Showing posts with label the future of media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the future of media. Show all posts

Monday, March 16, 2009

THE CHANGING WORLD WE LIVE IN

In many ways, this is a sad time for me.

Growing up, one of the daily rituals was grabbing the Superior Evening Telegram (as it was then called) and trying to learn a bit about the world.

Because there was a time where the Brewers games weren't on the radio here, it gave me a chance to follow their progress, or lack thereof. I read the newspaper because my dad did. We took turns, and then he took out the page that had the daily crossword puzzle on it, and he set it aside to work on whenever.

Since the Telegram didn't publish on Sundays, we read the Duluth News Tribune. I got to keep updated on all the baseball stats, other sports stuff that interested me, and we all got our fingers a bit dirty with newspaper ink.

Kids growing up these days don't do this. Actually, not many adults are, either.

Newspaper circulation is down everywhere. Worse yet, the old Evening (now Daily) Telegram is internet-only, save for two publications per week (for now). The Duluth News Tribune is laying off people left and right, and choosing to cover a Division I hockey playoff series from the newspaper office, while doing the same with a Division I national women's hockey quarterfinal.

The Rocky Mountain News shut down after 150 years, leaving its former employees trying to launch a website. Meanwhile, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer publishes for the last time Tuesday, reverting after that to an online-only publication.

At least they're leaning in the right direction. A big part of the death of the newspaper business has been its inability to adapt to the move toward the internet. Certainly, the current state of the economy has played a role, and Rush Limbaugh blames the liberals, so there's that, too.

No matter what, newspapers will continue to shrivel away until someone does something to fix their presence on the internet. It's not that newspapers aren't a presence there. It's that they haven't figured out how to make money with it. Paid subscriptions aren't really an option, because there are too many free sources of news on the internet. If the DNT, for example, starts charging for its stories, people will still be able to get the big news from places like Yahoo!, Google, Drudge, Breitbart, etc. Why would they pay the DNT for similar content?

Advertising is the way to go, and it's up to these companies to find ways to make it happen.

Here's hoping they do. When I would travel with UMD, I enjoyed getting the daily newspaper in whatever town we were visiting. Sure, I could read it for free on the internet, but I had read a physical copy of the newspaper ever since I was young, and part of me just isn't ready for the change, no matter how I may say I understand and accept that it is here.

Friday, June 20, 2008

ESPN TO WORK WITH NFL NETWORK?

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, who joins Michael David Smith (PFT/College Football Talk/FanHouse/Etc) and the Brothers Mottram as members of the "Internet Stars Who Must Never Sleep" Club, has a very interesting bombshell.

He got it from the Wall Street Journal, who reports that ESPN is in "high-level" talks on a deal with the NFL Network.
A deal would bring to a face-saving end an embarrassing episode for the NFL and a bitter stand-off between the lead and four of the nation's largest cable operators, a dispute which kept live pro football games on Thursday and Saturday nights out of many American homes.

An agreement would represent a big shift in strategy for the NFL—abandoning its effort to sidestep sports broadcasters like ESPN and take some of its valuable games directly to cable subscribers, who pay lucrative monthly fees.


...One possible scenario could be a combination of the NFL Network with the ESPN Classic network, which has relatively low ratings but wide distribution on expanded basic tiers. ESPN would likely use its market weight and its eight additional games to seek higher subscription fees than the 16 or 17 cents it currently receives for ESPN Classic, boosting rates to something closer to what the NFL network has been seeking, according to Derek Baine, a senior analyst for SNL Kagan. Under such a scenario, ESPN and the NFL could form a joint venture and share revenue, or ESPN could take an equity stake in the channel.
I only mention this because I think it's an interesting scenario. I like the NFL Network, but I really feel like they need to program more aggressively. I'm sure a big part of it is the lack of distribution deals, but those of us who get it deserve more original programming, more classic games, and fewer repeat loops of programming.

About the only things the network has going for them this offseason are the NFL Replay shows on Sundays, which are playing back the best games of every week of the season, and the NFL Classics on Monday nights, which are fun.

ESPN could certainly ruin many of the good things about the NFL Network, but the Worldwide Leader could also enhance much of the programming. NFL Network has a thin staff of reporters and analysts. ESPN's stable is practically endless.

The deal isn't done yet, but this one bears watching. The NFL Network needs to do something to claim some legitimacy, as they cut their own knees off by putting that Giants-Patriots classic on 43 channels last December.

Monday, May 05, 2008

BISSINGER SETTLES DOWN

The internet continues to be aghast over the comments of author Buzz Bissinger on HBO last week.

(More here.)

To a certain extent, I understand the buzz (no pun intended). Bissinger was belligerent, profane, and combative in his appearance on Costas NOW. He's been much more articulate, understanding, and conversation in his media appearances since.

