Great points all! One "competitor" factor I've been noticing: Politicians and companies and public agencies are now obviously their own "news" outlets -- they compete with us to get their spin out first on information to quite large segments of our communities through push notifications and emails. That's not good or bad -- just an interesting dynamic that has helped shape how we think about our landscape. Our mayor's office is our only real competitor now.
Completely correct that journalists need to account for 'competition' in a new way. I believe (through observation) that the competition is from consumer behavior. Generally, I see a squirt of news that then motivates a trail of bias confirming seeking and discussion. This overwhelms objective news. Exaample; There's some shooting. People start jumping to conclusions based on their prefigured preferences and that leads to discussions, more 'updates'. It's the confirmation bias on steroids.
My hot take is that if a news organization has shareholders, it is not committed to telling the truth. Independent outlets such as Meidas Touch and newsletter writers (yourself included) are the voices most Americans should trust. Sadly, our collective attention span is that of a gnat and few people are willing or able to peel back the headlines and sound bites to uncover what is really going on.
This is great!! I fully agree with the need to rethink and react differently to what the demand picture looks like for 'news' given the modern realities of information consumption and the choices available to the consumer.
I submit that a companion to this thought on the supply side is to broaden the idea of valid news supply from the present one, which I might very roughly describe as, 'journalists who have gone to J schools and who have worked for people with roots in identifiable (legacy) news businesses'. There is a brand new supply chain of information with millions of vibrant nodes, some amazing new capabilities, currently running rogue like a wild adolescent. What's missing, I believe, is the professional credentialing of that supply chain, as we might do with accountants and dentists to ensure a good consumer experience, rather than considering this new supply as "non-news" and trying to go back to an earlier definition of a news business. The credentialing and professionalization of these new information supply chains needs to be smart and attractive for the modern era. Some of those credentials will feel like traditional journalism ‘news professional’ credentials - but I expect some of it won’t.
(Also key to this is the alignment of platforms that deliver information to consumers, but that's another story).
Great points all! One "competitor" factor I've been noticing: Politicians and companies and public agencies are now obviously their own "news" outlets -- they compete with us to get their spin out first on information to quite large segments of our communities through push notifications and emails. That's not good or bad -- just an interesting dynamic that has helped shape how we think about our landscape. Our mayor's office is our only real competitor now.
Completely correct that journalists need to account for 'competition' in a new way. I believe (through observation) that the competition is from consumer behavior. Generally, I see a squirt of news that then motivates a trail of bias confirming seeking and discussion. This overwhelms objective news. Exaample; There's some shooting. People start jumping to conclusions based on their prefigured preferences and that leads to discussions, more 'updates'. It's the confirmation bias on steroids.
My hot take is that if a news organization has shareholders, it is not committed to telling the truth. Independent outlets such as Meidas Touch and newsletter writers (yourself included) are the voices most Americans should trust. Sadly, our collective attention span is that of a gnat and few people are willing or able to peel back the headlines and sound bites to uncover what is really going on.
This is great!! I fully agree with the need to rethink and react differently to what the demand picture looks like for 'news' given the modern realities of information consumption and the choices available to the consumer.
I submit that a companion to this thought on the supply side is to broaden the idea of valid news supply from the present one, which I might very roughly describe as, 'journalists who have gone to J schools and who have worked for people with roots in identifiable (legacy) news businesses'. There is a brand new supply chain of information with millions of vibrant nodes, some amazing new capabilities, currently running rogue like a wild adolescent. What's missing, I believe, is the professional credentialing of that supply chain, as we might do with accountants and dentists to ensure a good consumer experience, rather than considering this new supply as "non-news" and trying to go back to an earlier definition of a news business. The credentialing and professionalization of these new information supply chains needs to be smart and attractive for the modern era. Some of those credentials will feel like traditional journalism ‘news professional’ credentials - but I expect some of it won’t.
(Also key to this is the alignment of platforms that deliver information to consumers, but that's another story).
I hate live blogs. I live in a different time zone than NYT and just want one single wrap-up of the news.
I’ve also seen news orgs turn their stories into insta carousels. Which are only good for headlines. But not deep dives.
Fact is, few readers go beyond the headlines or bullets points. And therein lies the problem. How do editors get people to read?