The REAL Reason for the Decay of MSM or When It's Right to Write

The quality of my mainstream media (MSM) user experience - be it online or offline - has been in steady decline for the past two decades. And it is only getting worse. And I even detect this disappointment and hostility in my writing, as there are many of my posts that contain the theme "Hey, dummy, I've been talking about this for months - why are you just discovering and/or re-hashing this now?" And I'm tired of writing this way. I didn't start this blog with the idea of being a media watchdog - though I am glad there are those whose serve this important function. It's just not me. What I want to discuss is why so much of MSM is so awful, and why there is so much great, original, value-added content being deposited on the Internet each and every day. And then I can get back to writing my own content without throwing stones at others; all the stones are being thrown today.

Why MSM Sucks

1. A giant portion of what's created is not original, either the ideas or the commentary around them.
2. It is hard to separate the good from the garbage, as such a high percentage of MSM content is, in fact, garbage.
3. The medium is not designed to have a conversation, an exchange of ideas that is dynamic and has life and can help readers achieve greater understanding.
4. It looks and feels tight and inflexible.
5. It artifically places itself on a higher plane, leading to perceptions of elitism that once was an asset but now has become a crushing liability.
6. It is not by the people, for the people. It is by a small group of individuals for a small group of individuals. And that is ok - but then don't call yourself "mainstream" and purport to be serving a higher purpose. Mainstream is now the blogosphere.
7. It is clear that it is not comfortable in its own skin, and it is working to cultivate an online, "hipper," more conversational identity that just isn't working.

Are these generalizations? Of course. But, in general, I think these points are directionally correct.

What is the Media Value Stack?

The success of media models - regardless of the medium - is just like the financial markets: it is all about value creation. So where is the value? Is it in the creation of original content? Is it in aggregation of top content creators? Is it in providing users with the opportunity to share, comment and collaborate? Is it in the ability to excite, interest and stimulate users? Does it have to do with tagging and labeling interesting content for future reference? The answer: yes to all of the above. In fact, this might be my cut at the media value stack:

• The creation of original content, that
• Is mixed and presented with other relevant content, which
• Excites, interests and stimulates users, and
• Provides them the ability to share, comment and collaborate about the aggregated content, be it the content itself or comments about the content, which
• Can be tagged and labeled for future use.

Now look at this value stack and tell me: how well does MSM do delivering this stack? In general I'd say pretty poorly. Could this be why MSM is coming under so much pressure? Is the threat really about the rise of the blogosphere or is it because MSM is failing to deliver against the stack I've listed above? I'd posit that the "Internet threat" is pretty much a red herring - what it's REALLY about is a failure of culture and business model to adapt to changing times. And has the blogosphere specifically and the Internet in general hastened these changes? Sure. But does that mean, by definition, that MSM doesn't have the means to rise to the challenge? No. They have all the assets in the world with which to compete. They just don't use them properly, and this is a failure of culture and leadership, not of some fundamental inability to compete. Rupert Murdoch understands this. He is the one MSM media-type that kind of gets it. Politics aside, his moves across an array of media assets shows that he is much more in touch with the value stack than any other media leader. And it shows in News Corporation's results and growth in asset value.

When is it Right to Write?

When you have something to say, not when you need to fill column inches. When you care what people think about what you are writing, and when you are able to put your thoughts out there openly, honestly and without prejudice.  When you want to solicit other's views on a topic by seeding a conversation with your own thoughts and opinions. When you are driven by a passion to be heard, not because someone says you have to crank out a story. You get the picture.

People are smart. MSM thinks they are dumb. People can smell bullshit and a lack of passion a mile away. And this is what's wrong with much of MSM. It has become pro forma. It has lost all affect. And it shows. People are voting with their feet, their pocketbooks, and their clicks. And unless MSM wakes up, really tries to understand what is motivating their constituency and shifts their business models and business strategies accordingly, they are dead. And it has nothing to do with the Internet. The problem lies within.

Comments

[Kris Tuttle]

I wish one of the things that slashdot does so well in technology could be applied to news production. By taking a topic and sifting all the content by quality it dramatically increases the value of what you read. Including categories of "interesting, insightful, funny" one gets a larger and more nuanced sense of the topic. If the mainstream media could do this and improve the production values (Slashdot is a very raw, ugly layout.) then they would be doing something interesting and valuable. Why MSN and many ohter online guys just pump out the same stream of low value stuff mystifies me.

[Bill a.k.a. NO DooDahs]

MSM "informs without biases?" We live in different worlds.

