Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Mark, Alabama on August 17, 2009:

I find this read very interesting. I worked with another internet pioneer, a guy named Fritz Nordengren. Fritz had visions in 1996 that few in the country -- no, make that world -- had at that time. His brainchild was a site called "Behind the Viewfinder -- A Year in the Life of Photojournalism" (http://www.digitalstoryteller.com/YITL/), which took photojournalists from all over the country and allowed them to document their daily work. The site was made to educate the general public about the differences between community photojournalism and paparazzi. I was the only one in the group that moved on past the daily grind of journalism before YITL -- I had opened a digital imaging and production house and was designing web sites and graphics for people who didn't know the difference between a monitor and hard drive. I saw the response to the site and even back in 1997, it was obvious that the internet was going to become bigger and better than any newspaper could dream of doing. That vision has come true now.

Posted by Kirby from Delaware, Ohio on August 17, 2009:

I have just been doing some thinking about journalism and the changes we can all observe in the print and TV media. The changes of course have gone toward the internet. And not even so much the internet per se, but the amount of video journalism now present.

I am an active reader of written material and online material and find I can read faster than I can watch a video. But so many stories are now told online via video that it is hard to escape the prompting to click the little triangle.

This has created profound implications for the one little tool that has made so much amateur video journalism possible. The smart cell phone. By combining voice, video, and text capabilities, there are whole new possibilities for seeing news as it is or was made. The implication for dictators is not good. The cell phone may make these folks obsolete one day.

Hopefully, not all journalists or writers will go exclusively to video. The written word is precious and interesting as you are so skilled at demonstrating.

But the changes in communications via blogs, home made video, and all of the possibilities that come with the social networking sites is exciting. I am an old guy that was thrilled to find your service many years ago and have been discovering new writers and services ever since.

Keep up the good work.

Posted by Patricia, Dearborn Heights, MI on August 17, 2009:

The Internet did NOT ruin the printed newspaper. Newspaper publishers and striking unions ruined the printed newspaper when they stopped UNBIASED reporting as well as the pushy sales tactics that turned out to be lies. We stopped getting the paper several years ago because of double-billing and missed deliveries. Not to mention, the monumental waste of paper and, therefore, trees!

Here in Detroit, our two major newspapers merged then the joint union just walked off the job for almost a year. I can't speak for others, but I do know that my husband and I were avid newspaper readers up to that point and we learned that we could really do without, there were so many OTHER avenues to "feed the need." My point is that the GREED of both publishers and unions should take a major part of the blame. Same circumstances happened with Major League Baseball when they struck, it took all the fun out of the game!

TV & Cable news stations are next to go, I feel certain, because of the MOSTLY Liberal bias. The networks don't even TRY to look at OTHER points of view and willingly insult the intelligence regularly of those who disagree with their IMAGINED authority!

You, Randy, give us the stories that make most of us go "hmmm" with a little tagline at the end of each that gives us a short "editorial" on your thoughts or to provoke thought! Which I appreciate! You don't try to make YOUR thoughts OUR thoughts, turning us into news-zombies digesting your every thought as gospel! Thanks!

---

You're correct, Patricia: the Internet didn't kill (and isn't killing) newspapers, it's actually helping them retain readership. But you wouldn't know that by reading newspapers! Their shrill hysteria on the subject is about as reasonable as the shrill hysteria over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction". Some are literally and seriously trying to make linking illegal! There's nothing quite like a business that exists BECAUSE of the First Amendment trying to kill the First Amendment.... -rc

Posted by Bob - Farmington Hills, MI on August 17, 2009:

A problem the media has that you did not mention is their bias while claiming they are not. It has infected their news media coverage. One thing I like about you is that you will make fun of both sides. God knows they both often deserve it.

Mainstream media also continues to pander to hysteria. Look at the coverage of the death of Michael Jackson; the most recent example.

Posted by Bruce, Honolulu on August 18, 2009:

In Honolulu we have two morning papers; the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. We get both daily. It USED to be that I read the Advertiser first and spent the most time with it and then maybe 5 minutes with the Star-Bulletin. But then the Star-Bulletin switched from the typical broadsheet format to a tabloid format. I now read it first and spend about 20-30 minutes reading it. Because of the format change I read more of the stories and, surprisingly to me, more of the ads! The more convenient format has less competition for attention on each page and is more magazine-like. I now spend only 5-10 minutes with the Advertiser and would drop it altogether if my wife would allow it.

So, while content must remain the first and foremost concern, maybe a change of format that could help save the papers.

Posted by Robert, Leeds (UK) on August 18, 2009:

The traditional publishing business is frightened of the Internet because it can't fit its business model into the way the Internet works. If I can get my news for 'free' why should I buy a paper? Answers: it isn't free, in the UK I pay for BBC News through the TV licence fee, and the 'free' newspaper feeds are paid by advertising which is ultimately paid for by the consumer. And anyway they're complementary not competitive media; I very happily buy and read printed papers as well as onine. And good old 'True' shows the way ahead; Internet users will happily PAY for added value!

All the best and keep up the good work.

---

The key there, of course, is added value. Papers figure they can make online users pay for commodity news -- wire stories -- but they are sadly mistaken. If there's one paper that has it for free, they will end up with all the traffic. And you know there will always be at least one site giving it away for free! -rc

Posted by Martin, London on August 18, 2009:

Or the latest hysteria... Fox "News"' constant stream of lies about the Britain and its health service (or in fact any country with a higher life-expectancy than the US).

