Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
YESTERDAY Alan Crosbie, head of an Irish newspaper company, made a speech that was highly critical of “new media” – ie, that terrible thing you’re reading off a screen right now. The general idea was that newspapers produce quality information, and the internet produces “a tsunami of unverifiable data, opinion, libel and vulgar abuse”.
The rise of new media risked “abandoning that most precious resource, information, to chaos.” New media has the “capacity to destroy civil society and cause unimaginable suffering.” The rhetoric seemed more reminiscent of a North Korean press release than the conference on media diversity where Mr Crosbie was speaking. He even blamed new media for “those English riots.”
Perhaps, like North Korea, the company that Mr Crosbie heads feels under siege. Many older news companies are threatened as print sales and ad revenues decline, and the shortfall is difficult to make up online. There’s suffering in information era alright, though it’s the news companies, not society, that are feeling it.
Thankfully, many “old” media companies (to use Mr Crosbie’s categories) are adapting to the digital era, and developing effective ways to leverage their trusted brands, professional experience and talented journalists and editors. They’re mastering social distribution, opening up comments and discussion threads, developing loyal online followings, and opening up new revenue streams.
The alternative to this is to go bust, or agitate for free government money, as Mr Crosbie did. At the very least, the old media giants should spend their time understanding the new media environment rather than vilifying it. It’s an environment with very solid fact checking, that’s just as reputation-aware as the newspapers. It’s disaggregated, responsive, and fast.
New Media: Democratic and Careful with Facts
For example, when the Independent published the mistranslated ‘Magda’ story, it was mainly new media sources – TheJournal.ie, Broadsheet.ie – that reacted as the fact checkers and published the first Polish reactions. (On the radio, the John Murray show also helped correct the record.)
When the SOPA Ireland legislation appeared, it was these same outlets that published pieces that spread public awareness about the new law. It was through new media that an anti-SOPA campaign banded together and collected tens of thousands of signatures, and through new media that thousands of people alerted Ireland’s TDs that internet censorship was not a good idea.
In olden days, the entire Stop SOPA Ireland campaign would have been lucky to get a single letter on the Irish Times letter page. And that would have been it. That’s the time that Mr Crosbie longingly harkens back to.
Ireland’s New Media Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Let’s stop and look at the rest of this dangerous new media environment.
In my experience, it’s pretty damn good. I get better context on Ireland’s debt, housing market, and property skullduggery from NamaWineLake than the business pages of the broadsheets. For discussion and reporting on politics, there’s politics.ie, which has broken many political stories over the past few years, as has TheJournal.ie in the past 12 months. We’ve also got great reporting via Freedom of Information requests from thestory.ie, and reliable fact checking on the fuzzy facts spewed out by official Ireland from Maman Poulet. Similar fact checking continues on Twitter every day, driven by reporters, economists, and others.
For technology and startup business, there’s the newspaper of record for that sector, Silicon Republic, as well as several smaller tech sites. For areas like fashion and beauty there are blogs like What She Wears and beaut.ie.
It’s true that there’s a lot of mulch out there among the good tweets . But new media companies are solving this problem – it’s exactly what Dublin-based Storyful does. Our startup, NewsWhip, tracks which stories are spreading the fastest through the social web – it’s a democratic news filter edited by a billion people, deciding what to share on Facebook and Twitter.
New Media: Better at being Correct
New media sources will not destroy civil society and cause unimaginable suffering. And as TJ McIntyre points out in his IT law blog, they did not enable the London Riots. A detailed, data-driven Guardian study found that the riots were coordinated by text messages and private instant messages. Twitter was used to co-ordinate the cleanup.
Once again, a misconception (“Rioters on Twitter”) is corrected by data-driven new media. The Guardian has embraced a Digital First policy, and its future looks strong. In mid-2010, the Guardian was making an annual £40 million in online revenue – and that’s eons ago in new media terms. The Atlantic magazine recently announced that its online revenues were now exceeding its offline revenues.
Another great thing in new media – you can check all of what I’ve just said. Click on the hyperlinks, follow through. And if I got anything wrong, you can point it out in the comments.
It’s hard for the people with the printing presses to accept that they can’t any longer control the information we get each day. It’s particularly hard to imagine that their product – a daily fact sheet of what happened yesterday – might be just a temporary product of the information distribution technology of the 18th to 20th centuries.
There’s a lot to compete with online. But there’s only one solution to the problem – it’s not punitive legislation geared at new media. It’s producing a better new media product. I wish them good luck doing that.
Paul Quigley is co-founder of Newswhip.com.
A lot of the time the Internet is the only place where you can find the truth.