Newspapers could survive if they used original content focused on local issues. Their refusal to do so has made them irrelevant. At one point I had hopes for Gannett based on their small-town focus, but apparently that focus is geographic and not philosophic.

The blog is just software. If I slept in the garage, I wouldn't become a car. Likewise with reporters using blogs.

No takers on the MSM serving the function of information and thought control? I'm surprised. Apparently I've hit a blind spot.

[Mick Weinstein, Seeking Alpha]

Roger, this is excellent, particularly your pinpointing the 'when it's right to write' issue.

It reminds me in some ways of the revolution that Google et al. brought to advertising by shifting to intention-based (search keyword) targeting vs. blanket advertising. When you tap right into human interests, the most powerful and valuable interaction can occur - as a writer, reader or marketer.

[Priya]

Roger,
Sorry if my post seemed like I was bashing your position. It certainly wasn't intended that way! I wanted to start a dialog and discuss the points you raised.

I agree that a lot of the content in newspapers/sites seem 'recycled.' That's partly because it is--it is called syndication. The way I see the MSM media structured today is that there are news wires (that are at the first level), newspapers at the second level (that use a mixture of news wires and original reporting to drive their content) and finally at the top of the chain are magazines that look entirely at original analysis.

The issue currently is that the pace of news consumption in the text form has accelerated so much that the three layers are getting crushed against each other--leading to a lot of redundancies and replication.

The larger point that I want to make, though, is that the line between MSM media and blogosphere is blurring.

Many MSM media sites have blogs that are very popular in the blogosphere and many bloggers have turned into MSM columnists.

That, I think, is how it will evolve. That's why the debate should be more about the effectiveness of content delivery models (print vs. online vs. radio. vs. TV vs. podcast) than about the content creation itself.

[Yaser Anwar]

Sir:

I think you've been a bit too harsh.

Part of MSM's modus operandi is to inform w/out biases- this encompasses company news to talking about general trends in various industries (HFs, PEs, VCs et al).

The other part is giving their opinion, that's the part where a lot of them stumble. One reason I can think of is a good portion have just seen the tip of the iceberg because its not their domain expertise.

This is where blogs like yours come in to rectify and add that missing domain expertise.

The Economist IMO contains the most insightful views, a good portion of which are original. The rest of the industry news is just skinned in a different manner by each publication, from WSJ to FT to NYT et al.

[Roger]

Priya, thanks for the long-ish comment (especially since I write in a long-ish manner myself) and engaging in the dialogue. My thoughts with respect to your comments are as follows:

Concerning "original content," have you read the paper lately? The percentage of stories that are recycled from earlier times has, without question, gone up. And more importantly, it is not as if a story is being re-visited with new and challenging perspectives; it's pretty much the same old stuff. This is a fail. And there is TONS of original content on blogs. And given the breadth and depth of the blogosphere I wouldn't think MSM would fare well in a compare-and-contrast from a volume perspective. There is no question that there is lots of stunningly good reporting and writing being done across MSM - its just that it appears to be in decline.

Concerning separating the "good from the garbage," again, my point is one that is more related to trend. Of course there is a higher percentage of crap in the blogosphere - because there are no barriers to content creation. However, the same doesn't apply to MSM publications. Therefore, I hold MSM to a MUCH higher standard than the blogosphere. But IMHO the good/crap ratio in MSM has fallen markedly in recent years, and it is this trend about which I am really commenting.

Concerning the issue of commenting and community, there is a big difference between having the capacity to do something and actually doing something. Just because I can leave a comment on a MSM website doesn't mean I will; in fact, I almost never do because I know few people will read it and care. However, if I read something on a blog I am much more likely to comment because the medium has grown up that way and because I know others will read it and care about what I have to say. This is a far more fulfilling and motivating experience. So this represents an enormous hurdle for MSM because of its legacy and perception and the fact that passionate and deeply involved communities have not yet evolved around online MSM outlets, at least not any I know of.

Concerning the issue of what is "mainstream," I do not agree that it is simply an issue of consumption patterns. The online arms of MSM outlets should be flourishing - if they weren't it would such a gross indictment of the content that MSM would cease to exist. However, the online models of MSM outlets still, by and large, feel like hierarchical, uni-directional platforms. This is not, IMHO, what most people want. People want MSM to seed news and commentary, and to let comments and communities emerge from the discussion around these issues. But this is not the approach being taken by MSM as I see it. And time will tell if online MSM models are successful in building satisfying, sticky, long-term user experiences.

