

I've got some related thoughts here. I think a good deal of the disconnect is a failure of the media to consider themselves a part of the story. The profusion of voices will force them to change this, but it need not have waited until the internet.

Brilliant thoughts. Well done.

About ten years ago, I read comments by a senior editor of a major newspaper and he was saying, in public!, that it was important that people like me get their news from a paper like his because, otherwise, we would all read what we wanted to read and not the topics that he wanted us to read.

The guy was totally serious--like, everyone knows that ordinary idiots like me cannot be trusted to choose the "correct" topics to read. We need to be "handled" like the ignorant children we are.

From that day forward, I have never subscribed to a major newspaper, or magazine. I choose my news and the blogoshpere is my dream come true.

Screw the MSM to hell. They are evil.

There's one big clue about who is and who is not following the MSM. Watch the commercials attached to the evening news. If their chief sponsor is Depends, what's that say? Young viewers deserted Dan Rather, et al, a long time ago. I'm betting newspapers and newsmagazines have a similarly skewed demographic as well. Does anyone know what it might be?

No, I'm not into Depends yet, but I am entitled to the senior's discount at K-Mart and the drool plate special at Denny's.

Very well done, Alan. I have addressed that group myself, and they do need these insights. You gave them quite a bit to think about. I found your points about flow very useful.

But I'm a little surprised you didn't mention the newspaper industry's insane linking and registration policies, another area where blogs have a distinct advantage.

Interesting juxtaposition/coincidence: After reading this article, I started perusing the election 2004 page... and was attracted by the "Bag News" advertisement about the NY Times giving Kerry poor photo opportunity.

I wanted to comment on it, badly. Here at the command post -- because you guys are my social network.

I've wanted to do this before for advertisements the Post has had.

I think it's an elegant demonstration of the psychological principles that drive blogging, and neatly demonstrates Alan's point about mavens/connectors/whatever.

Any chance we can get "Comment on this advertisement" pages? Or is that too bizarre?

Excellent analysis! I find it most interesting that swarming on the global info grid results in truth. That greater participation so effectively resolves dissenting opinions and seemingly irreconcilable facts. Who would have guessed it?

Old media has long thrived on swarming, but with different results. And for different reasons. Instead of truth, old media swarming produced emotional distortions. Although not at the core of any big media business plan, the ability to produce emotional distortions is very profitable. So much so that the old media became brokers of emotion instead of brokers of facts that lead to truth. So much so that the old media rates itself near entirely on the buzz a story generates. They even go so far as to insist that story itself is more important than the facts. That even if the facts are false, phony, and clearly contrived to further deceitful purposes, the buzz must be served. Gotcha journalism, tabloid screaming, shock jock radio, and the Madonna rush to cross the edge of civility in all forms of broadcast content have one interesting characteristic. They create and feed emotional buzz. Civility and truth be damned.

Hang with any media klatch and you'll be stunned at how obsessed they are with the carrier frequency of any tidbit, story, or clip. All they care about is how many news wires, networks, broadcasts, or news services pick up the bit and replay it. Instead of an obsession with facts and the clear capture of events, we get noise. The higher the frequency of replay, the louder the noise, the more important the buzz. And whatever you do in the old media, make certain that you're not a buzz killer. Facts can kill the buzz. So the seriousness of the allegations quickly becomes more important than the facts which might lead to the truth. The means of using forged documents to bring down a war time president is secondary to the ends.

High frequency leads to feverish emotions. Old media uses the emotionally induced argument of public concern to justify their obsession with feeding the buzz even as the facts start to eat away at the charade.

At the end of the day the old media can best be described as being caught in an echo chamber of their own making. An echo chamber that used to be very profitable and powerful. Media moguls, flame throwing reporters, and influential editors were all part of the king maker machinery. Big networks had inordinate influence over small market participants. And they used this influence to further their power even more. The money and the power. The power and the money. Intoxicating beyond belief. OJ, Martha, Princess Di, and Watergate. What a legacy. Mother Theresa died a few days after the tragic accident that killed Princess Di. And the story of a Saint that lived her life in loving service to the tragic dregs in mankind's wake is lost in the winds of a story that could be pumped and buzzed to an unprecedented emotional frenzy of romance, glamor, wealth, intrigue, gossip, deceit, murder, and misfortune. I for one do not mourn for a moment the end of forced immersion in all OJ all the time media frenzy.

