Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Rupert Murdoch.
He recently wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal.
These are my thoughts:
When I first read this article, I thought back to my summer internship with a Philadelphia radio station, and Greater Media as a whole. For a time, I worked exclusively with Mr. Bill Shultz (affectionately called just Mr. Bill). He was the imaging director for two of the five Greater Media radio stations. And one afternoon, we stumbled upon the topic of radio's future. Now, I know Mr. Murdoch's article is mostly about Journalism as a whole, but stick with me. Mr. Bill told me that the initial mistake that radio stations made was to try and format themselves like an iPod. He told me that stations fell away from local content, and tried to play as much music as they could, hoping the listener liked what they were hearing. And the result of that was lower ratings and even shutting down of some stations ( ex: about a month after my internship was over, the station I primarily worked for was shut down.) According to Mr. Bill, and to some extent Mr. Murdoch as well, the only hope radio (and journalism) has is to get back to the reader/listener.
Local content is where your listeners, readers, and subscribers are. And, in the midst of all the new innovations in technology, alot of journalistic mediums forgot that.
Mr. Murdoch goes on to critizice the government for their outdated rules and regulations.
"Unfortunately, too many of the mechanisms government uses to regulate the news and information business in this new century are based on 20th-century assumptions and business models."
While I believe this to be true, I believe that simply writing about it for the Wall Street Journal does nothing. The only way the government changes things is when they are brought to the forefront of arenas such as the Supreme Court. There needs to be a monumental case in order for the government to change. And yet what I find contradictory in Mr. Murdoch's article is his claim further on that the U.S. Government helping the commercial journalism industry is chilling, and we can basically kiss our Freedom of Speech goodbye.
If you don't want their help, then don't ask for it.
We, as journalists, have the tools to save ourselves, and just because the government doesn't let us own radio stations and tv stations doesn't mean we can't pull ourselves out of the rut of innovation.
So, while I believe and agree with Mr. Murdoch that the future of journalism is writing for the reader and not the editor, I disagree with his claim that the government needs to help us.
Don't call us, we'll call you.
~AvK~
*The Trouble With Love is--Kelly Clarkson.
He recently wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal.
These are my thoughts:
When I first read this article, I thought back to my summer internship with a Philadelphia radio station, and Greater Media as a whole. For a time, I worked exclusively with Mr. Bill Shultz (affectionately called just Mr. Bill). He was the imaging director for two of the five Greater Media radio stations. And one afternoon, we stumbled upon the topic of radio's future. Now, I know Mr. Murdoch's article is mostly about Journalism as a whole, but stick with me. Mr. Bill told me that the initial mistake that radio stations made was to try and format themselves like an iPod. He told me that stations fell away from local content, and tried to play as much music as they could, hoping the listener liked what they were hearing. And the result of that was lower ratings and even shutting down of some stations ( ex: about a month after my internship was over, the station I primarily worked for was shut down.) According to Mr. Bill, and to some extent Mr. Murdoch as well, the only hope radio (and journalism) has is to get back to the reader/listener.
Local content is where your listeners, readers, and subscribers are. And, in the midst of all the new innovations in technology, alot of journalistic mediums forgot that.
Mr. Murdoch goes on to critizice the government for their outdated rules and regulations.
"Unfortunately, too many of the mechanisms government uses to regulate the news and information business in this new century are based on 20th-century assumptions and business models."
While I believe this to be true, I believe that simply writing about it for the Wall Street Journal does nothing. The only way the government changes things is when they are brought to the forefront of arenas such as the Supreme Court. There needs to be a monumental case in order for the government to change. And yet what I find contradictory in Mr. Murdoch's article is his claim further on that the U.S. Government helping the commercial journalism industry is chilling, and we can basically kiss our Freedom of Speech goodbye.
If you don't want their help, then don't ask for it.
We, as journalists, have the tools to save ourselves, and just because the government doesn't let us own radio stations and tv stations doesn't mean we can't pull ourselves out of the rut of innovation.
So, while I believe and agree with Mr. Murdoch that the future of journalism is writing for the reader and not the editor, I disagree with his claim that the government needs to help us.
Don't call us, we'll call you.
~AvK~
*The Trouble With Love is--Kelly Clarkson.
3 comments:
Amanda,
I believe your right about some of Murdoch's ambitions. However, I do believe he has a good point as it relates to FCC's regulations on ownership. I think that the FCC does need to move to serve the public interest move. In certain instances I do believe less government is needed.
You make a good point, that we as journalists have the tools to save ourselves...but I tend to somewhat agree more with Murdoch considering the FCC's regulations is not so much the restrictions of innovation, but that the real concern lies within the competition of other media outlets.
I agree with you about agreeing with Murdoch. It is the journalists job to inform as well as draw in readers through the content of their work.
You ended this post well with saying how the government shouldn't get involved and despite the journalists not being able to afford ownerships THEY STILL HAVE CONTROL over the content if their work.
Post a Comment