Mainstream Media's Problems Lie Within

The quality of my mainstream media [MSM] user experience - be it online or offline - has been in steady decline for the past two decades. And it is only getting worse. I even detect this disappointment and hostility in my writing, as there are many of my posts that contain the theme "Hey, MSM dummy, I've been talking about this for months - why are you just discovering and/or re-hashing this now?" And I'm tired of writing this way.

I didn't start my blog with the idea of being a media watchdog - though I am glad there are those whose serve this important function. It's just not me. What I want to discuss is why so much of MSM is so awful, and why there is so much great, original, value-added content being deposited on the Internet each and every day. And then I can get back to writing my own content without throwing stones at others; all the stones are being thrown today.

Why MSM Sucks

1. A giant portion of what's created is not original, either the ideas or the commentary around them.
2. It is hard to separate the good from the garbage, as such a high percentage of MSM content is, in fact, garbage.
3. The medium is not designed to have a conversation - an exchange of ideas that is dynamic and has life and can help readers achieve greater understanding.
4. It looks and feels tight and inflexible.
5. It artificially places itself on a higher plane, leading to perceptions of elitism that once was an asset but now has become a crushing liability.
6. It is not by the people, for the people. It is by a small group of individuals for a small group of individuals. And that is ok - but then don't call yourself "mainstream" and purport to be serving a higher purpose. Mainstream is now the blogosphere.
7. It is clear that it is not comfortable in its own skin, and it is working to cultivate an online, "hipper," more conversational identity that just isn't working.

Are these generalizations? Of course. But, in general, I think these points are directionally correct.

What is the Media Value Stack?

The success of media models - regardless of the medium - is just like the financial markets: it is all about value creation. So where is the value? Is it in the creation of original content? Is it in aggregation of top content creators? Is it in providing users with the opportunity to share, comment and collaborate? Is it in the ability to excite, interest and stimulate users? Does it have to do with tagging and labeling interesting content for future reference? The answer: yes to all of the above. In fact, this might be my cut at the media value stack:

• The creation of original content, that
• Is mixed and presented with other relevant content, which
• Excites, interests and stimulates users, and
• Provides them the ability to share, comment and collaborate about the aggregated content, be it the content itself or comments about the content, which
• Can be tagged and labeled for future use.

Now look at this value stack and tell me: how well does MSM do delivering this stack? In general I'd say pretty poorly. Could this be why MSM is coming under so much pressure? Is the threat really about the rise of the blogosphere or is it because MSM is failing to deliver against the stack I've listed above? I'd posit that the "Internet threat" is pretty much a red herring - what it's REALLY about is a failure of culture and business model to adapt to changing times. And has the blogosphere specifically and the Internet in general hastened these changes? Sure. But does that mean, by definition, that MSM doesn't have the means to rise to the challenge? No. They have all the assets in the world with which to compete. They just don't use them properly, and this is a failure of culture and leadership, not of some fundamental inability to compete.

Rupert Murdoch understands this. He is the one MSM media-type that kind of gets it. Politics aside, his moves across an array of media assets shows that he is much more in touch with the value stack than any other media leader. And it shows in News Corporation's (NWS) results and growth in asset value.

When is it Right to Write?

When you have something to say, not when you need to fill column inches. When you care what people think about what you are writing, and when you are able to put your thoughts out there openly, honestly and without prejudice. When you want to solicit other's views on a topic by seeding a conversation with your own thoughts and opinions. When you are driven by a passion to be heard, not because someone says you have to crank out a story. You get the picture.

People are smart. MSM thinks they are dumb. People can smell bullshit and a lack of passion a mile away. And this is what's wrong with much of MSM. It has become pro forma. It has lost all affect. And it shows. People are voting with their feet, their pocketbooks, and their clicks. And unless MSM wakes up, really tries to understand what is motivating their constituency and shifts their business models and business strategies accordingly, they are dead. And it has nothing to do with the Internet. The problem lies within.

Update: I was so pleased to have both Bill (a.k.a. NO DooDahs) and Priya (For the Record) weigh in, given their intellect, sharp wit and divergent perspectives.

And while my post was quite harsh (and representative of what I believe), I personally value MSM and leverage its good elements all the time. Given this, I thought I might put forth some ideas of how MSM can better integrate with the online experience, doing what it does best (creating original, high-value content) while leveraging the unique power and breadth of consumer-generated media [CGM]. Priya should be happy that I am doing this; props go to her for serving as a catalyst for this post.

So what are some of the things MSM might do to become a sticky destination for today's power information consumers?

