ie8 fix
Click Here
madison

Mainstream media is struggling to find a business model -- activist media doesn't need one

By | October 25, 2011, 4:23pm PDT

Summary: Media produced by activists will flood our channels as mainstream media continues to shrink. It’s bad news for society.

Activist media from Flickr - photo is related to the <a href="http://occupysf.com/">OccupySF</a> group — credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/francille/">Mari Francille</a>.

(Activist media from Flickr - photo is related to the OccupySF group — credit: Mari Francille.)

I’ve been preparing for a presentation to TEDxSF, which is looking at the theme of “Designing your own government” — I’m examining the role of media, especially around the Occupy Wall Street movement.

What strikes me as significant is that the activists can produce lots of great media: photos, video, articulate blog posts, Tweets, etc. It’s a steadily growing archive of media produced by activists.

On the establishment side, there is an increasing number of newspaper stories, TV, and radio reports about Occupy Wall Street. But, there’s a big issue: the establishment media is steadily shrinking, it has fewer resources to create media because it lacks an effective digital business model.

This lack of a media business model is tragic for the mainstream, establishment media. However, here’s where activist produced media has a distinct advantage: it’s not affected by the lack of a business media model.

This is a very important distinction because as mainstream media falters and shrinks so does its ability to influence and uphold the status quo. The objective of a mainstream media that stresses objectivity is to report both sides, it’s a means of preserving the status quo.

Activist media seeks to disrupt the status quo.

- Activist media doesn’t have the distribution channels that mass media has, but that is changing thanks to use of social networks.

- Activist media is high quality thanks to powerful, inexpensive video and still cameras, and smartphones.

-There are lots of publishing and curation tools that enable professional looking results for activist media.

And there are additional opportunities for activist media:

On the Nieman Journalism Lab site, Simon Owens reports: As Occupy Wall Street evolves, news sites find it “a great opportunity for web journalism”

At this writing, if you visit the New York Observer’s website, four of the five most popular stories are Occupy Wall Street-related. Gawker has written 25 posts on the movement in the last week. It’s impossible to open up my Twitter or Facebook feed without seeing new Occupy Wall Street developments. Google News clocks 42,000 mentions in the last week (a search for “Tea Party” yields half as many mentions).

As mainstream media increases its coverage of the Occupy movement, there’s a great opportunity for activist media to become a resource for professional journalists, who trawl for photos, Tweets, and videos.

For example, the photo above was offered in a Creative Commons license, free to use as long as there is attribution. And that means it’s very tempting for professional journalists to use activist media to save on production costs, which means activists have a better chance of propagating their content, and therefore their views.

And because activist media is not hampered by the lack of a media business model — the future looks very bright. Not so for mainstream media, which continues to layoff journalists and lose advertising revenues.

This is going to be a big problem. If the mainstream media continues to be severely diminished how will the government, for example, discuss its ideas and communicate its policies?

In the UK the government supports the BBC, a very large media producer, and thus that guarantees that impartial, status-quo-protecting BBC news reports will be produced every day.

But in the US, how will the government guarantee that there will be similar, unbiased media coverage?

Activist media is on the rise, whether we like it or not. It’s a good thing if you support a particular brand of activism, say Occupy Wall Street, it’s tragic if you don’t (Tea Party). But that’s our future.

Without a viable business model that can support the work of mainstream media companies we’re in for a rocky ride because media is how society “thinks” and makes decisions. If activist media dominates this discourse then will we make the right decisions as a society, nation, or world?

We have a lot of important decisions to make, about the economy, environment, energy, education, exports, elder healthcare — and that’s just the stuff that begin with “e.”

We need a vibrant, healthy full spectrum media that includes activist and mainstream media to ensure a happy future. Which means we need a viable media business model. This the most important problem that we face in dealing with the ever expanding importance of the Internet, imho.


Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Tom Foremski reports on the business and culture of Silicon Valley at the intersection of technology and media.

Disclosure

Tom Foremski

Tom Foremski is the editor and publisher of Silicon Valley Watcher and Silicon Valley Watch. Tibco Software is an advertiser.

Biography

Tom Foremski

In May 2004, Tom Foremski became the first journalist to leave a major newspaper, the Financial Times, to make a living as a full-time journalist blogger. He writes the popular news blog Silicon Valley Watcher--reporting on the business of Silicon Valley.

