cbc.ca— The writing's already on the wall for all of those media but not everyone knows it yet. The CBC is helping spread the word with this great series on how the internet is changing things.
Aug 7, 2006View in Crawl 4
I think the common thread - the Internet and mouse clicks, RSS feeds, online news, TiVo, YouTube, BitTorrent, cellphone screens, etc etc - it is the shrinking of the average human attention span. Information is everywhere - and there are so many ways now that we choose how and when we process it. On our time, now - not theirs.Old school TV, radio and print: it's all about waiting - waiting for the scheduled news to come on, waiting for the paper to be delivered, etc. Seems archaic now.
the problem with replacing traditional media through the Internet is content. Most of the on line news sources still get the majority of their content from traditional media (i.e. Associated Press). The economics of the news industry relies on selling ad space around the news. if any one has looked at the numbers for ad revenue generated through on line news sites compared to revenue generated by ad revenue in a traditional media (such as as newspapers) there is no comparison. The result is that as more and more people go on line for their news, traditional news sources (even those with an online presence) are losing readers (market share) and ad revenue -setting up a possible death spiral for news as we know it. dealing with lower subscriptions and revenue many traditional news organizations are cutting personnel and working with skeleton staffs, decreasing the quantity and quality of responsible reporting. Unfortunately, since (as previously stated) the majority of online news is derived originally from the traditional media, there is a growing void of responsible reporting. So if you are a news junkie, even if you get rss feeds from your favorite news source to your cell phone, please spend 50 cents to pick up a paper and help pay for the content generation. there is no such thing as a free lunch
Dramatic titles such as "THE END OF ______ !!" are so annoying. You're not considering how much of the country (US) is small town/farm land folks who use the Internet on dialup ... if they barely have net access at all. I hate AOL along with the best of them -- but a LOT of the country is dependant on dialup for email and basic surfing needs and that's it - maybe a Myspace page here or there. When you have a bold statement such as this, it more applies for the downtown urban (NY, Chicago, LA, etc) and surrounding suburbs, but consider all the rest of the country: tv, radio, cellphone are standard tech. Advanced/frivilous (.. to them) usage of the Internet such as streaming media (HD content online, TV, online radio, podcasting, RSS news, etc) is yet to become the norm and will take some time. And of course it's the younger rural crowd that will bring that level of tech to the small town / farms USA. Pls correct me if I'm wrong. I've been wrong before.
wildleaf, are you a complete retard? Read it again, since I never said I wasn't a pessimist. In black and white I said, "Sorry to be the big pessimist here." Besides, when is being realistic a pessimistic view? Being realistic is taking into account logical factors to determine an outcome. Being pessimistic is being negative no matter what you take into account. You also attempted a retort on something I already said, though I did so with much more thought, skill, and execution. "Also - TV won't phase out but it will be indemand in a new way." That is precisely what I already said: "It's about the evolution and integration of current technology and the options it provides, not about the extinction of the aforementioned." Spend some time reading the comments before launching a debate. It shows your ignorance and is wholly immature. Let me also apologize if I offended you with my lack of "logical spacing - paragraphing and the like." I guess that reading an entire block in a comment stream must be challenging for you? Why don't you spend your time commenting on the subject matter rather than pissing and moaning about the assumed neglect of blog comment etiquette by others. It may be a less "pessimistic" experience for you.
It's the business model behind the old media that will die. Yes, TV and radio will still be here forever, but the way content is prepared for them, and the way they make money will have to change. Same for the music and movie industries.
It is sort of the same thing however, a lot of Canadians watch it and sometimes it has more viewers than other major networks, for example during the Stanley Cup finals. I wouldn't say that CBC has low ratings.
@drumt:I see what you are saying but keep this in mind. If the only people that the television and radio broadcasters have left to sell their content to are those who cannot afford it, will it still exist?I think probably what is more realistic is that television and radio will adapt to somehow take advantage of it.
Times are changing. Readers now behave differently than ever. They read different things and in different new ways. Nobody wants to wait when they can simply type in the web address and the information is at their fingertips. Companies like Pressmart Media Limited <a class="user" href="http://pressmart.net/eedition.html">http://pressmart.net/eedition.html</a> is a leading print-to-digital delivery service across 35 countries, in more then 22 languages, where it currently serves over 3.8 million* readers . Pressmart?s proprietary technology strips the pre-press PDF pages it receives from publishers and pushes the content intelligently on multiple delivery channels like Web, Mobile, RSS, Podcast, Social Media etc.