1. Generate original content: Re-hashing prior stories just kills MSMs credibility and leads to frustration and boredom for readers in both online and offline worlds. The concept of filling column inches should be anathema to today's media world. It's about value, not volume. MSM should trade on its reputation, relevance and credibility and generate content that reinforces these perceptions, and re-purposing tired, old stories just shatters this premise.

2. Provide context: This involves mapping an array of related content from other MSM outlets, blogs, vlogs, podcasts, government filings and other sources. This approach could create further stickiness among readers, as the pursuit of other interesting and relevant information can be achieved through the MSM portal instead of jumping to an alternative search engine. Tools like Sphere provide necessary but insufficient content to create a robust context map around a new story.

3. Open up walled gardens: I'm not convinced that subscription services like Times Select offer the best long-term revenue models, especially if MSM is able to provide the context described in 2 above. Opening up access to elite writers for free should only enhance the stickiness quotient of MSM sites providing value-added context maps, which I'd posit might have a more favorable economic impact due to high CPC advertising rates than a subscription service. This approach would also give the MSM outlet more street cred, as its approach would be enveloping, embracing and inclusive, not distant, rejecting and exclusive.

4. Incorporate content and perspective from online thought leaders: While this is sometimes done in technology and consumer electronics realms, it is seldom done in other vertical domains. The dynamic, real-time Internet is full of some of the world's greatest thinkers on a wide range of topics, so why are they so seldom quoted relative to those in the offline world? I'm not sure - could it be a perception by MSM that online experts somehow lack the gravitas and credibility of their offline counterparts? Could it be MSMs desire to avoid legitimizing online, non-MSM media such as blogs? I don't know the answer, all I know is that MSM is missing a wealth of intellectual capital by not fully incorporating leading online thinkers into their stable of experts.

5. Create new models for incorporating commentary into a story: A story on the Internet is a living thing; it represents an assemblage of facts and opinions, an initial "stake in the ground" from the writer. This then serves as a straw man that is gradually filled out by those who read, analyze and comment on the original story, building on top of both the story, other items in the context map and the comments that preceded it. I personally do not know of an online MSM outlet that has figured out how to make a story feel and read like an evolving, living thing. I could see this being an incredibly powerful vehicle for stimulating discussion, arriving at new conclusions and effectively re-publishing the original story in light of the collective wisdom that weighed in, resulting in something akin to a Wikipedia-for-news-stories.

In sum, MSM is frequently really good at researching a topic and weaving a mixture of facts and opinions into a story. If MSM could broaden the pool from which it obtains research to incorporate online sources that would clearly make sense. The resulting story is a great launching point for a robust examination both through the study of context maps and the commentary provided by readers. And if MSM can develop a user experience that facilitates the ongoing enhancement of the original story through commentary and analysis, that would be a home run app that could fuel big-time ad revenues. I am eager to see if MSM is up to the challenge.

Comments

[Frank Li]

Roger, this is an excellent, excellent article. I think you're right about the decline in quality of MSM, but the reasons are historical:

MSM used to be a collection of local monopolies or duopolies. Local or even national newspapers would subscribe to the wire services, and provide re-writes of most news that added little value other than to deliver the news to their local audience. That was a good model, because newspapers could leverage the reach of the wire services, and it didn't really matter that they added little value on top. They could focus their resources on opinion pieces and areas of news reporting where they tried to offer genuine value.

The Internet ruined that, because it exposed the fact that rehashing articles from the wire services added little value, and the news stories became commodities because you could read the wire-service rewrite from thousands of outlets. Check Google News and you see this in action every day.

And then blogs destroyed the MSM's privileged platform for opinion pieces, because that's what blogs do best -- opinion, not news reporting.

This has left MSM with commoditized news and no competitive advantage in opinion. And that's why its self-image now seems so inflated and unjustified.

A free market approach to the problem says that:
1. The Internet just introduced a ton of competition for monopoly and duopoly newspapers, and that will lead to a radical decrease in profits and then a shake out in the newspaper industry.
2. The wire services and a few value-added newpapers will survive.
3. MSM's image will then improve, because we'll better appreciate the news gathering abilities of the wire services and the value that the surviving newspapers add.

[SeekingAlpha Editors]

Roger, this is excellent, particularly your pinpointing the 'when it's right to write' issue. That's central to what we're doing at Seeking Alpha.

It reminds me in some ways of the revolution that Google et al. brought to advertising by shifting to intention-based (search keyword) targeting vs. blanket advertising. When you tap right into human interests, the most powerful and valuable interaction occurs - as a writer, reader or marketer.