For that, I applaud him. I also applaud him for the interview he gave with The Big Lead. Not only did he give an interview, but he answered all the questions and actually made some very interesting points. I'll post a few of his thoughts and respond, because it seems like a really good idea.
The initial reaction was quite positive, more than quite positive from those I immediately spoke to–fellow panelists and members of HBO with the exception of Costas (Bob was friendly but muted in his response to my performance. He is one of the most thoughtful people I know and I think he was mulling that I had gone way too far.) What I began to realize by the next afternoon is this: What the fellow panelists thought (at least the ones I spoke with) were not remotely a representative group. When I came home from New York, my wife simply told me that I had been over the top and undignified.
I don't know how you can watch his performance and not have an "Oh, my God. What is he doing?" reaction. I'm glad Mrs. Bissinger conveyed the same reaction, though I think I would shriek if my wife used the word "undignified" in a conversation with me. She'd probably just say I made an ass of myself.
I believe in what I said (although the emails I received have also directed me to some excellent information-based sports blogs I was not aware of). But I made a terrible mistake in the manner in which I said it. I am a man of passion and my passion truly got the better of me. I should have considerably toned it down, in particular in terms of my treatment of Will Leitch. Without going into details, I have taken steps to remedy that. I have also publicly apologized on several radio shows that have been widely disseminated. Those apologies are sincere, just as my passion was sincere if terribly misplaced. I treated Mister Leitch like the worst kind of blogger.
You're not going to get a blind defense of Will Leitch on this site. I think Will is brilliant, but he does have flaws. One of them is the amount of profanity that can be found on his site. For some of you, that's either a turn-on or a non-factor. And that's okay. It's part of the beauty of the internet. If you don't like something, you don't have to click on it. Personally, I'm not a fan of it, and I choose not to read the saltier stuff that you can find on Deadspin. I prefer to keep things a little cleaner around here, and I will very rarely use any words here that I couldn't use on the radio without getting at least a call to the proverbial carpet.

But your mileage may vary. I bought Leitch's book and was riveted. It was superb content. His site is usually the same. It's not so much about showing athletes to be jerks and philanderers. It's about showing that we shouldn't take sports (or ourselves) too seriously.
As I have just answered, there are some very good information-based sports blogs out there written by bloggers who clearly have excellent sources, just as there are some ESPN commentators who think before they talk and some marvelous radio talk show hosts who know their information inside and out and also have real sources. Now of course I will contradict myself by making the generalization that as a society, we have become more petty and mean-spirited and nastier than ever. We revel in watching celebrities fall apart. We revel in mockery and that is true of every media outlet whether you define it as new or old or mainstream or the future or whatever. Sports blogs certainly do not hold the monopoly on being vindictive.
I'm in absolute agreement on all counts. We're too voyeuristic in our society nowadays. We take pleasure in the downfall of others, which simply isn't right.

(NOTE: To me, there's a distinct difference between being amused by the problems of others [see: "Clemens, Roger"] and reveling in the destruction of said person's life.)

My youngest son, who is 16, never picks up the paper. So I have no solutions for the American newspaper, although it makes me terribly sad to acknowledge what appears to be their extinction in print at some point in time.

I became a writer because I loved the feel of a newspaper in my hands. I know saying that makes me sound terribly old, but it is hard to hold the Internet in your hands. But you guys are not simply the future; you are the present. All I ask, and I am pretty sure I have already said this somewhere before during this Q and A, is to take up your responsibility with seriousness and honor while not stifling what is the best part of the Internet, which is the way in which it gives a voice to everyone. That part of the Internet is truly exciting. As for us MMSers, we will continue to write and cling to print, and sometimes we will still do it pretty damn well. And maybe with some tolerance along the way and acceptance, we can co-exist and maybe even like each other instead of fueling the flames of hate as I unfortunately did with my appearance. But it will take more responsibility on the part of the blogging community and less maliciousness and sophomoric sexual references.

The bottom line is that the internet is here to stay. Any solution for newspapers doesn't involve the internet going anywhere. They need to to understand ways to use the internet to their advantage. Give us compelling content, make it available on the internet, and re-construct the business model to make better use of the internet.

Frankly, this isn't anything compelling or original. But it's the best I can do. I just don't have any reason to pick up the hometown paper anymore. I can read all the content I need on the internet. The one day I used to always pick up the paper was Sunday. I don't anymore, because I'll read articles on the internet, and then I'll just use the internet to look at the Sunday store circulars and print any ads or coupons I want to save.

The only time I buy newspapers is when I'm on the road. There's still no better way to spend an hour-long flight or a long car ride than thumbing through the newspaper and finding interesting stuff to read and talk about. When I travel for hockey, I almost always buy the local newspaper, even though I can usually read the content on the internet.

Even travelers don't need physical copies of the newspaper anymore. Just fire up the laptop, connect to the hotel's wireless network, and read.

It's a different world. Someday, a newspaper executive in a reasonably-big city is going to find an answer. His/her newspaper will thrive, and everyone will follow that lead.

I just hope that day comes before the newspaper goes away. There's still great use for the material, and even those of us who have migrated to the internet would miss the voice.