tomboy501Aug 7, 2006
I think the common thread - the Internet and mouse clicks, RSS feeds, online news, TiVo, YouTube, BitTorrent, cellphone screens, etc etc - it is the shrinking of the average human attention span. Information is everywhere - and there are so many ways now that we choose how and when we process it. On our time, now - not theirs.Old school TV, radio and print: it's all about waiting - waiting for the scheduled news to come on, waiting for the paper to be delivered, etc. Seems archaic now.
edmondsonjAug 7, 2006
This was on digg a couple months ago..!!DUPE!!sorry
elinicklesAug 7, 2006
the problem with replacing traditional media through the Internet is content. Most of the on line news sources still get the majority of their content from traditional media (i.e. Associated Press). The economics of the news industry relies on selling ad space around the news. if any one has looked at the numbers for ad revenue generated through on line news sites compared to revenue generated by ad revenue in a traditional media (such as as newspapers) there is no comparison. The result is that as more and more people go on line for their news, traditional news sources (even those with an online presence) are losing readers (market share) and ad revenue -setting up a possible death spiral for news as we know it. dealing with lower subscriptions and revenue many traditional news organizations are cutting personnel and working with skeleton staffs, decreasing the quantity and quality of responsible reporting. Unfortunately, since (as previously stated) the majority of online news is derived originally from the traditional media, there is a growing void of responsible reporting. So if you are a news junkie, even if you get rss feeds from your favorite news source to your cell phone, please spend 50 cents to pick up a paper and help pay for the content generation. there is no such thing as a free lunch
chippylastickoAug 7, 2006
Dramatic titles such as "THE END OF ______ !!" are so annoying. You're not considering how much of the country (US) is small town/farm land folks who use the Internet on dialup ... if they barely have net access at all. I hate AOL along with the best of them -- but a LOT of the country is dependant on dialup for email and basic surfing needs and that's it - maybe a Myspace page here or there. When you have a bold statement such as this, it more applies for the downtown urban (NY, Chicago, LA, etc) and surrounding suburbs, but consider all the rest of the country: tv, radio, cellphone are standard tech. Advanced/frivilous (.. to them) usage of the Internet such as streaming media (HD content online, TV, online radio, podcasting, RSS news, etc) is yet to become the norm and will take some time. And of course it's the younger rural crowd that will bring that level of tech to the small town / farms USA. Pls correct me if I'm wrong. I've been wrong before.
willsloanAug 7, 2006
wildleaf, are you a complete retard? Read it again, since I never said I wasn't a pessimist. In black and white I said, "Sorry to be the big pessimist here." Besides, when is being realistic a pessimistic view? Being realistic is taking into account logical factors to determine an outcome. Being pessimistic is being negative no matter what you take into account. You also attempted a retort on something I already said, though I did so with much more thought, skill, and execution. "Also - TV won't phase out but it will be indemand in a new way." That is precisely what I already said: "It's about the evolution and integration of current technology and the options it provides, not about the extinction of the aforementioned." Spend some time reading the comments before launching a debate. It shows your ignorance and is wholly immature. Let me also apologize if I offended you with my lack of "logical spacing - paragraphing and the like." I guess that reading an entire block in a comment stream must be challenging for you? Why don't you spend your time commenting on the subject matter rather than pissing and moaning about the assumed neglect of blog comment etiquette by others. It may be a less "pessimistic" experience for you.
subscriberAug 7, 2006
It's the business model behind the old media that will die. Yes, TV and radio will still be here forever, but the way content is prepared for them, and the way they make money will have to change. Same for the music and movie industries.
todmaffinAug 7, 2006
Just to clarify, this was a three-part special. It's not a series (sadly).
twistymcgeeAug 8, 2006
It is sort of the same thing however, a lot of Canadians watch it and sometimes it has more viewers than other major networks, for example during the Stanley Cup finals. I wouldn't say that CBC has low ratings.
twistymcgeeAug 8, 2006
@drumt:I see what you are saying but keep this in mind. If the only people that the television and radio broadcasters have left to sell their content to are those who cannot afford it, will it still exist?I think probably what is more realistic is that television and radio will adapt to somehow take advantage of it.
margritaDec 30, 2008
Times are changing. Readers now behave differently than ever. They read different things and in different new ways. Nobody wants to wait when they can simply type in the web address and the information is at their fingertips. Companies like Pressmart Media Limited <a class="user" href="http://pressmart.net/eedition.html">http://pressmart.net/eedition.html</a> is a leading print-to-digital delivery service across 35 countries, in more then 22 languages, where it currently serves over 3.8 million* readers . Pressmart?s proprietary technology strips the pre-press PDF pages it receives from publishers and pushes the content intelligently on multiple delivery channels like Web, Mobile, RSS, Podcast, Social Media etc.