I am intrigued by exploring the origin of western journalism and its relation to modern journalism and its problems -- In Bettig & Hall, they talk about how journalism really started in the late 15th century in Venice when the printing press found profit in informing political and business elites up-to-date information about the market and political sphere -- in other words, it functioned a lot like the Financial Times today, a niche product that focuses on a particular group of people who derive personal benefits from such consumption -- these elites paid for the news then because the content was of utility to their daily lives...
But if we fast forward to the 21st century with the new news paradigm and the new targeted audiences (which evidently went from the political and business elites to mass audiences in the era of commercial journalism), it seems hard to argue that the general public would have the same kind of "needs" for what is now considered news to the point that it justifies and necessitates purchase. Just like what Logan and I discussed in class last week -- the problem, or one of the problems, with the news industry today is that it is trying to make people pay for something without people's knowing exactly "why" they should need the information that they are being asked to pay for.
Can "news needs" be cultivated? I believe so, but I think it would require the news industry to reevaluate what "news" means and what it is that the audiences lack. This is connected to Jarvis' discussion of Google -- Google listens to its audience's demands in every way possible -- both legitimately and sometimes even seemingly creepily; moreover, Google creates the kinds of demand and dependence that consumers have for its products at the price of zero (e.g., I can't imagine living without gmail nowadays even though I know Google creepily analyzes everything I write and receive in my emails to better figure out how to serve me 'useful ads') that it offers advertisers ample opportunities to reach and seduce us.
It may not be individual journalists' job to "listen" to what their audiences want, but I think it is the news industry's responsibility to figure out how to offer the kinds of news that is relevant and important enough to their targeted audiences to the point that they will be willing to pay for it --The news industry needs to stop blaming the audiences. Who in their right mind would be willing to pay for something that is not considered "useful?"
What are we? Product or customer?
Maybe it's time the news media figure this out...
--
p.s. Watch this clip that I think epitomizes how well Google "listens": http://youtu.be/dx-cX7W03RI
No comments:
Post a Comment