refLECTURE II: "Newest Of New News"

New News. As opposed to 'Old News'. It's the same stuff isn't? What's online, what's in print, what's it matter? There's no doubt that times are a-changing in the way that news is produced and how it is consumed. As we (citizens of the first world) become more tech-savvy, there comes expectations that media wont just keep up with this cyber space existence; but rather be one of the creators, one of the innovators, of it. But now that everything is on the internet (hence the phrase 'Google it'), what really needs to exist 'irl', or in English, in real life?

Everyone talks about THE DEATH OF NEWSPAPERS as if they all have a chronic, terminal illness, and 'it could be any day now'. But it's the same with all old media. Do we forget that it used to once be 'new'? As it turned out, video didn't kill the radio star. This is not a case of replacing old with new, but rather just the diversification of our media diet.

I'm not saying newspapers haven't taken a hit, I'm just saying they're not down for the count yet. But seeing as those in suits can't handle a hit, our dear Uncle Rupert has found another way.



Paywalls. There's something about it that turns consumers right off. Oh yeah... the 'pay' part. And so there arises the issue of entitlement. Why should we pay for something that we've had for free for so long? To keep journalism alive? Can you even call what's in some of those papers journalism? And even if there is some quality, investigative journalism, is it really worth that much of my dollars?

Surely if it's going to work (to at least some degree) it has to be all in? Every online news site would have to banish behind the iron curtain paywall for mass effect. But we're talking about competitors, and if Rupert and his minions take the subscription model, then there's business still (and likely even more business than before) for those who don't. Ultimately, I think this will be a waiting game. Waiting for facts and figures from behind the wall, to see whether it really is worth it.

But paywalls aren't the only things threatening the news business.

This picture brought to you by...

You see the internet wasn't always the same as it is today. Prepare yourself for a short history lesson...
In the beginning, before there were cat's barking like dogs and babies biting fingers, the internet was a very different place. It was for business. Considered 'brochure ware' for companies, it was a place for information, for business advertising. This was Web 1.0.

Then came the rise of the social network. This is the 'social web'. This is 'new media'. This is what most us will be familiar with. Free to connect and engage with people worldwide. Free to share whatever, however. And so we became 'produsers'. Producers and consumers of media content. A big threat (and a small help) to the news giants with our blogs, and our Twitters, and Youtubes. We were in control. This was Web 2.0.
Disclaimer: I say 'was' for both Web 1.0 and 2.0, but I really mean 'is'. Both still exist, it's just another new form as been added into the mix...

WEB 3.0. The 'semantic web'. Still in its teething stages, we're yet to see the full force of Web 3.0. It reads meaning into our clicks by meta tagging. Providing us with suggestions on what else we'd like based on our internet history. This is for the individual. But there's a problem for news in this new Web 3.0, hyperlocalisation. How are the big players supposed to be up with what's happening on very local (we're talking suburb, street) level? But also does hyperlocalisation disadvantage the consumer? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.