More Mainstream Media Bashing

Roger Ehrenberg, who has an excellent blog that I read regularly, has a post today about what he sees as the reasons for the "decay of mainstream media."

I left this longish comment in Roger's blog responding to some of the reasons that Roger has listed about "why mainstream media (MSM) sucks."

Roger>>>A giant portion of what's created is not original, either the ideas or the commentary around them.

I think it is unfair to say that a large portion of what MSM creates is not original. I would say percentage of original content in MSM is much larger than blogs. Most of the blogs I read are either linking to MSM content and adding some context/analysis. MSM drives original reporting and I seriously doubt the blogosphere would be so riled up or have much to comment about if the MSM didn’t do the original reporting in the first place. What blogs do very well is add perspective/analysis but lets not forget that very few bloggers are on the phone everyday or talking to other people with the intention of finding new information.

>>>>It is hard to separate the good from the garbage, as such a high percentage of MSM content is, in fact, garbage.

The same can be said of any content. A lot of blogs are garbage but there are a few very good ones out there. A lot of software programs are garbage but there are a few very good ones out there. A lot of movies are crap but a few good ones keep up the joy of watching movies. I am not sure if MSM is any different.

>>>>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.

I think MSM, at least online MSM is changing there and introducing comments/communities etc. Tech sites like CNET have very vibrant communities, the big MSM papers from the NYT to the Post offers a place for comments. Sure, the pace of change has been slower than it should be and it could be more interactive but I don’t think MSM has completely closed itself out.

>>>>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.

That seems quite contradictory to what we are seeing and hearing about the blogosphere. The blogosphere works best because it targets niche interests very well. MSM works well to serve the largest common denominator—maybe that’s why it is called “mainstream.”

The reason MSM is under so much pressure has more to do with the delivery models than with the media itself. The online arms of most MSM organizations (even those under pressure) are flourishing, while the print business is fighting to hold its own. I see this not as a problem with the content itself but more as an issue of how the reader’s consumption habits are changing. Software companies face a similar distribution challenge. Packaged retail software is giving up to online subscription services. Does this mean the software itself is bad or not working for the customers? Not really. It is just that they want access to the product in a different, simpler way.

I think mainstream media bashing could be fun but serves no other purpose. What could work better is a discussion on what the blogosphere does better and what MSM does better and how the two can learn and work with each other. I don’t think this is an either-or situation. There’s no clear lines drawn between the two. MSM and the blogosphere feed off each other and this debate about which one is superior is best retired.