The global platform of universal access and exchange, the Internet, is the one distribution / participation network these old media clowns can't control. They don't get to turn up the noise or throttle down the buzz. The Internet is bigger than the biggest old media conglomerate. Where shouting louder and longer used to build emotional frenzy that would immediately translate into money and power, old media voices seeking the buzz are now resolved against global voices that seek the truth. The discussion has been joined. I agree with Alan, old media information brokers have been disintermediated. We peasants with pitchforks, demanding to have our say, are having our way. And that's a good thing.

ge

Jay,

That's a good point about the registration and link policies of MSM websites as it makes evident the difference between MSM and blogosphere. Newspaper and network websites are all about drawing readers in, to view their content (and advertising) not about truly disseminating information. In comparison, the blogosphere (despite our obsession with page views and the coveted Instalanche) really isn't interested in getting readers in so much as getting the story out. But this raises interesting questions about the economics and sustainability. What will the effect of RSS feeds and aggregators be on the still small but growing trends of Blogads, and will that promising revenue stream dry up as technology defeats it before it can mature?

Great speech. How does your analysis accommodate the deeply researched article, sometimes occupying an investigative reporter for weeks or months, in the context of "fast", etc.

Do you draw a distinction in the MSM between print and electronic journalism?

My question isn't what is the impact of blogs now and in the future, but instead, what new development will make bloggers obsolete. Where do we as bloggers need to go to keep ourselves at the forefront, rather than eventually becoming just another cog in the MSM that fades out before the light of a new medium?

Another update on the Canadian blogosphere controversy described above (if anyone's interested).

The MSM pundit who was threatening litigation against blogosphere members has now suffered permanent career damage. What started as an effort on the part of blogosphere members to defend each other, continued into a group dissection of the pundits past record on the blogosphere. This turned up evidence that he was trying to spin a smear campaign in the blogosphere to undermine a judicial tribunal he will soon appear in front of. As the man is an accredited lawyer, this is very, very bad.

Moral of the story. If you're MSM, don't piss off the blogosphere, bad things will happen to you. You can read about it here

Old Alan: "Great speech. How does your analysis accommodate the deeply researched article, sometimes occupying an investigative reporter for weeks or months, in the context of “fast”, etc.

Do you draw a distinction in the MSM between print and electronic journalism?"

I know from my own experience that the rise of blogs as netcentric distribution points of examined thought, personal opinion, and news fact-checking has only made me more likely to pay for print media of high quality.

I pay for high speed internet and cable television only because I crave information. I recently paid for a print subscription to Commentary because I want more of that in depth slow coverage to compliment the high speed news cycle that sustains me. I think the elimination of the buzz pushers and the old gatekeepers creates a strong market for serious quality journalism. I buy more books because I am exposed to much more of life than I would have been with the old gatekeeper systems. I buy more independent music because p2p has given me more to like which I would never have experienced. I will continue to buy print journalism as long as it deserves it, and the junk which Rather is so fond of defending can wither for all I care.

The rise of blogs and free culture will increase profit for those best able to sort information and present it in a way that makes us want to reward them, rather than fighting to keep us captive. Commentary won't be the last publication to benefit from me because of that.

Jay ... good point; one I neglected to make. Those policies are yet another inhibitor to fast in the face of the flow.

Old Alan: I think those pieces may be the "sweet spot" for the industry going forward (along with deep local coverage).

Yasha, I think, raises the important point, one I'll discuss more in my reflections post (coming up ... maybe tonight): but I think newspapers have it entirely wrong in thinking the game is about advertising revenues.

I think it's about SUBSCRIPTION revenues. If they were to REALLY differentiate and add value in a new economy model, they should be thinking not of subscription as something to pay production costs that ads don't cover, they should be thinking of it as ADMISSION (ala the WSJ and HBO).

I said to more than one Managing Editor in Louisville: "If you want to figure out how to add more value, charge $3 a paper ... what would you have to do for people to be willing to pay that kind of charge ... not as a subscription, but as ADMISSION to your content and online experience?"

Most didn't get that, but I think it's the central issue. The WSJ (and TOTAL FARK) is the wave of the future: specific content with enough value-add that people are willing to pay for it.

A novel concept for MSM: Make $$ by charging for what something is worth, rather than by promising visibility of third-party messages ...

Alan:
I suggested that we invite you to the APME conference based solely on the uniqueness of your site. I had no idea you were a management communications consultant/expert. Your speech was brilliant. I knew, intuitively, why blogs are good and why we MSM types should embrace them (such as I do here and also here), but I didn't fully understand the theory behind that. Now I do.

Thank you so much for coming and for the insights. And thanks for posting this speech. It enables me to send it to everyone who wasn't there who needs to hear this message, and to reinforce the message to those who were there.

I sent this link to the folks at Poynter.org, the journalism think-tank website, and they mentioned it here.

Thanks again.