At which point does a news source stop being a "news" source and start being a lobbying/propaganda organisation?

How then do you know you can trust your news source, and if you can't trust them... what's the point of them?

Posted by Steve, Pennsylvania on August 18, 2009:

Communication has always been either one to one (verbal or later, telephone) or one to many (newspapers, radio, TV). The big difference is that it takes a lot of money to be the one who speaks to many; owning media outlets has never been inexpensive.

Until today.

Now we have many to many communications. It started with blogging, then vlogging (video blogging). Then twitter. (Witness the twitter-based communications changes with regard to Iran's election or the school collapse in China that no censorship could effectively stop.)

I couldn't begin to predict the changes that this will bring us, except to say that they'll be on the kind of massive scale of change brought by the printing press or the Internet itself.

Those who cling to the old ways, whether reporters or music publishers, will die.

As a side note. What will happen to the multi-million dollar exclusive broadcast contracts for sport events when people can send high quality video from their cell phones to their twitter friends? Low quality is possible now, but that market model has a few years left in it at most. (To be followed by a few years of using the courts to try to extend its life, no doubt.)

Stay tuned. Times are certainly a'changin.

PS I just noticed the last line, "Stay tuned". That's an old phrase, like "Dialing a number" that has no link to current activity. I wonder how long it will last in our common vocabulary and understanding.

Posted by Cam Whetstone, Baltimore, Md. on August 18, 2009:

Fifty years ago I got a job working for a McGraw-Hill trade magazine, Electronics. I was young, had a fair background in electronics (mostly military), and had spent several years writing technical manuals which helped with my written language skills. I learned a few things--mostly from the Editor, an old written media type who had been around for a while and knew the electronics field.

I went to press conferences where flacks tried to sucker 'us reporters' into printing what they wanted us to print. In my travels I met a beautiful young woman who was writing for Newsweek's Space and the Atom Column. She not only had a physics degree, but was sharp as a tack. I shamelessly took advantage of her knowledge at every opportunity I could. For example I had seen a demo of what was being worked on at the Atom Fair--Plasma Reactors. A week or so later a company held a press conference to proclaim they had succeeded. It didn't look Kosher so I asked my friend. She said Bull Crap, they were just after some press to boost their stock prices before some stock action they wanted to perform. I didn't then and don't understand now what that action was. When I went back I reduced it down to a clip stating the company had announced their minor progress in the field.

The New York Times reporter--A young kid so fresh from the ivy halls of some college that he still reeked of frat parties--reported the handout they gave us, word for word, for about 10 or 12 column-inches of baloney.

On another occasion we received a press release from a California company stating they had performed some fabulous scientific deed. My Editor was suspicious. We called a stringer on the west coast and had him look into it. The major parties of the affair had disappeared into the woodwork and were not available for questions. My Editor decided it was bull excreta. One of the pulp electronics newspapers carried the full press release with headlines and a half page of copy.

I had a company rep call me and give me a story about a new microwave ILS system they had developed. It was interesting since he informed me the FAA was testing the system. I was ready to shout "Stop The Presses!" My editor brought up the facts that before it could be introduced at any airports, many many commercial aircraft would have to be equipped (at great cost) with receivers and displays for this marvelous system. As a point in fact fifty years later, it is still not in use.

There were a few people who were knowledgeable about their fields. There was a guy working for Av Week who knew everyone in the business. If he reported something you could take it to the bank. But he worked for a magazine. Most newspapers relied on young guys fresh out of school to get them information. No matter how knowledgeable the Editors were, there was no way for them to make silk purses out of the sow's ears of information returned by these kids.

I went to a conference in Atlantic City the FAA hosted on instrument landing systems. I learned about the BRAD 25, A B-25 Mitchell Bomber that the FAA had turned into a testbed for instrument landing systems. The aim was to be able to land an airplane without the pilot helping. Hands free landings. It was progressing and a few landings had been made, but I don't think it ever got to the point the FAA considered it practical.

I heard a Business Week Associate Editor was writing an article om the subject. I called him and told him I had just attended an FAA seminar on the subject and would he like me to come by and discuss the latest information I had. He was monumentally disinterested. His article was already in final edit, he told me, and he was happy with it as it was. When I read the article, I noticed his facts were 6 months to a year behind what I learned at the seminar I attended. I later noticed that other articles on subjects like that, on areas that I was familiar with, were often superficial and lacking in facts and information. I stopped believing in anything just because it was in print. And not too long afterward I stopped reading newspapers.

Posted by James Lick, Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C. on August 18, 2009:

It seems to me that a lot of the controversy about how do delivery of the news in an Internet age boils down to the underlying issue of losing control. Newspapers have grown accustomed to being the only source of print news for a particular geographic area (the only alternative being one or two big city papers that may be available locally).

They are used to being able to influence opinion not just on the editorial page but also in the articles themselves. They are less frightened about having to adapt to a new system, but more afraid that they will have to give up some of their control to do so.

Now they have to compete not only with every other newspaper in the world, but bloggers, social networking, and independent niche publishers like yourself. Now they are just one voice in the crowd of ideas, not "the newspaper" for their particular area. They no longer have control.

I don't think I'll lose any sleep over that.