By Catherine Yong
I’ve never before heard anyone say they want to kill the newspaper, and when I did I wondered why in the world it had to come from someone who was in the newspaper business. Was it supposed to be a no wonder since he’s been in the business for as long as he has? Whatever the real reason, it all started when Ericsson Malaysia invited journalists to Langkawi to talk about the pervasiveness of digital content and what it actually means for telecom operators right now.
Once there, Ericsson’s ConsumerLabs Regional Manager, Vishnu Singh, introduced us to a typical digital native - someone who has grown up with technology, has been “networked” (or Web connected) most of his/her life, and together with fellow digital natives are set to be the industry’s most powerful media consumers and professionals.
Come dinner time, and industry stalwart Azmi Anshar was sharing how as the Editor of NST’s New Media division, he had actually used new media to report news. One classic example was the recently ended General Elections and how instead of official channels, word of “digital” mouths had played a huge role in getting election news out quickly. Journalists on the ground and in each contesting state were sharing what they saw and heard besides also reporting back to Anshar using digital tools like text messages, mobile instant messaging and even blogs- Malaysians knew who’d won (or was winning) even before the newspapers were publishing it.
The networked media, rising popularity of user-generated content and a connected generation that is soon to come into buying power – how long will it be before the old way of doing things isn’t relevant anymore? Is this what Anshar meant by “killing the newspaper?”
Die, newspaper, die?
During an IDC panel discussion involving prominent Generation Y bloggers from around Asia Pacific, Daryl Tay from www.uniquefrequency.wordpress.com said that his age group (and younger) don’t read the newspapers anymore. Being part of a “networked generation”, digital natives like Daryl do almost everything online; shopping, socializing, working, communicating, creating content; even reading the news.
But, is the Internet medium really the way forward? Are the tools of creation that can be gotten at the price of a mobile phone and internet service going to make everyone a news reporter in the future? People seem to forget that for the term networked generation (as an example) to really apply, not just a whole country (ie. Singapore) but the whole world would have to be blanketed by Internet connectivity.
That little oversight aside however, at least for me, user-generated content like blogs, video blogs or picture blogs can be many good things and already are some of these. Indeed, mainstream media could learn more than a few things from bloggers and/or the whole connotation it carries about free, honest and personal expression and communication. It is also why those who are not necessarily Gen-Y or digital natives, also are actively seeking information online, about topics that are usually important but too sensitive to be frankly expressed in newspapers. (ie. politics)
Isn’t that the main reason blogging became so popular in the first place? The problem is, almost everyone wants to blog now, blurring lines between blogs and websites at best, as well as raising the question for me, whether new definitions are in order.
Thinking blogs through
Shall bloggers be those that take advantage of push-button publishing on the Internet and blogging be the activity of the same? Because corporations are also starting to blog but what they record is anything BUT personal and not necessarily free or honest. A few examples out of the several thousands out there are www.pipeinternational.com and www.edelman.com/speak_up/blog
Online viewers are reading and even regularly following blogs (?) which are relevant to them. These can be anything from lifestyle to books to food to even current issues and tech. And while mainstream media like newspapers and even magazines also write about the same things, blogs’ open and personal approach is more appealing, especially to a Gen-Y-er who already happens to be online.
Lots of mainstream versus bloggers scenarios have come about, most especially with relation to news credibility (www.themediaslut.com) and while the general idea seems to be for both to complement each other, a few other questions pose themselves. For example, while watching the IDC panel discussion online, panelists started to talk about their ad endorsement experiences. One blogger said something along the lines of, “If a product isn’t good or we don’t like it, we will say it.” Well, thanks for the honesty but what criteria do bloggers base their dislike or “verdict” of let’s say, a mobile phone? Is it their personal preference, a gut feeling or because they have reviewed at least five different units from at least three different brands each?
And when companies thinking to jump on the Web2.0 bandwagon start to approach bloggers to endorse their products, shall they select based on their cult-status (for example Xia Xue who is like the Amber Chia of online in terms of cult following) and pray that their fan base will follow suit? Or shall they select based on reasons presented here on?
Thinking blogs through again
There are blogs which start off as online journals or diaries. More than a handful even do very, very well and get to score hundreds if not thousands of hits per day. But what if they start to morph into specialised informational websites about cars or the Symbian OS? Aren’t active reviewers and fan-thusiasts of cars or Symbian (www.paultan.org or www.smashpop.net) now better equipped to write about their respective subjects than let’s say, a general tech reporter of a national daily newspaper? How much newspaper or magazine writing techniques do they need, to qualify being taken seriously? Are blogging courses being offered right now so that some time in the future A) a blogger can be considered a qualified candidate for ad endorsements? B) advertisers will have a viable criteria to start to look at besides just the number of eyeballs a blog site attracts?
