If you don’t, I recommend it – it’s here. And his latest post is so good I couldn’t resist sharing a few (there are many more on this blog) of the points here:
* Stories are points in time, but won’t end at publication. (Edits, updates, extensions are next.)
* Curators and editors rule, and creators aren’t necessarily on staff.
* Media cannot stick to one form. Text, photos, video, music, audio, animation, etc are a flow.
* Everything must have collaborative opportunities. If I write about a restaurant, you should have wikified access to add to the article directly.
* Advertising cannot be the primary method of revenue.
Good isn’t it? Makes me think and – more importantly- fires me up to want to achieve things. Which is why his blog remains in my feed reader at a time when I’m having something of a cull.
I was reviewing it recently when I realised that every third feed was talking, in varying tones ranging from glee to sad resignation about the death of the newspaper industry. And it also dawned on me that I could join in on the chorus of what was being written because I’d read it elsewhere, several times before.
Well you know what? I’m over it. In fact, I have a new rule: If you want to hand-wring about the state of the news industry on my time, you also need to have some interesting ideas about the future.
Because if you don’t – if you want to blog, tweet or podcast away about doomy, gloomy End of Days-type scenarios, then frankly I’m not interested any more. You see, you’re not giving me anything new to think about – you’re retreading old ground and you’re boring me.
So I’ve had a clear out of my feeds, ditching some long-followed blogs that I noticed were repeating the same tired old messages six different ways. I’m very interested in what people have to say about the future of news – whether they think the newspaper industry has a future or not – but I’m just not engaged by people wanting to drone on about, for example, the Journalists bad, Bloggers good debate.
Now, the paywall/subscription/free issue, now, I am interested in, and I change my mind about where I stand with almost every post I read. I’m also enjoying opions on the wary circling of the BBC and the major media companies, and UGC is another area I find exciting – there are so many talented people out there and we should be partnering up with them and attempting to share information and knowledge, not ignoring them.
Too often, I suspect eyes roll in newsrooms when a tweet is cited as a potential news source. As Chris Brogan says in his post “Collaboration rules. Why should I pick the next cover? Why should my picture of the car crash be the best?”