Tom arrived in San Francisco in 1984, and has covered US technology markets for leading computer journals around the world.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
12
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Mainstream media is struggling to find a business model -- activist media doesn't need one
icons 21st Nov
A deeply insightful piece. Mr. Foremski.It amazes me that so many bitterly criticise your work not for what is says but for what it doesn't say. I thought you were stating simple fact; if you can't make a profit in publishing you must change or die. Most commenters chose this as a platform to attack their favorite targets rather than to build upon that simple fact with constructive criticism.
0 Votes
+ -
No, it's good news
bmeacham98@... 25th Oct
Mainstream media are funded and controlled by corporate and government interests. They are not objective, at least in the USA. Take Fox News, for example. It is about time the playing got leveled a bit.
MSM *is* the status quo, and these days the status quo is a steaming pile for 99 percent of us. Good riddance.




happy
0 Votes
+ -
Activist Comments?
guihombre 25th Oct
What about activist comments! Us guys ranting about our latest bees in our bonnets? I think some of these are good media too. Pity zdnet blocks/deletes so many of my comments quite frankly... and pity you only show a sample of the early commenters, elReg increased it's readership enormously with a better comment system to let the commentors & turfers fight it out in the comments section.

Then there's the reason activist media is so fun:

Do you remember the fake call to Scott Walker Tea Party favorite? The caller pretended to be donor Koch, and Scott promptly talked to him the way you'd report back to your boss! You would never see that on mainstream media.

Then there's the reason its so necessary:

Scott Walker has the doors of the capitol locked, so he doesn't have to face his critics. They go to court, and the court orders them open. He then opens a tunnel instead and stuff the gallery with supports and seat fillers in a Kremlinesk manoeuvre, who endless clap and applaud him. So where then will they get heard? Fox? News Corp? Hence activist media will always be the end stop because sooner or later main stream media doesn't fill the niche.

So good riddance, the best writers will still be read, the medium they write in will disappear, and so with it will the control by a few news barons.
partisan, and mostly tilted towards the left. The few dissenting media sources, like FOX, are the exception, and the only ones reporting on what the leftstream media refuses to print or broadcast.

You chose Scott Walker, and you failed to use Obama as your example, who has a lot more problems and scandals surrounding him than any president in history, and that includes never having produced a valid birth certificate. If you want to bring up scandals, why not be an equal opportunity scandal "discloser". You operate using the same sleazy methods as the mainstream/left-stream media.
0 Votes
+ -
Agree with your key but ...
johnfenjackson@... Updated - 26th Oct
"This is a very important distinction because as mainstream media falters and shrinks so does its ability to influence and uphold the status quo."
Given the current status quo, the sooner the established media withers, the better!

"its very tempting for professional journalists to use activist media to save on production costs"
Sounds good too: especially if you are having trouble with costs.

"If the mainstream media continues to be severely diminished how will the government, for example, discuss its ideas and communicate its policies?"
The same way everyone else does: put up a web site or blog and instead of feeding a newspaper, feed a blog.

"In the UK the government supports the BBC, a very large media producer, and thus that guarantees that impartial, status-quo-protecting BBC news reports will be produced every day."
Complete bollocks: listen to yourself - "impartial, status quo protecting".
Tell it to Libya.
Tell it to Egypt.
Tell it to Iraq.
The list goes on and on.
Foremski, you have become a corporate sheep, you have lost your sense of justice.

"Impartial status quo protecting" is my latest entry into ZDNET's worst blunder of the year contest.

"Which means we need a viable media business model. This the most important problem that we face in dealing with the ever expanding importance of the Internet, imho."
Agree completely ... but the status quo in the West consists of feeble Governements overrun by global corporates. Note too that that the people are all for new business models more properly reflecting costs ... whereas the incumbent corporations are all for "impartial, status quo protecting" and will fight to prevent change.

Tom, you sound an aweful lot like King Canute
0 Votes
+ -
Irony
johnfenjackson@... Updated - 26th Oct
Foremski's choice of the 'V for Vendetta' mask is strangely ironic: for in the film V blows up the UK Houses of Parliament, destroying the corrupt Government and galvanising the population to revolt against a repressive regime.

I don't think V would have sympathised with 'impartial, status quo protecting'!

Is Foremski's post one of the most misguided in ZDNET's history I wonder?

