Were we wrong about tech and the democratization of media?

From the counterintuitive files, the Project for Excellence in Journalism came out with its fifth annual look at the media, and it's a doozy of a report.

"Read all about it"

(Credit: Project for Excellence in Journalism)

The study contradicts most of the assumptions we've grown to accept about the impact of technology on media and journalism in the last few years.

Among its findings:

• News is shifting from being a product to more of a service.

• The days when news sites were final destinations are over.

• Prospects for user-generated content now appear more limited.

• Madison Avenue does not yet grok the world of new media.

• U.S. media coverage is becoming increasingly narrow.

Digging down further, the study takes specific aim at the belief that audience fragmentation is breaking the grip of "media elites."

"Some people even advocate the notion of "The Long Tail," the idea that, with the Web's infinite potential for depth, millions of niche markets could be bigger than the old mass market dominated by large companies and producers.

The reality, increasingly, appears more complex. Looking closely, a clear case for democratization is harder to make. Even with so many new sources, more people now consume what old-media newsrooms produce, particularly from print, than before. Online, for instance, the top 10 news Web sites, drawing mostly from old brands, are more of an oligarchy, commanding a larger share of audience, than in the legacy media.

The verdict on citizen media, for now, suggests limitations. And research shows blogs and public-affairs Web sites attract a smaller audience than expected and are produced by people with even more elite backgrounds than journalists."

But don't take that to mean all is well in the world of the mainstream media. If the authors are right, advertising isn't accompanying the online migration with the consumer. Translation: Media faces both a shrinking audience as well as a "decoupling of news and advertising."

Happy days. So, what's next--the meltdown of the economy? Oh yeah, I forgot. That's already started.

[jahooba]

I'm really surprised you didn't mention how the media is largely controlled by the Liberals here in America. The Liberal Media only gives us a certain flavor of information by being unabashedly biased. The Media has an agenda, and the scary part is that most people in the media don't even realized they're doing it (Liberalism here resembles more of a faith-based religion than a political ideology). <br /><br />With the help of the internet and Fox News, people are starting to learn that their media is slanted -- they're not getting the whole picture from their old news sources. Because, remember, information WITHHELD because of a political agenda is flat-out LYING, plain and simple (and scary). <br /><br />*And nice use of "Grok".

[galacticcruiser]

Jahooba, you need to live outside the US for a while to learn and realize how biased the US media is to the right, not the left... Your mainstream "left" is quite centrist, sometimes even right, compared to other places.

[anothertom]

I agree, as Fox News is doing most of the slanting and should be moved to the comedy category.

[go_live]

Jahooba,<br />So let me get this straight, the ONLY news source in the WHOLE WORLD that is correct is Fox News????? So if we are to believe that liberals, Hollywood, The Media, Demarcates, BBC, Independents, the whole world, and anyone that does not agree with the Republican agenda is telling a lie? What is true is that Fox News is a modern day Pravda pushing Republican propaganda instead of instead of Soviet Union Communism? Wake up! If you really think about it you will have to come to the conclusion that you fell for a scam and that Conservative Fox News and talk radio are lying to you. And by the way, look up Conservative in the dictionary and you will find that it is bigotry. Or is the dictionary a liberal lie too?

[tdichiara]

What a joke! Another right-wing clone perpetuating the myth of the liberal media. The non-Internet media is obviously controlled by the right and always has been. You might want to educate yourself a bit before parroting Fox News talking points; eg: <br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mediaed.org/videos/CommercialismPoliticsAndMedia/TheMythoftheLiberalMedia" target="_newWindow">http://www.mediaed.org/videos/CommercialismPoliticsAndMedia/TheMythoftheLiberalMedia</a>

[mopar340]

Although I agree with you that the media is mostly liberal. Fox is conservative and their reporting is just as bias only the other direction. What I find most frustrating is that not one reporter will report a lie as a lie. An example ?we are going to help the poor by raising minimum wage? ask any economist at any university and he or she will tell you this only harms the poor. There are other standard lies that both sides use. When will the media on either side stop trimming the news and start giving us the straight scoop. I Hate when I watch a political speech that last 5 minutes and then get a 45 minutes explanation from some talking head as to what the speaker just said. I wish that one U.S. New Group would give me the facts and not their version.

[tedshelton]

I read your article with interest and followed the link to the report. There I discovered an interesting thing, not obvious from your article -- the report, reasonably enough, is focused on this thing called "news" -- narrowly defined. It is, after all, a report on "the state of the news media" not just any old media.<br /><br />Digging deeper into the report, it looks like the authors are critical of citizens as reporters of foreign affairs or government, or crime... but the share of media time that we are devoting to reading all of this citizen created content (media, if not news) continues to increase.<br /><br />The democratization of media seems to be progressing just fine -- the report merely points out that NEWS as a subset of media, seems to still be dominated by the professionals. Which makes sense.

[Ormond Otvos]

"News" defined as unusual or important event. The undercurrent of analysis, at however jejeune, IS however the average citizen expanding and flexing her opinions. It leaks over, displaces "How about them Cubbies?" as more people have more to say.<br />I suspect a lot of people are talking Bear Stearns around the watercooler, and a lot of blog and online financial opinion is shaping the conversation.

[danegeld]

@jahooba<br /><br />Please explain to me how Fox is unbiased. Or CNN, or NBC, or CBS, or ABC, or the Washington Times. None of them appear liberal to me. And please explain how a right-wing organization like Fox is any less biased than the so-called liberal media. There hasn't been a news outlet as slanted and biased as Fox since the Pravda of the 1960's.