Gullyborg, I think the biggest threat to blogs is that we depend so much on the same media that we are a threat to. We need to further develope the skills and contacts that will allow us to actually be the SOURCE of the news and events we publish. We need to get into the Whitehouse Press Pool and other places that are still the realm of the MSM.

While doing so, we need to avoid the same traps that the MSM likes to fall into (selling our souls and skills to advertisors, registration required to even read a posting, etc). We also need to avoid (at least some of us) the temptation to "mainstream" our offering. I really don't want or care about Brittony's latest breakdown marriage, or Jacksons love tryst. We need to stay a relevent and accurate source of news.

I think the MSM will probably become more and more irelevent to the consumer, while providing thier skills to gathering and distributing newsfeeds. Unfortunatley, I think they will still not get it. The news that they offer will be fairly high quality, but still slow and expensive to boot.

Excellent speech. It's funny because in '94/'95 I worked w/Reuters and was explaining to the board of directors that the long term consequences of the Net would materially impact the news organization. That even w/all of their infrastructure in place and their sophisticated editorial systems and worldwide network, the Net would soon change all of this and enable centralized clearing site for people to report on events in real-time. At the time, I didn't think it would take 10 yrs for this to happen ;-) The Law of the Fast however, indicates that it's only a matter of time before the news feed providers start getting challenged in similar ways as the newspapers.

Fascinating speech, providing some solid terminology for many evolving issues.

One thing that I didn't see you mention and that I'd love to get your take on is the issue of perception, or accepted-truth.

Yes, the entire Web ends up acting as editors and fact checkers, but there is still a period of time in which "facts" can be posted, read and taken as truth that are completely wrong. If that spreads enough, the fact-checks don't always undo all of the damage that occurs for any number of reasons (from people choosing to stick with the version they prefer in the face of contradicting information to people who read the first post and simply haven't returned to get the updated information).

I guess part of the disconnect that I'm worried about is the readers, particularly those that aren't yet hooked into the new, faster cycle. The majority of people in the U.S., much less the rest of the world, are not truly on the Internet, and while those who frequent or have blogs may understand this update-cycle nature of information, those people don't. Heck, they get confused at the idea that the AP will update a story as the story evolves.

Again, I'm glad the APME invited you, becaue traditional journalists need to be thinking about what you're talking about, if they're not already.

Yo, Alan, you know I loved the speech...I hope you could tell by my reaction. But...um...I thought we were getting insight into the event as well...would love to know more about their reactions.

From Ken's comments though, we can see it was well received. Smarty pants. ;-)

..the future looks marvelous..but it takes a special mind to grasp its change and adapt..if not you play catch up or get left behind..might not be Bill Gates..but I can see a bright future.. cutting edge is where the blodsphere is right now..but tomorrow ..your imagination is the only limitation..one mans ceiling is one mans floor..outstanding work..

While I agree with just about everything in the speech (and for those who are amazed at the Law of Many, read The Wisdom of Crowds), I wonder if we can measure the impact of this sea-change on how informed our electorate is.

Currently, the fact is that viewers of Fox News (and Republicans in general, it turns out) know less about the world than consumers of other media choices. (misleader.org.)
U.S. citizens in general score low (although not as low as they did two or three years ago) on knowledge of world geography, and other basic topics.

This correlates roughly with the decline in readership of daily newspapers in the U.S. and the rise of TV, cable TV, and the Internet.

Will the rise of the self-correcting blogosphere and its power to influence the rest of the media result in a measurable increase in the accuracy of beliefs held by the electorate?

Good speech -- informative, concise and original.

A major concern (riffing off the previous comments of "eli" and "Michael O") is a lack of blogger self-awareness. Most people don't write or read blogs for many reasons, i.e., they do not have the technology, the time, or the taste for the diary/bulletin board format. The self-selection of people who like this media probably selects other characteristics as well, as it does in any group be they music fans, hobbyists, or political parties. These characteristics will slant what is reported. Bloggers are not necessarily leftist or rightist, but they will be like other bloggers. Of course, it is hard to look at oneself objectively...it will be a good field of study for some graduate student!

Michael O, I googled "misleader.org" and found that it is a MoveOn.org front. As such, they are less interested in facts than in providing ammo for Bush-bashing.

So I can't buy into your argument that "the fact is that viewers of Fox News (and Republicans in general, it turns out) know less about the world than consumers of other media choices."

Any other thoughts?

I disagree also about the lack of technology or intelligence of the republicans. All of my republican friends, myself included are VERY computer savvy. I distrust the MSM because its very premise is decietful and corrupt. Big business owns big media = Stories with bug business spin attached .... ALL the while your mentally held hostage to their commercially advertised machine. I am SICK of being "marketed to"