Lately I have realised this big time. Especially rte’s reporting. I had been naive for a long time about it. Thanks to the internet, I can get 2 or more sides to a story and be better informed.
also kevin myers airing similar views last week. long live the new media. open debate and a wide cross section of opinions. proper order
I’d agree with most of what is said in the column. The exaggerated reactions of Crosbie and others are to be expected. However at the same time new media is not perfect. Incorrect and untrue information can very quickly be transmitted to large amounts of people, as the recent You Tube video case shows. I’m not being anti-new media, I’m just pointing out that there are some problems there and it’d be wrong of those working in new media outlets to rail against all criticism as unjustified or coming from backwards people.
The Comments Policy on here generally works very well, but not all new media outlets are quite as good in this respect unfortunately.
Thanks for the comment Ryan. Would agree with that. There’s no “new media” outlet that could replace the coverage and reporting power of any of Ireland’s big broadsheets (or the Star, which is great, but offline). Would hate to see any of them go under. But some papers are doing a much better job than others of adjusting to the new paradigm, and all of them would benefit from looking at what works and developing or hiring the right talent for the transition.
“a tsunami of unverifiable data, opinion, libel and vulgar abuse”
Clearly the man has never heard of The Daily Mail.
Out with the old and in with the new. These dinosaurs must die. Embrace the future, dont be afraid of it, it is here now.
Crosbie gave you a thumbs down ha ha
How many people here would pay to access this site? Let me start you off with my answer. Not me.
I would not pay either – nothing against the journal but I treat it as a collection of blogs and I just could not see myself paying for someone’s blogs – however, if the articles sources were verified i.e. if there was an editor that read all the articles and took responsibility for the quality of the research behind them – issuing apologies or at least corrections where the original mistake can still be seen – then I would pay. However now and again I read articles here that are inaccurate and often articles are just summaries of articles from other news outlets without the sources of the original article ever being verified.
The writer of this column cites the Irish Independent article about ‘Magda’ as an example of how wonderful the public editing and researching of articles by the Journal.ie’s readers is and how poor and slow the Irish Independent’s own system of editing and researching is. However, I think that while it is a much more disgracefully poor level of journalism for the Independent to fabricate a poorly researched article based on a poor translation from a poorly constructed article in a Polish tabloid-quality publication, it is also fairly disastrous journalism for the Journal.ie to re-report the story with only the Irish Independent’s article as its source. Sure the online comments of readers corrected the issue with the article being more promptly corrected than it ever could be in a newspaper, but the article should never have been published by the Journal.ie in the first place. It is the job of journalists in ‘new media’ and ‘old media’ to research their articles and in this situation the word of the Independent should not have been treated as gospel but instead the original Polish article should have been read. Why should the readers of newspapers or on-line news sites have to be doing the basic research of checking sources of a news story? It is just not good enough. There is a reason why journalism is not trusted in Ireland…. Whether a story appears online or in a newspaper whoever publishes it should take responsibility for their article and check out their story before publishing because in many situations it is real people’s lives that are damaged by badly researched articles.
By the way who pays for the Journal.ie now? I don’t; I don’t see any advertising; and I presume the journal’s staff are being paid by someone. Whoever is paying, please keep it up…
And thats the GOOD thing about it Gerry – it doesnt cost us a penny thanks to the advertising revenue from the fat cats :)
“Why should the readers of newspapers or on-line news sites have to be doing the basic research of checking sources of a news story? It is just not good enough. There is a reason why journalism is not trusted in Ireland…”
Why shouldn’t readers fact-check whatever news they get from whatever news source? I think it’s much healthier for democracy to have a reasonably skeptical readership rather than an all-trusting, compliant one.
Robert, just to note that our original reporting of the Magda did not have the Irish Independent as our only source. We reported the comments from the Labour senator and relied on a rough translation of the original article. We then got a better translation and liaised with the Polish embassy and took the story on.
Hi Robert – another note on your comment. TheJournal.ie was the first to get in contact with the Polish ambassador that morning to find out his take on the story. We were also first to publish his response which he wanted to take the form of an open letter to the Irish Independent. The Independent published the letter later on – we’re not sure if our publication of it pushed them into that, or if they had intended to do that already. Either way, you can safely say that TheJournal.ie was one of a few outlets taking the lead in exploring ‘the other side’ of this story.
TheJournal.ie HAS got an editor overseeing content – namely me – so if you have any suggestions of stories you would like to see highlighted or further explored, we always welcome emails to tips@thejournal.ie.
I am surprised that you believe the site is “a collection of blogs” – the vast majority of our opinion pieces or ‘Read Mes’ are written specifically for TheJournal.ie, including this morning’s one from Michael Taft.
