Tweet

In the cover story of the Wall Street Journal’s Technology Report reporters asked a variety of experts how they think traditional media can survive in the future. The story would have been a lot stronger if it acknowledged that many of the ideas presented have long been floating around the blogosphere and included bloggers among the sources.
The article suggests streaming complete video of broadcast interviews, and then quotes Mark Cuban but fails to mention that he ran the full content of a recent interview on his blog because he felt the reporter misrepresented him.
Audiences might respond to the authenticity and novelty of the content, the Journal says. “People aren’t going to the Internet because it looks like a newspaper,” Larry Ellin, an associate professor at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University says. “It’s because they’re getting something exotic and fresh and new and unfiltered.” And that’s a new point of view?
Tom Wolzien, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., who sounds like he could use a new job himself, thinks networks should make it easier for workers to see programs at work.
In a recent study, he found that the number of women aged 18 to 49 with broadband access at work roughly matches the number who are at home during the day. “Web delivery of soap operas could potentially double network profits,” he says. Many employers, obviously, would block the shows. But Mr. Wolzien figures that profits would soar if even 5% of women with broadband access at work tune in. Yes, and think of how customer service could be improved if the reps were watching “One Life to Live.”
The story contains a poll which asks “which form of traditional media is most likely to become obsolete over the next 25 years?” Of 2,074 voters, 55% said printed newspapers. Look out Wall St. Journal.