[MGP-Forum Announce] It's not the gizmo. It's how you use it.

[Josh Wilson]

It seems like we're getting distracted by the wonders of technology -- envisioning the right gizmo as a panacea to everything from declining literacy to declining newspaper subscriptions -- when the real concern is the purposes to which that gizmo is applied.

That's the defining issue of "New Media" in general: Intent. Media technologies are useful for whatever purpose they are competently put to. Commerce, politics, education, democracy -- all are contenders for our resources and attention, as producers, as audiences, as citizens.

The gizmo doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it's going to be cool and do all sorts of neat-o things, and then will become obsolete in five years (or less) as the next, smaller, more powerful gizmo comes along. Advanced technologies and sophisticated interactive software will not by themselves solve the problems of media today, just as the invention of blogging software didn't bring down Dan Rather. It was the way people used their blogs that made the difference. 

It's vital that we as a community of media producers, advocates and critics avoid being distracted by this "gee whiz" enthusiasm for gizmos when we have deep, lasting issues of content quality and relevance to deal with.

As two of our Media Giraffe colleagues noted ... 

Tish Grier:

>Well if there are bells and whistles that don't offer
>good information that people can trust and that is
>relevant what's the point?

Tom Stites:

>Whatever the medium, what really matters is the quality and character of
>what people read and otherwise experience when using it.  And therein lies a
>huge challenge.
>Tom


Precisely.

I'm not worried about the medium or the technology -- innovation is largely a given, especially due to the open source nature of emerging media.

Nor am I worried about the economic survival of large media entities. They'll do fine, though the names, faces and products may evolve.

I find the real challenge of journalism in the 21st century -- and narrative media in general -- is content: How it is created or produced, and to what end it is applied.

At SFGate.com in the late '90s I was greatly impressed by the assemblage of resources put to the task of develop rich, interactive multimedia journalism. We had a cornucopia of text articles from the Chronicle and Examiner, and an endless video faucet from KRON-TV and BayTV cable. Ninety percent of it was repurposed, but still drew lots of traffic -- enough to make us the fourth largest newspaper website nationwide.

What ultimately provoked my resignation was the simple fact that SFGate.com was resolutely focused away from "serious" reporting (read: investigative, enterprise, hard news, etc.). If anything like that came down from one of the sources, fine. But any original material we produced was about culture, lifestyle, travel and sports, usually columns or features with heavy P.O.V.

Yes, those are staples, but they were also the absolute priority. What about the public health, environment and economy/labor beats? Stuff people *really do care about*, but which are more commercially "risky"?

What I wanted to see at SFGate.com was a commitment to that deeper sort of news coverage. A commitment by the publisher to go deep with important subjects, issues and ideas that don't get the ink -- or screen time -- they deserve.

Produce that kind of material, and let the richly interactive online medium coalesce and innovate *around* the content.

THEN you'll see news media no one will want to miss! Cultivate "audience" appetite and expectations, build traffic, open doors to dialogue and participation, and let it flourish.

I don't want to fall back on "If you build it, they will come," but, if you put well-crafted, compelling, relevant narratives in front of people through diverse media over time, you can build communities of interest and participation. (What they used to call a "readership" back in the olden days.)

There's lots of talent and lots of enthusiasm for this kind of work, but it's still simmering in the newsroom rank and file, and the media grassroots in general.

It has yet to percolate up to the level of a national-scale news publisher or network willing to take a financial risk on advertiser-unfriendly content.

That's where I see our opportunity here at Newsdesk.org. Now all we need is a million dollars!

Josh W.
-- 
Editor * Newsdesk.org
<http://newsdesk.org/>

News You Might Have Missed:
<http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/nymhm/>

Subscribe:
<http://lists.artsandmedia.net/mailman/listinfo/nymhm/>