And we have made our name in breaking news, which is something that is impossible to … well, break… if you’re waiting for some other outlet to do so first. For example, last week we spent a day and a half researching and analysing expenses filed for the Seanad and Dáil and our series of articles on such were pretty much the only ones available. The Irish Times did some work on them but released them at the same time. On the other hand, we found some of our articles – for example, this one – http://www.thejournal.ie/the-only-td-in-ireland-who-claims-no-expenses-344258-Feb2012/ – lifted wholesale by other media outlets the day after we published them on the site, without crediting the source, ie, TheJournal.ie
I really hope you continue to read and enjoy us and that you start to discover some of the good and painstaking original work that we do.
Kindest regards,
Susan Daly,
Editor,
TheJournal.ie
@ Susan Daly & Paul Quigley
Thanks for the article. The journal.ie is doing a great job in using new media to give a wider range of opinions & coverage.
IMO we need much more of this – information is the lifeblood of democracy & for far too long this has been provided by too few sources. Sources that have always had to be financed from relatively few corporate interests. Advertising revenue has always been the primary income, and only the larger corporations can afford, or justify, national scale budgets. Over the years this has meant ever fewer consolidated multi national media providers financed by fewer & larger multi national companies’ advertising. E.g. the Murdoch empire.
I don’t believe it is any accident that the convergence of policies & lack of real choice in mainstream politics has mirrored the narrowing of choice in media provision. Pluralism has largely disappeared, I suggest, in favour of narrow, ultimately corporate, interests. As any number of commenters on journal.ie indicate, differences between the major political parties are merely the illusion of rhetoric. In practice, there has been little or no real policy differentiation for many years.
Democracy, in my view, has likewise been rendered illusory, and media concentration for narrow private interests is a major part, perhaps even the most important part of that.
New media, digital, internet provision, still in its infancy has the potential to radically change this & not just restore pluralism to democracy, but to far exceed anything previously possible. The key is the vastly reduced costs of distribution facilitated by digital media. We are on the verge of a revolution similar in terms to that when the printing press was introduced.
So how do I think this revolution in technology should be used to achieve this new pluralism?
I call it ‘democratisation of the media’, and as you will see it offers not only a solid business model for new providers but also a way for existing providers to cope with the transition already taking place.
What we must first do is to ban advertising from all news & factual media publishing. Let’s take the multinational corporations’ overarching influence out of our democratic ‘lifeblood’ entirely. Their business is profit, not democracy, and they have more than enough power already to have their (minority interest) voice heard.
So, where does the publishers’ income come from?
Well, it could come from a cover price, subscription, or paywall. But this means +only+ those who pay get to see the information provided. Viewers of each publication effectively living in their own private information bubble. Hardly very conducive to true pluralism or open public debate when the source materials are not visible or able to be referenced without citizens’ spending money for each publication that may or may not interest them.
I think there’s a better way.
For obvious reasons, just as financing from any narrow interest group, corporate, union, ‘think tank’, lobby or other creates distortion, we cannot have direct funding by government.
But there is a way of +indirect+ funding by government which can exclude any interference whatever in where money is allocated. Government can provide a ‘media debit card’ to all citizens. The card is issued on an annual basis & credited with a sum of say, €200 from government. Each (adult) citizen may then give that sum, in whatever proportions they choose, to the media providers of their choice. In return, media providers must make their publications freely available to all (at least by internet, but see below).
By media provision here, I mean news & factual content, not providers of entertainment media, who would continue as now. News & factual media content providers would need to be registered & meet eligibility conditions (such as no income from advertising, ‘sponsorship’, or other sources) to publish & avail of ‘debit card’ funding.
The value of new entrants to media provision via the low cost medium of the internet, I would think is obvious to all. We are far better informed thru’ the internet, & more quickly, now, than even ten years ago. But the lack an adequate business model, suffered by all, including established media providers is still holding back the level of quality, investigative & truly independent journalism.
A sound, sustainable financing model, importantly & vitally, without ‘strings’ attached, has the potential to transform the information base upon which we manage democratic society.
As we are witnessing daily, bad decisions by governments, unchallenged by an ill (or not at all) informed electorate are incredibly costly to most of us. Could Ireland have diverted from the financial sector disaster if the few loan voices of dissent had had the channels available to them to properly open up the scale of public debate needed? I definitely think so. I recall someone telling me about shenanigans at Anglo Irish Bank in the late 90s. He had some ‘inside’ sources, but there was no avenues for me to discover or verify that independently.
So, I put it to you, that the sums of public money I’ve indicated here are peanuts compared to the cost of bad, ill informed decisions, and would probably be the best value for money we could ever have from the public finances. Democracy requires investment. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Let’s have citizens calling the tune in a democratic fashion.
I have not worked out every last detail of this proposal. For example, many people will still want the traditional media of, particularly, printed newspapers to remain viable. Of course, traditional printing is expensive, likely prohibitively so if corporate advertising revenue is removed. However, I’m sure a concession could be negotiated along the lines allowing a publisher to make a small cover charge, just sufficient to cover the additional cost of providing a printed version. And on the condition that an identical copy is made freely available on the internet.