[Clevenative]

Jahoobas REAL name is Sean Hannity - Doesn't that explain the lack of honesty in what he writes?

[Phillep_H]

Well, your perception that CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC as not being leftist might have something to do with how far /you/ are to the left. After all, I regard Fox as apeasers to the left, and the NRA as a pro-gun control organization. That makes me biased, but you are not biased?

[SynPenguin]

The economy has gone to hell. I haven't picked up a paper in newsprint in years and Rurpert Murdock is the devil<br /><br />I just wanted to give you a standing ovation Mr. Cooper on your fabulous use of "gork" although it appears somebody beat me to it. /shrug

[rikmorgan]

Yes the media is controlled by the liberals, which is how you can account for the ability of conservative talk-radio shows to usurp the American electoral process by getting their Republican fan base to vote in Democratic primaries, voting for the candidate they liked least, all in an attempt to derail the American political process. If the conservatives were in control of the air-waves, you can bet no Democrat could have pulled that off. Thankfully the liberals are in control and we all enjoy freedom of speech as a result.

[c|net Reader]

This reply and others before it reveal an interest bias. In this case, rikmorgan apparently assumes that only conservatives voted in the other side's primaries to poison the other party's choices. Both sides have and continue to do it. That's why primaries should be closed. R's should vote for R's, D's for D's, etc. In other examples those with a liberal viewpoint assume that consistency with their viewpoint implies centrism rather than liberalism. Whether European countries have become largely liberal does not make then centrist by definition.<br /><br />Note also that one's associations provide a dim view of the general population. All those with whom one associates may have a similar viewpoint, but that hardly defines the majority. Self-selection is a factor. What's more, a global shift, were there one, toward more liberal viewpoints does not shift the liberal/centrist/conservative scale. That scale should be judged on a historical rather than a contemporary basis.<br /><br />One can be happy or frustrated when the majority becomes more liberal or conservative. One's own perceptions and the position of the majority at a given moment are not relevant in defining the centrist position. Whether the U.S. is more or less conservative than Europe isn't relevant to judge whether the media in the U.S. is biased toward liberalism.

[giovanijones]

It depends what form of speech, then you will have the freedom to speak or what will be tolerated and allowed. It also depends what you are doing also, liberals like to legislate what we can do or not do, where can and can't do activities. <br /><br />I don't call that freedom.

[Orcini]

The most disturbing trend in online news is the slow shift from text pages (which can be quickly clicked on and scanned for immediate information,) to video clips that you have to sit through a commercial to watch. "Which starlet bared all at a local easter egg hunt? Click HERE" Another bad trend is the AOL method- break the news up into pages two or three paragraphs, so you load as many sponsored ads as possible.

[c|net Reader]

I agree. What's more, one can skim, and even reread, prose, even while working in a quiet office. Videos a sequential in nature and include audio which must be suppressed or somehow made private.

[CompEng]

How about this... a glut of companies trying to make money on news only through advertising is going to force even more media consolidation because people are used to news as "free". Only when it gets to the point where we have to pay not to have pure propaganda shoved down our collective throats will we, and that's a ways off.

[omeadagha]

yes, yes. we get it. some of us do anyway. you've read a 'classic' sci-fi novel, (classic in this case meaning old, not particularly good). so your purpose in writing this article ended up being an effort to show off that you're well-read to an 'elite' group that like crappy writing instead of putting out information. if this were not the case you might have used a term that had an actual, as opposed to made-up, meaning that more people would understand, who may not be as enlightened as yourself... it's just a theory.. it's probably wrong. <br /><br />Happy St. Patty's!! is 8:30 too early to start drinking green beer?

[theantibush]

What are you saying?<br /><br />That we need to hear from the ?non-elites??<br /><br />The ones that think NEW MEXICO is part of MEXICO??!<br />And think that CANADA is part of northern USA?!<br /><br />Come to think of it...maybe you are right.

[CanadianGeezer]

Of course you were wrong! To have a democratization of media there must be equal access with equal opportunity for exposure and that is certainly not a truism. <br /><br />Three salient points to ponder:<br /><br />1. There is NO liberal media in the USA ... the closest you come is by having a relatively balanced but weak media outlet with the PBS. But it is grossly outnumbered by private interests and so under attack as to be on the point of being relatively obscure to the citizenry.<br /><br />2. The wealthiest of your society have full control of the media and use it to re-enforce and validate their actions and controls. This they do while following the empirical truth of presenting bread and a variant of gladiatorial games to the public so as to distract and control.<br /><br />3. The old adage of Lies, Damnable Lies and Statistics holds forth on any such perilously puerile prognostications.<br /><br />For one of your media commentators to say ... Good Night and Good Luck is so apropos to the state of American Media be it digital or otherwise!

[Ormond Otvos]

Always they forget the difference between broadcast and print media, and the internet:<br /><br />Talkback and peer communication: Comments, forums, blog, letter to the editor.<br /><br />We simmering down here, O brilliant misser-of-realities.<br /><br />Anonymous rules!

[R. U. Sirius]

&gt; With the help of the internet and Fox News, people are starting to learn that their <br />&gt; media is slanted<br /><br /><br />Oh the irony of your statement. Indeed with the help of Fox News we are seeing how the media is slanted, with Fox being the premier example of corporate media spin. Open your eyes bro. There is no "liberal media." It's all corporate media, and the agenda is keeping people like you misdirected, which they seem to be accomplishing. And before you resort to calling me some sort of "liberal"whatever, don't bother because you would be wrong. Instead, free your crticial thinking skills - stop watching the TeeVee. It's bad for your mind.