Now take all the questions asked above and apply it to a blog which starts to broadcast videos as well. One recent example which comes to mind is Blogger’s Treat at www.treats.sg which uses a blogging format but replaces text with visual and audio. Founders, makers and actresses of the show responded to reviews at www.krisandro.com, seemingly agreeing that Web2.0 and its tools provided a medium which made it possible for them to broadcast shows, warts and all.
They are still making improvements as they go along, with the overall view of attracting not just online viewers but also mainstream media audiences, by sticking to a formula that seems to have worked for mainstream media – a formal intro, intro chef, intro food, chit-chat, last words and credits. Personally I think these kinds of mainstream formats were designed specifically for advertisers to easily slot in products and services and I’m waiting for Blogger’s Treat and others like it to ditch that format; start using Web2.0 to the fullest complete with real life chats, real-life comments, and real-life interaction.
Talking on the WWW
At the same aforementioned IDC event, I thought Hong Kong Phooey’s Victor Cheung, somewhat hit the nail on the head with regards to what blogs are or could be. Cheung described his own blog as a consolidation of all the different views out there, and comments left by his readers actually make for a sort of casual forum or online discussion place about gadgets and technology. This certainly beats what is being offered by newspapers in Malaysia today, which do not offer this kind of interaction or “mashing” of access to opinions and thoughts.
I say mashing for lack of a better word and this not only happens on blogs like Cheung’s but also around the World Wide Web via tagging, bookmark and news feed tools like Digg, del.icio.us, reddit, StumbleUpon, Google Reader, Twitter and so on. These are convenient tools as they ensure we get news and information from as many sources as possible. And why shouldn’t we, seeing that the WWW is a veritable bottomless pit that is still growing each and every day - I’d like to think that with enough intelligent readers, the cream of the crop will rise to the top for others to find, and these tools actually help quicken the process.
How well could newspapers do this, if they had to, to survive in a Gen-Y’s world?
Die, brain cells, die?
Despite heading up a division which is supposed to optimize state-of-the-art technology, Anshar terms himself a tech laggard. In contrast, Mahmud’s key adjectives for the digital native is “constant connectivity” and “little patience” when it comes to step-by-step logic. A digital native is also comfortable with doing their homework, listening to music, IM-ing friends and text messaging on the phone, all at the same time Apparently multi-tasking is not the domain of the female gender anymore and you can call me old-fashioned or a laggard as well, but I tend to question the quality of anything which the typical networked teen does these days, especially when it comes to paying attention and processing information. Imagine this: Being in an online chat room where people type in the words fast and furious, taking whatever they do manage to read at face value.
For the record, Anshar wants to “kill” newspapers as humanely as possible – letting it evolve actually and allow Web2.0 to complement it when it comes to reporting or gathering information. At one point he explains that newspapers in the future will take on more magazine-like features and vice versa – well-formed opinions, analysis and comments versus plain vanilla news and facts which is being offered right now. I’m not sure I like the sound of that, working for a magazine, and hope it won’t happen anytime soon, if at all.
And, if you happen to meet Azmi Anshar one day and ask him, “Who? Who is going to write this newspaper of the future which you talk about?” I assure you, he won’t be stumped. If you don’t believe me, just ask the other eight journalists who were seated at that same dinner table in Langkawi.
(This article has appeared in PC.com)
Footnote:
Gatal, had to ask some more…
Azmi M. Anshar adds on to his ‘killing the newspaper’ motto:
One of the recurring themes that newspaper editors/publishers mull over and over is how to survive this onslaught without losing the essence of what a newspaper is.
I’d say they are mulling at the wrong end. It is not their choice anymore, that dictatorial bent to shape newspapers according to their whims but their readership (or therefore lack of it) that will force them eventually to make the decision to change the newspaper as I envisioned. It’s either change or be sacked for being an old-fashioned laggard. That should make the job simpler. But in Malaysia, the urge to change is permeating too slowly because competition is not as brutal as in the US. But as I forewarned, the brutal competition will come sooner than you think.
In the end, I’d tell editors that all you are losing are old-fashion assumptions about reading a newspaper, but your gains are unstoppable. And this is what you actually face: your platform is modified, your circulation improvised, your size smaller and your presentation - intro, thrust, tone, play-up, design - metamorphosises. It’s all basically a technical transformation.
Posted by catjots