As regards television news & documentaries, I suggest broadcasters could be obliged to offer designated program slots, free to air, decided by auction, to registered content providers. Separating content provision from the business of providing advertising & subscriber funded entertainment. In any case, the market power of broadcasters will be increasingly irrelevant as television content moves to much lower cost internet provision.
Well, I hope this gives some food for thought. I don’t think we have yet scratched the surface of the potential new media has to transform society for the better, for all, once we dare to imagine. With the rapidly impending challenges of population growth vs resource depletion & ecological destruction, such potential needs to be realised now more than at any time in human history.
The control freaks always get upset when they’re no longer in control.
i used to read everything. now i just read the journal
Embrace it Mr Crosbie old media is dead!!
I just want to say, very very well written article. This should actually be presented to the old media outlets but I doubt they would be prepared to listen. They are trying to resist a natural law of the universe, adapt or die.
When the old media abandoned their job to seek out and publish the truth at all costs and started becoming the servants and staunch defenders of the establishment, when journalists stopped being journalists and became mere conduits of newswire guff, then something had to fill the void that was left.
It’s just sad to see old media dying out guys. Newspapers were the only form of information for centuries and now again we have an industry dying. A lot of these newspapers were based locally, supplying local news and hiring local people to learn craft of Journalism. Sadly this will stop as I also believe new media is going to take over, definitely by the next generation.
Will Journalism suffer, will we have integrity, will we have to establish fact or fiction – who knows. But everyone who likes Journalism and Media new or old will hate to see a newspaper close down, especially if it’s local.
You can’t light the fire or wrap chips in the new media!
Likewise, dropping your new media device down the toilet is going to be much more costly than dropping old media there!
“New media sources will not destroy civil society and cause unimaginable suffering. And as TJ McIntyre points out in his IT law blog, they did not enable the London Riots. A detailed, data-driven Guardian study found that the riots were coordinated by text messages and private instant messages. Twitter was used to co-ordinate the cleanup.”
Just curious, are SMS and “private instant messages” (I assume this refers to Blackberry Messenger) now to be regarded as old media?
Hey Gerard – from the examples he listed, I think Mr. Crosbie was talking about “new media” as websites, message boards, blogs, twitter, HuffPo, etc. rather than private channels of communication like mobile phones, instant messages and SMS. I’m not sure how to define the line – public online publication maybe? But I don’t feel 3 mobile or Meteor or Blackberry are “new media” outlets in the way we’re talking about it here.
Hi Paul, great article by the way. Do you know if there’s any data that contrasts the success in terms of readership/revenue of “Old Media” outfits like the Guardian and Daily Mail who’ve embraced “New Media” ways verses those “Old Media” publications, like the Financial Times, for example, which hide their content behind paywalls?
Hey James – I think the FT, WSJ and others who have valuable industry-specific content and paywalls are doing very well. But unlike a general news paper, they have something an entire industry of (wealthy) people will pay for. The WSJ has made revenues of $100M p.a. from its paywall. The NYT has a partial paywall, and it looks like it will help their bottom line. But they’re in a league of their own for size of audience and quality of content. I’d guess paywall is not going so well for a general paper like the Times over in the UK. There might be a paywall route for some Irish news publications, but at least with current technology, they’ll really need to set themselves apart in terms of quality to get people to fish out their credit cards.
It’s the media Jim, but not as we know it. Goodbye newspapers, women’s mags & gossip rags.
Digital revolution notwithstanding – generational shift & new value systems are powerful forces.
its called progress, or evolution.. if you cant adopt you’ll perish… simple… get the drift,?
i mean adapt, of course… dang touch screen phones…. oh the irony.
1984 is 27 years late it seems
Some people still use new media the same as traditional media its a blurrin of lines, people access the same paper they would buy but online because it free or its quicker through an app. Besides big organisation do have resource to narrow the scope of opinion’s, thats why its important to be an active consumer of media and verify stories ur self or get a different view point otherwise were consuming new media the traditional way and takin it at face value.. People have the ability to question these things through the internet so its ur choice to do so or not. Anyway I like the journal.ie because I enjoy getting the news quick and early in the mornin and I like readin the comments because sometime there funny or more informative :-) altho I do get news from other sources.
As a matter of fact new media played an important role in destroying old media recently
and that’s because people in the UK were so outraged with the phone hacking scandal.
There was that instantly very successful campaign that targeted advertisers of the soon later
closed News of the World, a campaign that most likely helped Murdoch make the decision to close it
because of the disappearing advertising revenue. A story that is still making good reading.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-twitter-campaign
have your say