Comments on: Media Reform: Politics or Democracy? http://illuminated-media.org/?p=31 work & comment Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:58:48 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Jeff Chester http://illuminated-media.org/?p=31&cpage=1#comment-916 Jeff Chester Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:52:02 +0000 http://illuminated-media.org/?p=31#comment-916 I appreciate the review. I believe we need to rebuild three distinct systems to respond to changes in the media marketplace. They include the system of serious journalism (investigative reporting, for example); public and other non-commercial media (PBS, public access, etc); and also a "progressive" infrastructure. I think we know by now that the traditional news media is largely incapable of advancing a reform agenda, for health care, environment, social justice. News plays a crucial role, but its job isn't to engage in the advocacy and organizing required to bring about such changes. Both news and public media are getting the attention of some foundations--progressive media isn't. The dimensions of the new media landscape (broadband PC, mobile, etc) are already determined--it will be primarily commercial, and ownership of content will be largely for-profit. The point of my article was to issue a warning that the stampede of venture investment and, more alarmingly, a powerful global business model based on personalized interactive advertising, is shaping our new media future. Unless the revenues from such a system are more diversely distributed--including services owned by women and people of color--our new media system will be hindered from fulfilling its much needed larger democratic potential. I appreciate the review. I believe we need to rebuild three distinct systems to respond to changes in the media marketplace. They include the system of serious journalism (investigative reporting, for example); public and other non-commercial media (PBS, public access, etc); and also a “progressive” infrastructure. I think we know by now that the traditional news media is largely incapable of advancing a reform agenda, for health care, environment, social justice. News plays a crucial role, but its job isn’t to engage in the advocacy and organizing required to bring about such changes. Both news and public media are getting the attention of some foundations–progressive media isn’t. The dimensions of the new media landscape (broadband PC, mobile, etc) are already determined–it will be primarily commercial, and ownership of content will be largely for-profit. The point of my article was to issue a warning that the stampede of venture investment and, more alarmingly, a powerful global business model based on personalized interactive advertising, is shaping our new media future. Unless the revenues from such a system are more diversely distributed–including services owned by women and people of color–our new media system will be hindered from fulfilling its much needed larger democratic potential.

]]> By: admin http://illuminated-media.org/?p=31&cpage=1#comment-914 admin Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:15:08 +0000 http://illuminated-media.org/?p=31#comment-914 Tom -- you've made another great point about the power of entrepreneurship. Innovation positively percolates on the ground, where people are actually making media -- doing the work of production, publishing, distribution, setting/maintaining standards, and building community. What lacks is more aggressive support for that. Currently the social-entrepreneurship funding pool is limited to national- and international-scale programs with neither the means nor the idiomatic savvy to connect effectively with local and regional needs and opportunities. A new kind of structure is needed (heard that one before). What about, to complement all the community foundations, a new type of community social venture organization? One with an interest in media and culture as related to civic life? Think we can pull that rabbit out of a hat? Tom — you’ve made another great point about the power of entrepreneurship. Innovation positively percolates on the ground, where people are actually making media — doing the work of production, publishing, distribution, setting/maintaining standards, and building community.

What lacks is more aggressive support for that. Currently the social-entrepreneurship funding pool is limited to national- and international-scale programs with neither the means nor the idiomatic savvy to connect effectively with local and regional needs and opportunities.

A new kind of structure is needed (heard that one before).

What about, to complement all the community foundations, a new type of community social venture organization? One with an interest in media and culture as related to civic life?

Think we can pull that rabbit out of a hat?

]]> By: Tom Murphy http://illuminated-media.org/?p=31&cpage=1#comment-912 Tom Murphy Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:01:38 +0000 http://illuminated-media.org/?p=31#comment-912 It's highly ironic that those who endlessly debate what is best for the public so rarely include the public in the debate. In a rush to give the people what the public "really needs," these great thinkers forget that the people can read anything they want on the Internet - it's the biggest single advantage of this still-young medium. Yes, large corporations will seek to corral this audience, but individual readers often fail to follow, a revolt that has already led to some spectacular commercial failures. Idealogues from the left and the right will try to impose their particular brands of truth on the public consciousness, but will mostly succeed only with those who already agree. And both nonprofit and for-profit ventures will strive to gain market share, but only those embraced by the public will ultimately thrive. The sinners are not those who would seek to turn a profit (or not), but those who condescend to their readers. Investors aren't inherently evil; some, afterall, will invest in the good journalism needed to sustain democracy. Advertisers won't control the news agenda if news publishers don't let them. Self-sustaining nonprofits will add to the richness of public discourse. And a new breed of micro-financing sites will help sustain independent writers, filmmakers and photographers. At the end of the day, the public will sort out the winners from the losers, the trusted from the tricksters, the important from the frivolous. And the ultimate victors in the new media landscape (beyond the public itself) won't be those with the "right" message or the best customer-management tools, but those who empower the public to make intelligent decisions by publishing high-quality journalism and inviting readers to join in the debate. As an independent for-profit news publisher, we've dedicated our company, RedwoodAge.com, to that ideal. And we invite our colleagues to join us - from the mightiest corporations to the humblest nonprofit. It’s highly ironic that those who endlessly debate what is best for the public so rarely include the public in the debate. In a rush to give the people what the public “really needs,” these great thinkers forget that the people can read anything they want on the Internet – it’s the biggest single advantage of this still-young medium.

Yes, large corporations will seek to corral this audience, but individual readers often fail to follow, a revolt that has already led to some spectacular commercial failures. Idealogues from the left and the right will try to impose their particular brands of truth on the public consciousness, but will mostly succeed only with those who already agree. And both nonprofit and for-profit ventures will strive to gain market share, but only those embraced by the public will ultimately thrive.

The sinners are not those who would seek to turn a profit (or not), but those who condescend to their readers. Investors aren’t inherently evil; some, afterall, will invest in the good journalism needed to sustain democracy. Advertisers won’t control the news agenda if news publishers don’t let them. Self-sustaining nonprofits will add to the richness of public discourse. And a new breed of micro-financing sites will help sustain independent writers, filmmakers and photographers.

At the end of the day, the public will sort out the winners from the losers, the trusted from the tricksters, the important from the frivolous. And the ultimate victors in the new media landscape (beyond the public itself) won’t be those with the “right” message or the best customer-management tools, but those who empower the public to make intelligent decisions by publishing high-quality journalism and inviting readers to join in the debate.

As an independent for-profit news publisher, we’ve dedicated our company, RedwoodAge.com, to that ideal. And we invite our colleagues to join us – from the mightiest corporations to the humblest nonprofit.

]]>