What you call bashing I call a position. It facilitates a discussion. I am happy you shared your views as one who has domain expertise and a passion for your role in the content creation and delivery process. There is much that can be written as you've suggsted (and some of which I have written about in prior posts), but that was not my purpose of this post. Don't get bent out of shape. Through our dialogue and those of others, we'll hopefully gain clarity around the issues you've raised organically. And that would be really cool.

[Weissman]

Interesting. I particularly like what you have written because you recognize the value that original content has in the "stack." Older media models posit that this original content is the center of the, indeed is the whole, stack itself.

New value models, however, see that content piece as only one layer of the stack, and I would add that this new stack is not horizontally structured to represent that one layer has more "value" then another, but instead is horizontally structured where each piece plays an important and interconnected role.

[Priya]

Roger,
As an MSM journalist, here’s my perspective.

>>>A giant portion of what's created is not original, either the ideas or the commentary around them.

I think it is unfair to say that a large portion of what MSM creates is not original. I would say percentage of original content in MSM is much larger than blogs. Most of the blogs I read are either linking to MSM content and adding some context/analysis. MSM drives original reporting and I seriously doubt the blogosphere would be so riled up or have much to comment about if the MSM didn’t do the original reporting in the first place. What blogs do very well is add perspective/analysis but lets not forget that very few bloggers are on the phone everyday or talking to other people with the intention of finding new information.

>>>>It is hard to separate the good from the garbage, as such a high percentage of MSM content is, in fact, garbage.

The same can be said of any content. A lot of blogs are garbage but there are a few very good ones out there. A lot of software programs are garbage but there are a few very good ones out there. A lot of movies are crap but a few good ones keep up the joy of watching movies. I am not sure if ratio with MSM is any different--if anything I would say it is better.

>>>>The medium is not designed to have a conversation, an exchange of ideas that is dynamic and has life and can help readers achieve greater understanding.

I think MSM, at least online MSM is changing there and introducing comments/communities etc. Tech sites like CNET have very vibrant communities, the big MSM papers from the NYT to the Post offers a place for comments. Sure, the pace of change has been slower than it should be and it could be more interactive but I don’t think MSM has completely closed itself out.

>>>>It is not by the people, for the people. It is by a small group of individuals for a small group of individuals. And that is ok - but then don't call yourself "mainstream" and purport to be serving a higher purpose. Mainstream is now the blogosphere.

That seems quite contradictory to what we are seeing and hearing about the blogosphere. The blogosphere works best because it targets niche interests very well. MSM works well to serve the largest common denominator—maybe that’s why it is called “mainstream.”

The reason MSM is under so much pressure has more to do with the delivery models than with the media itself. The online arms of most MSM organizations (even those under pressure) are flourishing, while the print business is fighting to hold its own. I see this not as a problem with the content itself but more as an issue of how the reader’s consumption habits are changing. Software companies face a similar distribution challenge. Packaged retail software is giving up to online subscription services. Does this mean the software itself is bad or not working for the customers? Not really. It is just that they want access to the product in a different, simpler way.

I think mainstream media bashing could be fun but serves no other purpose. What could work better is a discussion on what the blogosphere does better and what MSM does better and how the two can learn and work with each other. I don’t think this is an either-or situation.

There’s no clear lines drawn between the two. MSM and the blogosphere feed off each other and this debate about which one is superior is best retired.

Sorry for the longish comment!

[brianstarke]

The Flack has some different perspectives and insights on the world of MSM that you might be interested to read. http://theflack.blogspot.com/

[Bill a.k.a. NO DooDahs]

"It is by a small group of individuals for a small group of individuals." I would disagree here. MSM is by a small group of individuals and for mass consumption. This leads into a source of "value" in media that you did not identify, and that is the ability to influence thought and opinion. This has been probably the major value creation venue of the MSM, going at the very least all the way back to the 1770's when a small group of agitators who happened to own some printing presses got to work, and continuing into the next decade, when "Federalist" papers were widely published, but "anti-Federalist" papers weren't. This process has only accelerated since then.

This is also part of the reason MSM "artificially" places itself on a higher plane. They imagine themselves as leaders of the great unknowing and unwashed.

It is common knowledge that any thought outside of a thin band of publicly expressible opinion doesn't get airplay, or when it does, it gets marginalized, ignored, or derided. The current "debate" structure and an analysis of questions asked and airtime granted clearly shows the slant.

It is because of this slant, and because the main purpose of MSM is control of information and thought (with entertainment a close second), that the "ability to share, comment and collaborate" scares the SHIT out of MSM.

MSM could be more effective if they would create more original content, integrate it better, and stimulate users more. But the MSM will never go the route of democratizing content, as that would be counter to their primary purpose.