- it argues against cost reduction afforded by computing hardware advances and the Internet

- it proposes kow-towing to whatever regime is in power

- it ignores the convictions against global corporations

- it supports financially-backed media propaganda

- it seeks to repress free speech

I can't think of a worse
0 Votes
+ -
Yes ...
johnfenjackson@... 26th Oct
... I've submitted a feedback report to ZDNET for:

- inability to process multiple edits

- inability to handle hypertext in edits

- inability to stop spam

- inability

Maybe this will get moderated out? (If the moderator is awake.)
0 Votes
+ -
Responsible Reporting
sboverie 26th Oct
It is a shame that news media is dwindling, it is mostly due to the available news on the internet that newspapers are losing subsribers. Another problem is that the news media is very sensitive to accusations of bias, either liberal or conservative, and the news media goes overboard trying to cover news with the opposite slant.

The idea that newspapers are supposed to support the status quo is silly. When the status quo fails for the majority is when news media should be publishing articles about those failures instead of covering them up with fluff.

A greater concern is how the news media is used by prosecutors and police to judge people in the court of public opinion and not in the court of justice. This amounts to rumor and gossip that is not news but used to influence public opinion. This kind of information makes it harder for a fair trial and the outcome of the trial is second guessed by those who had their opinion handed to them through the news.

The story about President Johnson not seeking a second term because he lost the support of Walter Chronkite is a good story to compare how the news media was perceived 50 years ago with how the news is perceived now. The news media has lost its reputation for honest reporting.
0 Votes
+ -
For once, I agree with you.
adornoe@... 26th Oct
n/t
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong on so many levels!
adornoe@... Updated - 26th Oct
This is a very important distinction because as mainstream media falters and shrinks so does its ability to influence and uphold the status quo. The objective of a mainstream media that stresses objectivity is to report both sides, its a means of preserving the status quo.

The role of media is not to maintain a status quo, or to present a particular side, or to "change the world" or "to maintain the world" or "make things happen". That would be equal to advocacy journalism, and not true impartial reporting.

Furthermore, the BBC or any kind of government involvement, tends to twist the news towards the party in control or the pont of view of the prevalent party in the country. The BBC has proven, time and again, that they tilt liberal, and can't be trusted to be non-partisan in reporting or commenting.

The mainstream media has committed suicide by becoming advocacy media, where most media sources and "reporters" are about 90% liberal in views and reporting. That alienates at least half of the audience out there, and, I'm a conservative, and I know of many conservatives who have abandoned using the mainstream media to find the news or the bi-partisan commentaries. Everything is tilted towards liberalism, and that's not a good deal to most of the country.

The mainstream media deserves what it's doing to itself, and that is, it's killing itself.

You, apparently, can't recognize how the major media sources have been destroying themselves. But, you also fail to realize that, the old media might not have been the best means of communicating news and information in the new world of of the internet. The old ways of gathering the news is not able to keep up with the speed of Twitter and Facebook and Google and other on-line sources. The mainstream media has tried to create on-line presences, but, their internal operations are still old-fashioned and highly partisan.

The death of partisan media is a good thing for society and for the country. It's okay to be partisan, but, without balance, it's not good for the country or for society.



However, I think I know how to bring back the "old stream" media, and have it live, side-by-side, with the new media.
0 Votes
+ -
Very good points
owensb@... Updated - 28th Oct
You make some very good points. All of this is more signs of the information age taking over the industrial age. In 1993, we watched a live CNN broadcast of Yeltsin driving out the communists in their White House. That effort took hundreds of millions of dollars in ground and satellite equipment to pull off and was very impressive. Today, the same live action could be covered with a $200 cell phone and YouTube by citizens on the street for essentially no cost. The main stream media (although I prefer to call them more accurately the Legacy Media) do not understand the enormous shift information technology is creating in our society. By the time we get home from work, we have already seen or read everything they are going to talk about on TV and the newspapers have become a historical journal--perhaps with more depth--of yesterday's news.

Additionally, as you point out, the Legacy Media gave up a large part of the business model that was working for them since 1948 with their left leaning advocacy (we now know that Walter Cronkite was a screaming liberal--no one knew it in 1964). They no doubt did this believing they were reaching a majority of Americans. We now see they are fighting over an smaller audience as Fox News attracted the rest of the public that did not agree with that advocacy.

Like the sailing ship, horse drawn carriages and home delivery of milk, the Legacy Media will become an item in the history books; unless they can figure out how to become relevant again.
A deeply insightful piece. Mr. Foremski.It amazes me that so many bitterly criticise your work not for what is says but for what it doesn't say. I thought you were stating simple fact; if you can't make a profit in publishing you must change or die. Most commenters chose this as a platform to attack their favorite targets rather than to build upon that simple fact with constructive criticism.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix