I can see why you were overwhelmed! I think breaking a news show into varied segments would be cool (instead of being a talking head). It would satisfy the bored or those with attention deficits. You can livestream news, talk about current trends, have pre-recorded segments where you investigate questions burning in people's minds, interview interesting people, have people email/call/tweet questions and queries... you can do a whole lot!
Nathan Lowhorn
· 7 months ago
Ok, that actually made my brain hurt a little too. :)
Your #3 stood out to me. What frustrates me the most about "old media" is how slow it tends to be? With the things I'm interested in, I know all I need to know just by following my particular feeds in Google Reader and participating in certain forums. When I hear a tech story on TV, it's usually so old that I want to scream just a little....especially local news. :) The new media should be incorporated with the old in such a way to make the latter more timely.
Joey
· 7 months ago
I agree - the information's the same, there's just a lot of new and rehashed ways of getting it.
One powerful thing, though, with this constant stream of information that I love is trends. Scanning the Twitter sidebar a lot of the time the trends generally relate to top news stories, but sometimes you get interesting ones, such as today when I saw #3wordsaftersex.
I think if interesting trends were brought up (perhaps not #3wordsaftersex), stuff that people are talking about but that might not be getting much attention in mainstream news, that would be something interesting.
One advantage Twitter does have is speed and mobility. Here's an interview with Biz Stone on those subjects:
# How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast?
Look at it this way, how bad do we want to get ourselves heard by a huge audience? very much so and if we have to get ourselves smack dap in the middle of a news room we will do it.
# How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
There is as many opinions as there are people, people want to get their opinion through and that is a fact. Just stop at the next accident and you find those people circling the area to lay their opinions on the fellow rubbernecks.
# What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
Let's face it the headlines has become steadily more boring as we go deeper into recession, maybe the broadcast stations should cut down on the amount of news and make the news that are actually there more interesting.
# What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”
I remember twitter back a while when there was a shooting in a emigrant center in New York, people were talking back and forth figuring out how to listen in on the Police radios in the area, it was a guy from Spain that figured it out and we were exchanging news about the incident all day, you can not get that kind of interaction from "old media"
# Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?
Oh I think they care, there is something exiting about being able to reach the news casters on air, like when they have a twitter account, you know they will see your tweet when you send them one, it is just great.
Summary: As a viewer I want as many details as possible, if that means using the Internet which is does I Say out with "old media" in with "new media"
Just my opinion, good luck with it all Natali.
Phillymac@gmail.com
· 7 months ago
You're asking great questions, which is a great start. As you've found though, there are no easy answers. Let me ask you some questions.
1. How do you expect a viewer/listener to interact? Especially if you're doing something live, what avenues are you planning on using? Chat channels? FriendFeed rooms? Twitter hashtags? Will you allow users to interact with you through live video? Skype or iChat channels? Do you want to be able to edit or screen that kind of feedback?
2. I love multiple person engagements. I think it would be great if you can provide someone who really is a devil's advocate to your position. No, you don't need a Dvorak, but a Molly Wood type (or Molly herself!) would be great. I also like a male/female balance when possible. That's just me. It's what I enjoy the most (thus one of the reasons I was a BOL listener since it's start). The most important thing to provide in a pundit though is someone I can respect, male or female, young or old - they need to have real cred in that topic.
3. Don't include twitter because it's "new media" - include twitter because it provides a relevant topic for discussion. It's a tool like any other, it's not the special sauce that will make a broadcast hip or cool. Include twitter, facebook, youtube or whatever because it's part of how you dialog. It has to be an extension of you, of how you do things - if it's not, then you'll look as goofy as these Fox News at 10:00 anchors that are suddenly trying to be "cool" after striving so long to be "the news you can turn to."
I think I cross-pollenated the answers, but I think I did answer all the questions. Sorry it's not two page double spaced. Rock it now!
PS At the top of this Post a Comment area I did not see what each of the three fields was for in Safari 4 beta. Hope they came out OK.
Colin
· 7 months ago
Yikes. Tough tough questions. The only comment i can make about ' old media' and why i don't like traditional TV news is i don't get to choose whats important to me; wherein with the web ( or newspaper ) i can scan through and read what i want. Not sure how that translates into something like this. Definately a big project to tackle!
Ikcor
· 7 months ago
You are wise to ask these questions. My suggestion to you would be to use the viewer feedback much as a radio station does. People call and email all of the time, and these are filtered by a producer, who forwards the most relevant and interesting ones to the host(s). Live calls on the air can be a nightmare, so I would stick to "new media" sources like twitter, chat, etc.
The best types of feedback that the users can provide are:
As for the spiral of silence, that normally only applies to public settings. With twitter, etc., people remain relatively anonymous and don't worry about reprisals (see Trolls).
Good luck!
Geoff
· 7 months ago
But what does make it more interesting? ....
Genuine dialogue on difficult issues. I am so tired of the predictable dance between Dems and Republicans. Old media (and sometimes new media) provide the stage for the dance. Obama made some effort but was shut down so its biz as usual. The media, old and new, should force politicians to answer questions and engage in real dialogue, and real solutions. Bring in a mediator and have a real discussion. Thanks Natali!
oakie
· 7 months ago
How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence?
people dont necessarily mind being "talked at" by a broadcast, as they understand ventriloquism is a one-way street. they simply want their own questions answered by the end of the broadcast... but of course, some type of interaction is required to do that.
How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
only enough to answer everyone's questions about the news presented. it's gone far beyond "old media's" reporting of "what, where, when, why, and how."
What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
answers and entertainment, to be blunt. if your questions arent being answered, the viewer will tune out. in addition, the source material has to have entertainment value. if you report on something your viewers arent interested in, say, "organic sawdust for hamsters" on a tech oriented show, you're obviously going to lose them.
What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”
i dont see "old media" as you defined it in your argument. i see it as the inability to monetize their material enough for widespread distribution with a cripplingly slow dissemination method. the internet has given everyone an instant voice on today's news. no one chats over yesterday's news from a paper with friends at a cafe anymore.
Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?
honestly? i dont believe so. i believe the viewer only cares about their "15 minutes" by having their questions and comments addressed by the talking heads. "twitter" simply seems to be the name of that method to get your opinion redistributed publicly, and thus in a way validated.
john
· 7 months ago
I like your concept. It is very hard for me to watch the 'Old News'. I have to record it and then try to find time to watch it while competing with a wife and two kids wanting to watch other shows. The idea of being able to sit down with my netbook and watch the news appeals to me. I would like to be able to drill down into more details about the stories that I read or watch. Some times I'll google a news items to try and find out more details, but usually get overwhelmed by the number of hits. Links to where you did your research, related information, etc would be helpful. This will allow me to get additional information on the topics that interest me.
Michael Gaines
· 7 months ago
Natali, These are important points to make, and it's good that someone in your position is bringing them up. There will always be a place for old media, at least for the foreseeable future. I think it'll be a while before things change over completely.
That said, here are my thoughts on it.
The world is different now. People write emails, not letters. They voice their opinions on blogs and web sites. How much of "old media" was saved due to "new technology" (eg: Jericho)? I think that there can be a middle ground where old media works with new technology to at the very least have some form of interaction.
But does everything NEED to be interactive? Do I NEED to talk back with the people that bring the media to us? It depends on the personalities of the newscasters and the culture of how the news is broadcast. For example, I don't see "old media" broadcasters caring about what's on Twitter. When was the last time there was a Tweetup with the people from a New York news show? And yet, I'll interact with you, Tom, Jason, Molly, and Veronica because that's the culture that has been created around what you all do. In fact, interacting with you all seems natural because none of you put up a barrier that says "read only". Maybe start there. Bring in some form of interaction without it taking over the whole show.
To answer some of your questions:
1) As I said before, in my opinion, it depends on the culture of the show. I've seen shows that rattle off chat room text which is a terrible distraction. Interaction needs a balance. I always thought The Screen Savers and Call For Help had that down perfectly.
2) Hard to say. How much DO they know about the news?
3) Here's a personal example. When TechTV died, I felt like there was nowhere else to go to watch responsible tech news every day. Sure there are blogs and such, but TechTV did it right and it wasn't until Techzilla and BOL came around afterwards that I didn't feel like there was a gap in tech news. Look at what people want and fill that gap.
4) One word: sensationalism. I hate it. Hate, hate, hate. I don't even like it in blog titles.
5) Maybe. In my opinion, it has to be done in a way that's not obtrusive. Reading emails/comments at the end of a show is a good way to read back what's no more than 60 minutes old and still not interrupt the flow of the show.
This is something I've been thinking about as well. I've been struggling with moving in a new direction and trying to find something that will appeal to an audience while keeping it interesting.
Good luck on your new show!
oakie
· 7 months ago
oops. i misread the second question.
How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
honestly, nothing very pertinent, but it's a lot of it. they just want to say it NOW, when the news is fresh in their head; i find it akin to two people at a table, one reading the paper and stumbles across something shocking enough to share and the discussion that results from it.
Brett Henry
· 7 months ago
1. How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence? I think that the entire newscast shouldnt be based around user input but I feel that some good ways to deal with it are as follows: you can divide it into segments meaning have a general/important news update and then you can have the viewers vote on what topics they want to hear next week (video games,foreign news, etc). Another segment could be actual interaction with the viewers via webcam or some chat element, the webcam could be subject to the spiral of silence but it usually doesnt hurt that bad but the chat client could be annonymous and you can choose either to have a nickname or use your actual name. In the interactive segment you could select one or more topics covered that day and interact with the viewers (of course let them know about when to be on). I would also allow the viewers to submit their own ideas for topics to be covered because sometimes people can have really good ideas that you would never think of, they could also have the option of you acknowledging who submitted it or not. 2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news? Well depending on your target audience and the content people could have a lot. If it is a little bit of everything I think it would get the best response because there will always be something to spark some people. 3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting? I personally feel no power as a viewer as what content will be displayed for example on a lot of broadcasts I often will hit days at a time where I have no interest in what is being broadcasted. I also feel a lack of intimacy with the viewing audience on the part of the people producing the show. 4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?” Lack of interactivity and user input as well as the way it is presented. To elaborate on the first part your general newscast rarely takes into account the people when picking the actual news they just pick what they feel the viewer will want to see which is often not the same thing. For example the news shows so much bad news often people want some good news. As to the second part of my argument I feel that sending of one medium dates different casts, even those that show on just one website are often written off. I think that if you do, for example: podcasts and a regular cast and maybe like a ticker on the main site it would be more new information friendly. 5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast? I do because I personally like to be involved and I dont always have a set time frame when I can sit down and watch the news so new media gimmicks work fine for me.
I want my new broadcast to be something you watch while you are sitting at home with your laptop in your lap at night, either answering emails, playing games, surfing Facebook, or sitting with your spouse while they watch some embarrassing reality show. I want you to watch it, absorb the days’ news, engage with it, learn from it, and talk back to to it. Live, of course. I want you to hear and be heard. But I am so deathly afraid of the gimmick trap. I don’t want to use YouTube videos just because it sounds cool. I’m not going to rely on Twitter just because it is the new black. But I do want to incorporate all of that. So I ask you, dear reader, what do you think? What do YOU want? I know you don’t want a talking head just spitting the news out to you as he/she reads a TelePrompTer. I know you don’t want to watch me read Twitter and tell you “This is what you think!” I know you don’t want extreme political opinions. And I know that adding 6-8 pundits to a broadcast does not make it 6-8 times more interesting. But what does make it more interesting? I think what would make it more interesting is as I said throwing out some power to the people and recoginition of their ideas. I think if you are really willing to invest time in it here is a good general idea for how you could set it up:
Early on in the day make a broadcast of some interesting things currently going on and maybe some of the topics that were submitted that you found especially clever. Then leave it open ended and ask the viewers to submit what they think about the days topics and the news that you covered and maybe submit their own ideas for things. Later on in the day (prolly like 4 or 5) broadcast a second one that combines the comments of the viewers of the early broadcast and then does live interaction with people (via webcam, chat client, or both).
Keep in mind these are only rough ideas so they may not be amazing but they are my opinion and you kind of asked for it :)
Robert J. Lindsay
· 7 months ago
I think if you remain fair,straight down the middle in your reporting would be something new for CBS.And what ever you do don't show favoritism toward any political party,because people are sick of that.Good luck,I just hope the general news business doesn't corrupt you. Robert
Marco Donjuan
· 7 months ago
Hi Natali, I´ll try to remain as brief as possible:
1. A lot, at least I do find useful that I can comment and express an opinion on a certain subject/note given on a broadcast (I do that on Loaded regularly) because I know that even if my annotation is not featured, it was at least read and taken into account. 2. Depends, sometimes a single piece of news becomes very repetitive leaving the viewer little to comment about it; but again it depends on the importance of each. 3. Good question, viewers want a broadcast that it´s easy to watch, that it's not to long and that offers something new once in a while like... live viewer questions/comments or viewer recommended content. Something that makes viewers feel part of it. That helps getting engaged :) 4. Talking-reading heads... definitely 5. Don't think too much about the "gimmick" factor... You are a great, very talented woman (there goes the unsolicited flattery) that have always known how to (and not to) use emerging technologies. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube... you name it, are just tools that you *can* use, not that you *must* use, keep that in mind because if your new broadcast is not tech centered, Non tech-savyy viewers may have a hard time getting use to the "gimmicks"
Don't give yourself a hard time thinking so Macro, sometimes it's better to let things just flow by...
I'm glad that you opened this to us, your readers/viewers. Here's hoping your upcoming newscast be a blast, as every other endeavor you do.
-Marco from México
Don Crossman
· 7 months ago
First, I'm pretty old. 57 in fact, but I develop web applications for a living, so I sort of span both worlds. I tweet, but can still construct a sentence.
You have asked good questions, and I can only tell you my current view of media in general. It needs to find itself. I don't want local news from CBS, and I don't want global news from my local newspaper's web site.
I recently helped a friend develop a Wordpress site for news specifically about a community of 2500. This is the future of news. Find a niche and fill it, and "they will come."
I couldn't care less about "new media" vs. "old media." That's just BS. There's "good media" and "bad media."
Number one is story. Number two is story. You get the idea. If you have a good story to tell, people will gather around to listen to you. If you tell it really well, people will pester you to death to get you to tell them another story.
I think that's all there is to it. If you have a good story, it will tell YOU how to tell it. Just listen.
José Luis
· 7 months ago
Hi Natali,
I think that you should look at all these “new media” tools as a means to an end.
The basic premise, from what I can read, is that you want to tell us the news of the day in your very lovable way, that’s great! From there on, take this premise as your starting point. First and foremost, think about what you want to do will your show. Now think about how you want to achieve such things or with what tools are you going to do it. From there forward, try to implement the tools at your disposal to solve the problem.
Say for example that you talk about the weekend’s shuttle landing. CNN and others probably contacted their resident “expert” and got them on the show via a satellite feed. Now, you obviously won’t be able to rent a satellite feed for your segment nor you have a large research department to help you, but that’s where the “new media” tools become your allies. As you may be very well aware, most of us that watch your shows (ie. B.O.L.) are pretty smart people, so you should consider having your resident panel of experts on a wide range of subjects so they can help you tell the news they way you want them to and most importantly, so we as your audience can relate to them. We don’t want an old hag how doesn’t have a clue what a computer is talking to us about things we care in a language that we do not understand. We want someone that we can relate to and who live their lives around the same things we do, that’s really missing from old media, as they need to cater to a large audience. You have an incredible opportunity to become very successful with a niche audience (just because is a niche audience doesn’t mean it has to be small).
How are you going to know about their level of expertise? Well, that’s what new media is for. A little poking around their online profiles, their Twitter feeds, podcasts and you should have a pretty good idea about them. This is also a great way to know your audience. Just because someone doesn’t have a degree doesn’t mean that they don’t know a lot about a subject. Some of the most passionate people I know, love what they do and don’t have a single piece of paper to prove their expertise.
And please, don’t try to fit all these tools around you, it should always be the other way around. You and the news should always be at the center of the show and the most important thing. Everything else is just a fad. Google is just the new Lycos and Twitter will not always be the most talked about thing in town.
As for interaction, some people will always love to talk and other will just stand there and listen. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Also remember that not one opinion is necessary more important than another. Try to keep a fair balance between both sides on a subject and always be fair to both of them and you should not have any problems with the “spiral of silence”.
I’m not saying you that you should always have experts on the show, but everyday folks almost always have something interesting to say. I can assure you that most of the people that will comment on this post, don’t have a Communications degree, but you will most definitely will get some great ideas from their contribution.
And finally, please, I beg you. Don’t make the same mistake that “old media” is making: Don’t use a tool or service just because it’s “cool” or because everybody is doing it. You don’t have to use every single thing out there to make your show a success, you just need to use what works for you and your audience. It may not be Twitter, it may very well be. You won’t know until you try. And now is the time to do it! Once you have your set of goals, work this tools around you, your audience and your show and I can assure you that you will be successful.
Also, please remember: Not everyone is made of gold, and hence, you are not bound to make everyone happy, but, as long as you stay happy with what you do and how you do it, it will always be reflected on the things that you do. Last week’s show from SFO proved it: you looked and sounded happier than in recent months (probably because you where home) and that was instantly reflected on your performance and your work.
I hope this helps and sorry if it was too long.
Thanks for making our lives a little bit better and keep up the good work!
Bob Watson
· 7 months ago
One way that I see difference between "old" and "new" media is the difference between a lecture and a discussion session. When I was in high school ( back in the 60's) school was basically lecture. The teacher would tell us the facts that we should know and then we would memorize them and repeat them on the next test. The only classes that I really enjoyed were an honors physics class and an english lit class where we read facts outside of class and then discussed them in class. The discussions were moderated by the teacher but they were pretty far ranging, in physics for example, we would discuss what our responsibility was as prospective scientists. We talked about the development of nuclear energy and ultimately the development of the atomic bomb (the results of which we were living with each day - these were the days of "duck and cover" drills). In literature we discussed the Kennedy assassination in relation to Hamlet (was Kennedy a tragic figure like Hamlet?) In both cases we had to learn facts first. Just having an opinion without a real understanding of what you are talking about seems to remind me a little too much of the last eight years. You can't have a gut feeling if your gut is not being guided by your brain. But once facts are established, they can be interpreted in light of your own sense of morality and the life experiences that you have. So a news broadcast or a new paper article establishes the base of knowledge and the editorial page gives differing view of what these facts mean. Things like blogs and twitter allow a discussion to happen. Of course the anonymity of a blog entry or tweet allows you to sometimes express ideas that you might not face to face. I work as a software engineer and I embrace all that is geek so I know a lot of quiet, shy people who are very opinionated when they blog.
Having said that I think that the "new" media, if viewers are doing it get the most out of it requires a lot of work. You need to a) understand the issues that are being discussed. b) have spent some time thinking about what they mean. c) express your opinion clearly. And remember it is just your opinion, not a delivery of revelation from heaven.
So a news media that both informs about events and then allows for discussion is tricky. The inform part has to be free of bias. The discussion requires a lot of work on the part of all participants. Some people don't want to take the time they just want to hear about what is going on in the world and be able to tell the television an opinion without having done any work. Others want to discuss things to get other peoples ideas and to express their own.
The technology that is developing around blogs is just a way people have of sitting around a campfire and talking about what is going on in the world. Now you and I can discuss the world events even though you live in NYC and I live in the southwest. The idea of being able to discuss things with people who have a varied amount of experience and knowledge is what makes this use of technology exciting to me. In my office all of the people are basically tree-hugging liberals so we just re-inforce our options we don't really discuss them. Being able to listen some one else's opinion and have them listen to yours helps each person grow from the experience.
A webcast that involves the audience is difficult because of the parts I talked about above. Giving information, digesting the information, deciding what it means and expressing my ideas about the topic. This all takes some time and the details of how you do this are not something that I don't really know about. But discussion groups have been done before and I know that a good moderator can make them effective. So a webcast is just an expanded discussion group of many people in a lot of different locations. Picking topics that people will be interested in will also be difficult but experience should help.
I am not sure if any of this is relevant or helpful, but thanks for listening.
stewieX
· 7 months ago
There is only so much interaction that is possible when reporting the news. News is something that is factual, and unchangeable. However in an attempt to capture your audience, news deliverance should be quick and to the point while not leaving out any important details. This however opens up a great angle to view New Media with an Old Media mind. While trying not to bore your audience with mundane information that does not further the point of the story, you could have experts, or witnesses for whatever the story may be that field questions from online viewers who want extra details 'beyond' the main point.
Another idea adding to this, although a gimmick, would be to allow the viewers for lack of a better word to "Digg" or Bury short news stories. If the majority vote is in favor of learning more about a story, you could focus on it either with viewer questions or by simply going more in depth with your coverage.
Everyone wants to believe they have a voice and an avenue to express it through. I believe viewers would appreciate the interaction they would gain access to when Old Media grows up. An example of this line already being blurred is a show you were a regular satellite feed guest on, Attack of the Show on G4TV. Although some things they try are gimmicky it never seems forced, it just seems 'fun'. As far as blurring the line with everyday news, substitute fun for being 'informative' and it will never come across as forced.
Good luck Natali, I can't wait to tune in.
Jonathan
· 7 months ago
"Don’t make the same mistake that 'old media' is making: Don’t use a tool or service just because it’s 'cool' or because everybody is doing it."
I would agree with Jose Luis here; the most gimmicky thing you could do is do what I have seen some newscasts do - the "look at us - we're using Twitter!" that comes across as desperate.
Social media like Facebook and Twitter give you an excellent sounding board - getting feedback on ideas, etc. Their strength is their immediacy. Use them to solicit follow-up questions for your on-air guests, for "man/woman on the street" quick opinions on the day's news. Don't overuse them, though.
Brian
· 7 months ago
I think you are being groomed to take a major news anchor position higher up in CBS. This really confirms that theory. Not bad for a kid from a forgettable city like Fremont, California.
Terrence Cheek
· 7 months ago
I^m a media head and what keeps me watching my favorite news broadcast and shows are good content, and the host. I haft to beleive that the host truly beleive in the content that their covering. An I also love it when the host is light on their feet example lay down a serious news story, but when a light and funny peice of news come through the cycle they are not afraid to have a smile and a laugh. An about the youtube and twitter stuff I find it very funny when I see these ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, excuse me Natali (Coughing very abruptly as I types) CBS, and Fox people say this you can follow me on twitter or write on my facebook board. Its like what!!! because we whom love this stuff and follow internet news, we who live on the twitters, youtubes, and facebooks of the world found these spots make them boom and boom, and then they swoop in with their suits like hay we know what it is lol. But for the peeps who know about it, its cool if they use the media.
Jeffrey J Johnson
· 7 months ago
1. It seems to me that most people do or would fall into the spiral of silence but the audience that you are polling here would be much more likely to be those who would want to interact. The big problem that I see here is that even if ten percent of those watching wished to interact during a live show would be unwieldy for even a moderately successful program. Unfortunately I work whenBOL and The 404 do their shows so have never been able to be in the chat room but you have seen how difficult it is to interact with them I am sure. Along with the large number of people actually wanting to interact seriously, keeping out the stupid comments would seem to be difficult. I can think of some things that could maybe be done but can not believe you or those around you would not have already thought of them. Having said all that I do think there are a large number of people who would like to interact. 2. Many people have a lot to say on the days' news but will have difficulty either expressing themselves succinctly or at all. They may also wish to get into a conversation as apposed to making statements. This may be a skilled that could be learned by those who participate but will definitely take time. 3. The ability to question the "facts" seems like my biggest want. I mostly listen to NPR and BBC for my news because they seem to at least attempt to show more than one side of a story. I also like that the people speaking seem to have an actual understanding of the stories they are covering. 4. Besides the normal, it takes to long to get the story out there, I repeat the above statement. I am not looking for people to give their interpretations of things but an understanding of the story is nice and maybe some context of the world events. The news stories that are reported are not done so in a vacuum but part of a much larger world and this needs to be addressed. Along with this is an appreciation that I am not an idiot, which is what it feels like "they" (old media) think I am. I do not claim to be up on all the world politics or the intricacies of international relations but I do not need things dumbed down for me either, challenge me a little. 5. Unfortunately gimmicks are just that gimmicks. While somethings can be come tools that allow for better interaction or greater understanding they are just that. Trying things out is fine but the most important tool for news broadcast is the mind of both the on air personality and the viewer.
The things that do make it more interesting is the intelligent analysis of stories. Having a point of view is human, hiding the point of view and disregarding an intellect opposition is where I have the issue. Bring us intelligent reporting and discussions on the stories, those are the important things.
You have let out little snippets every now and again that indicate to me you do think about things deeply and would love to hear your thoughts, the more intelligent a discourse we have out in the world the more people may think in something other than sound bits. Have smart people whose opinions are different than yours but will actually discuss them, include the audience to bring out points that you may have missed. A must, I feel, is that an environment must be fostered where every sentence is not carved in stone. In a live show that is reporting news, what one thinks about a subject will come out and it is appropriate that it should but as such things will come out where opinions will change, which is only right. We, both you and the audience, have to allow for this to happen there must be a dialog and as such what is though will evolve and no one should be punished for thinking one way and than have their thoughts on a subject changed.
John McMillion
· 7 months ago
Hi Natali,
"What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?"
My dream broadcast would go like this. A news segment on say, the California state budget, is aired. Arnold says, we're going to have to make some cuts in education, health care, etc... Those keywords trigger a semantic-based pop-up, I can interact with, and when expanded, show aggregated data with a 10-year history on the budget.
Charts showing what the budget for each area has been, so I can see if the levels were raised thanks to all the property tax revenues from the housing boom and are now just needing to be re-adjusted to pre-boom levels, or are in fact being cut below their historical trend lines. Then I can add other metrics such as average test scores for education spending, percentage of health care costs compared to the overall budget, or even Freakonomics type correlations. Micro and macro levels. Data verified from at least 3 authoritative sources and studies.
Basically, if you were in President Obama's shoes, and wanted to know something for sure, here's what people would give you.
All of this to information to provide the most accurate, objective picture, free of self interests. Then, have at least 2 experts on hand to debate both sides of the issue, continually drilling down, pulling out nugget after nugget of aggregated goodness.
'Zooks
· 7 months ago
1. How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence?
That depends on the show, the personalities, and the audience - BOL makes it very easy to interact, for example, the show is like a comfy couch in a local cafe where friends show up to chit chat and drink entirely too much coffee.
Would I want to do that with Dan Rather? Yeah, not so much.
2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
Should a viewer have any say?
I look at it this way, if I want specific stories, I have endless options to choose from, everything is a google away. (If I may use that as a verb). What makes a show good to me is a broad mix of stories - talk about the big stuff, and then surprise me with something I've never known about, or know little about, do it with passion and personality, and I'll be there every time.
Take, for example, our pal Molly Wood. It's not that I agree with her when she gets ranty, but when she does, she's generally well versed, has a strong opinion to start from, and clearly *cares* about what she's talking about.
I would'nt want to watch a show that features you just covering "whatever" stories, Natalie, or trying to please everyone by covering whatever the most vocal (and usually insulting) minority demands. That, i feel, would start the spiral of silence.
I would want to watch a show that has stories that interest *you*, what gets *you* fired up over, good or bad - and cover it and discuss it in *your* style. That, I will tune in for every time. (Pluralize that if there are more hosts planned)
Neal Stephenson is a cyberpunk author, but he wrote a story for Wired about laying trans-pacific telecommunications cables, that was one of the best features they ever had - it was superbly written, well researched, and clearly something he has a passion for.
I would never have asked for that story. And I'm damned glad I read it!
Besides, in today's short attention span world, you'd never get anywhere trying to let the viewer shape the content - it would change hourly, if not worse. You should define the show, not us.
3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting? Links to the deeper story, more in depth coverage (not dummied down for the 10 o'clock news), and a feeling of community. Local news, if that's what I'm looking for.
4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”
Banners everywhere, an overwhelming and oppressive advertising presence, obvious scripts and a clear lack of any knowledge or care from the talking head, corporate and governmental censorship, and bias.
5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?
No. Gimmicks are just that, and best left to the hacks. If you bring to this new show what you bring to BOL, you won't need gimmicks - although they may be fun to play with from time to time.
Bring us what you always do, with passion and energy, and leave the gimmicks to those who have to scream and shout and pull stunts to get attention.
Kevin Arth
· 7 months ago
Great questions, Natalie. Let me offer some insight from my perspective:
1. I want to interact with news that I get. When I hear something of interest, I want to share it with other interested people, but I really want to have a dialog with the people presenting the information. This is why I really like the BOL podcast. Your level of interaction with your user base is engaging. You present the news, then you discuss it. But you don’t stop there. You invite the consumer of your show to chime in with opinions and expertise that they may have. I think this adds to the value of the show. Additionally, I believe your spiral of silence reference is somewhat relevant, but limited in scope due to the relative level of insulation the Internet offers. Fear of reprisal is not as acute when people just don’t know you.
2. I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at here, but I think it depends what content you’re talking about and what motivates each viewer. I like to engage in conversations and debates on topics of interest to me. I tend to skim over other things that are of limited interest.
3. I think viewers want to trust that what they’re getting is the whole truth, without bias (to whatever extent that’s possible), and they want to feel like they can contribute in some way. I watch lots of political news and not one source is considered unbiased. I wish I knew of a source that gave me all sides of an argument and let me decide what side I want to come down on. Also, I’ve tried contacting these show host/commentators (Rachel Maddow, for one), and have never gotten any acknowledgement that my note was even received. I know these shows can’t read every email personally, but I don’t see any effort. I want to feel like the user is important.
4. I dismiss a broadcast as “old media” if it doesn’t try to engage the user in some way. That could be a Facebook page, Twitter @Replies, or even email. if the host/commentator isn’t trying to interact with users via that medium, then they’re just using it as a stage prop and it’s worthless.
5. If, by Gimmick, you mean the claim to the use of new media without embracing the benefits it offers, I think savvy users are put off by that. It’s viewed as un-genuine. However, I don’t think that embracing and leveraging of new media in otherwise traditional broadcast is gimmicky. It’s important for traditional broadcast to evolve as the viewer evolves because if they don’t, we’ll find other ways to consume our news.
I think this is an important topic and I think it’s noteworthy that you are addressing it. If Twitter and Facebook and FriendFeed and Digg and any of the other social networks are any indication, people want to be involved in ways that were not possible 10 years ago. We’re just looking for a news outlet that’s willing to make that available us. I watch MSNBC because I like the content, but I’m not happy with their level of interaction with their users. If you and CBS (presumably) are going to leapfrog them in terms of embracing the ‘new media,’ I will consider switching. I like to offer insight where I can, ask questions where I must and generally help the conversation move in directions that may increase the value of the show. Any network that offers me such opportunities will win major points in my book.
PPC
· 7 months ago
A great idea would be to have an option to view the broadcast in an Adobe Air App., simple, easy to install, and it floats, so the view will be able to check email, facebook, etc. Subtitles would be a great idea also, as well as "Key Ideas" (i.e. N Korea restarts nuclear plant) clearly displayed on the lower third title bar. *Local News* and introduce commercials after a few months, attract viewers before they're chased away by annoying commercials. This is the last idea for now...Archives, keep interesting segments, that are clearly "tagged" and easy to find, so the viewer can share clips s/he thought was interesting--thus attracting new viewers!
chucktate
· 7 months ago
-Current events -Round table discussion about a topic (not politics) use Skype for guests or in house. -Comedy - example: fark.com -Parity - spoofs of silly news. or just silly news. -Don't cover the "Typical" main stream news. There is so much more that goes on and is worth reporting.
chucktate
· 7 months ago
One more thing.
Keep it simple. To much fluff turns off viewers.
amddude
· 7 months ago
I think that it would be great to have a news source that is not a talking head from a major broadcast company. 1. My opinion is that the viewer wants to interact with the news in a way that they can somewhat shape it to their interests while still leaving room for general news. This means having seperate sections available for topics such as Tech, Economy, Special interest, whatver, etc, and one available that has all the stuff in it. I dont think viewers will be scared to voice their opinion becuase they will have no repercussions from it other than a few twitters or emails about it. 2. The viewer has a lot to say about what happened in today's news because if it is interesting to them then they will share it with their friends and the news will propagate through the network of people. I don' think they have much to say to the broadcaster because they know the broadcaster will filter or take their feedback out of context if it even airs (this is the case with traditional TV broadcasts...) 3. I think if the viewer is watching the broadcast they are getting at least most of what they want out of it or they wouldn't be watching. 4. The things that make a web savvy person dismiss broadcasts as "old media" (ugh, these *** media terms are getting annoying) is the lack of a guaranteed ability to give feedback on their opinion to the broadcaster and get their voice heard. This is dismissed as old media because it is one way. One way news will eventually die out as people want to get their voice heard. A good example is Newspaper vs Buzz Out Loud. Newspaper has a few small handpicked letters that they put in their letters section. By contrast, BOL has at least 20% of the show devoted to listener feedback and discussion of the listeners opinion. 5. I have come to the conclusion that people dont really give a care about "new media" crap that is shoved into archaic television broadcasts. The TV station says "Follow us on Twitter" but it is just another avenue for broadcast.
I would love to have another show with interesting stuff like you described in your post, and espescially with great personalities like Molly (awesome rants!) to add some zest (sorry couldn't think of a better word) to the show. There are some shows that are good like loaded or TWiT or BOL and there are bad ones like "The feed" from g4 (Talking head alert, with 'hot girl' for initial viewership) that are basically the same as the kindle voice reading the newspaper to you (some of them have fatiguing voices like that too). I hope your forthcoming show will be a good one! --amddude
José Luis
· 7 months ago
I forgot,
Try to uncover stories that are not widely reported, stories that can make a difference.
I usually read the same story about 10 times in a day from all my newsfeeds and I’m sick of it by the end of the day, but I would probably like to know more details about that same story (that usually go unnoticed and don't get reported). Case and point: Your Loaded take on the whole Ghost app for the DSi, I loved that! Everyone reported about it today, but you were the only one that actually made me laugh and smile about it and in the process showed me how it actually works. You made me smile with a story about frightening ghosts around me, no less!
I want to learn something from my news and most importantly, I want to know how it affects me and my way of life and also, why not guide us in ways how we can contribute to solve a problem reported in the news. New media tools are perfect for this.
That would be true interaction: Not just commenting on the news, but actually being able to do something about it and making a difference. (granted, we won't be able to achieve world peace, heck even Sandra Bullock couldn’t do it!), but we can definitely make a difference in so many ways: Online petitions, supporting a cause, making a donation to something, even having the answer to a problem. We would use new media tools for all that.
How many times have you seen something reported on the news and you wanted to do something about it? If you had the means to interact and get your message across to the other party, wouldn’t you be more likely to do something about it and get more involved?
I’m not saying that this should be a everyday thing (maybe, who knows), but definitely your core audience is very vocal and involved in the things we do and talk about and you can definitely use this for a good cause or just to make us learn something new and that by the end of the day we are left with a smile our face and the satisfaction of knowing that we actually didn’t waste our time watching you and we got something from it (and who know, maybe we’ll watch it with our undivided attention instead of being on Facebook while we hear you in the backgound ;-) ).
E.C. Dinovo
· 7 months ago
It’s the wrong model, I’m sorry.
As you can abstract from the previous posts: a) no one cares what the layman thinks is newsworthy (dancing cats and American Idol comes to mind), and b) no one cares what the layman thinks about the news because they levy un-researched, uneducated, and unfounded accusations.
Try modifying the model: substitute the lay masses with experts. Use instant messaging, Twitter, etc. with a massive network of well informed individuals. That would actually be useful.
I hate to be so cynical, but that won’t work either. What is the product being discussed here? The networks don’t sell information, they sell ads – as a result they only run stories and comments that titillate or placate the average American.
Roberto Chiuz
· 7 months ago
I feel like I'm back in college writing papers but here goes. Question 1 & 2: I think everyone innately participates in anything that they find they are somewhat knowledgeable about or have a strong opinion about. Your 1st couple of questions reminds me of when we were all back in class and the professor explains a topic and asks for a reply. If you think you the have concept you give it a try and I hope you answer it the best you can. We choose if we want to participate or not but the difference now is that the pool of ideas is much larger.
Question 3: Viewers want the information without all the hype around it so they can formula their own thoughts about without having to filter unnecessary junk.
Question 4: For the web savvy news person, things that I think that may categorize it being old is seeming not stream lined. It is the age of the web where we want our information fast and to the point, if it takes too long to convey the message it we simply move on to something else.
Question 5: I would say some gimmicks do have their place in liven up the way information is delivered but sometimes it can over shadow the news it's self. Remember the whole thing with the hologram projection during the elections? Everyone was more intrigued with how that was done then the information the correspondent was presenting. As long as the gimmick adds in the delivery of the information, I don't think it's not that bad off.
Well, hope this helps and doesn't confuses you more. Man, I'm glad I didn't get essay questions from you when I was in college, they are really tough. I can see why you have been racking your brain about it.
Take care and Good luck, hope you find the answer you are looking for...
Andres Lucero
· 7 months ago
A truly interactive news show is one that allows users to both create and consume content. Current TV does this pretty well, with amateur reporters producing their own segments and the community voting on which segments make it to broadcast.
You can also read comments/questions on the air, take live calls, etc. But the real breakthroughs will come when the networks stop thinking of "new media" and "old media" as separate businesses and just focus on creating quality content across the board.
For example, when CNN covers a big event, they use their top anchors on the TV channel, but their live stream has a bunch of "new media" people chirping about Twitter and "going to the blogs." It feels so gimmicky that I'm actually sort of embarrassed for the anchors.
(Tangentially-related rant: Instead of dividing their networks into "new media" and "old media" entities, news organizations need to think of their businesses as simply "content creation", "distribution" and "ad sales." It shouldn't matter how I get my news, only that I get it from [your network here]. Supplemental content is fine, but don't punish me for choosing one distribution medium over another.)
On your show, I'd like to see you report the news in a way that reflects how you discover it. If a story breaks on Twitter, give attribution to the user so we can follow them. Show clips from YouTube when appropriate, and allow the people you're reporting on call via Skype to share their side of the story.
It's going to take some experimentation to find a format that works for the audience without feeling gimmicky, but I have faith in ya!
Simon Brocklehurst
· 7 months ago
Natali,
Here're the big problems with "old media" news/current affairs shows: they too often cover topics the audience doesn't care about; when they interview people, the presenters focus on the wrong questions from the audience perspective; and much of the analysis is biased, and based on "what people in the news room think" rather than based on any kind of meaningful data.
I think the big opportunity that new technology offers is to really understand your audience. If you're doing the show live, this could be especially interesting.
For example...
Let's say there are ten potential stories you could feature, but there's time on air to cover five - your audience could tell you which five they care about the most - in ranked order. So, this can help with the running order of stores, and how much time you spend on each.
Or if you're interviewing someone live, the audience could give you the authority to ask your subject the really difficult questions, "Well, Mr X, I have to tell you the viewers really aren't impressed with you not answering the question. Let me give you another chance."
Or, the audience could give you high-quality data for analysis of a major story e.g. play a video clip, and with clever software, allow viewers who register and fill in a profile on your site, to record their reaction on a second-by-second basis - e.g. keep pressing "1" during the video if you like what's happening; and keep pressing "2" if you dislike what's happening. So we could all learn what the public thinks of the details of a story, broken down by age, political leaning, sex, nationality etc. For example - "When Obama started talking about Korea, women really didn't like what he was saying, but they reacted more positively when they saw he was taking a strong stance." Huge amounts of valuable insights into a story could be possible with this kind of thing.
Obviously, what you're able to do here depends on budget, size of the team etc. You get the idea, though: the more you understand the audience; the more you take their views into account in terms of show content; and the closer to real-time you can react to the audience, the better they might like the show.
The corollary to all this, though, is that no-one is going to want to watch you reading through Twitter streams, or stumbling over trying to interpret real-time statistics etc. Not only is that gimmicky, it's also uninteresting. So, for this kind of thing to work well, I think you'd need someone to do that in the background, and talk to you in your ear, and maybe prepare visuals. That way - you're informed of what the audience is thinking, while remaining focused on presenting to the audience. Not saying it has to be *super* slick, just not amateur ;-)
Anyways, that's my two cents...
Mike
· 7 months ago
Nothing like jumping in with both feet Natali!
1. I want to interact through delivery. In other words, if I want to watch a story online, I want to have options through the story to follow links, other stories or viewpoints on the same subject.
2. Truthfully, any time (especially on radio) a caller speaks, I tune out. If I knew I could expect an insightful well thought out comment, I would be interested. Unfortunately, most times this is not the case. A parallel would be the "man on the street" interview on the local news. The reporter does not want to dig far for an interview, as such the "interviewee" is the guy or gal standing there who just wants to be on TV, has nothing important to say, and can't believe their nice neighbor Jeffrey ate all of those people.
3. Timeliness. Granted more time goes in to putting a package together, but when it's ready, put it online. I know "they" want people to tune in at 6 or the top of the hour because of advertising dollars, but times are a changing.
4. See #3. Just because we have always done it a certain way, doesn't mean it is the best way to do it. Broadcast media delivered via the web should always be in true perpetual motion. In place of a talking head, you would have an app. The viewer would chose what is important to them and in what order to watch the stories.
5. Others have fleshed this out rather well. Although I rely on my feeds a lot, I have found myself using news tweets quite often. Mostly because the print media puts them out there immediately. I would like to subscribe to news topics like following someone on Twitter. For instance, if I want to follow every story about "North Korea", I would follow the "North Korea" stories. As soon as a NK story pops up, I'm notified via Twitter, email, homing pigeon, or whatever...
Good luck!
Mike
mager
· 7 months ago
Test
Alex
· 7 months ago
First off, wow! That's quite a project you're working on there. Second, I wish you all the luck in the world with it.
I've read a couple of the comments (too many long ones to finish them all) and it seems you'll have a whole load of healthy opinions. All I can say in response to your queries (and forgive me if they have be already stated):
1) Viewer participation is simply the way of the future. I don't see the whole media dynamic so much as "old vs. new" unless it's a circumstance where a media group actively works against the changing landscape instead of trying to adapt to it.
All of these new social vehicles that allow news providers/media groups great ways to get a quicker response from their customers and tailor their products for them. The problem I think is that these news providers are no longer providing their viewers with much in the way of information and more in the way of glaze. There's no depth to a lot of reports. Media groups are not necessarily focused on informing their viewers so they don't have to focus on providing their customers with the same level of depth.
Viewer participation is vital for news providers to redevelop themselves into better businesses which can then try to better inform their viewers. News providers can only improve with smarter viewers who then in turn push the news provider to become a better company (ala a "circle of life" kind of deal).
2) I'm personally partial to roundtable discussions on a given topic. A problem with this is the current pundit network that goes on in the background where people, supposedly informed on a topic, are fighting to just get their face on the magical picture box. There's no reason roundtables cannot still exist but with actually informed individuals talking on a subject. I don't want to see another experience as I did last night: one of the cable news channels had on George Lopez to discuss President Obama's new Supreme Court Justice nomination. Both insulting and highly offensive.
3) Lastly--I think I answered your other questions above--there's nothing wrong with experimenting with "new media" gimmicks. Simply let the viewer know that you're experimenting to see how it works for yourselves and your viewers (see "circle of life" above). Just as long as you don't look desperate/pathetic in your gimmick choices (see CNN's holograms during election night).
I can honestly see what you're talking about as a sort of 21st Century 60 Minutes if it all comes together right. Remember the key is using smart technology to truly inform your viewers using truly informed individuals.
Well, I hope this helps out and good luck to you chica. Finding out about two Latinas advancing in society on the same day is always a great thing. Keep it up.
Mark Macleod
· 7 months ago
What an exciting prospect, already by asking an audience without calling for demographics you are engaging with a potential market and asking them what would they want, good start. In the UK we have iPM (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/) on BBC Radio 4, it is a blog which generates discussion and leads and then it is a weekly radio show acting on what the blog has been talking about and greatly involves the audience. It is a BBC Radio 4 show which means it has an older demographic but they have all responded well to this. The reason for mentioning is I think they go some way to deliverying a show which meets audience questions, using technology and in a very welcoming manner.
I lived in the US for 3 years and would equate Radio 4 listeners to NPR, but the local station I volunteered at (KPMU) were barely on top of Podcasts so it would mean the main netwroks would need to do it. That means it will need to be more mainstream than I believe it needs to be. I feel that Twitter can bring the instantaneous nature of topics (like DIGG) to the broadcast, unlike the news which is old. Your gap looks to me to be the now - not what happened today, but what is happening now. This is exemplified by the Hudson plane, earthquakes and even that poor fella who was arrested in the middle east.
1. How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence? Rather than having a must see show, it sounds you are wanting a 'background show'. It runs on meta brain listening similar to how I am listening to Man Utd being beaten by Barcelona while writing. 2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news? There will be opinions which can be shared via numerous methods, but maybe they can be categorised or tagged and then % shown of the state of play, add some geographic data and it is already painting a differnet story to any old news networks. A story like our current politicians and their expenses would certainly get an opinion from the most retiscent viewer. 3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting? Opportunity (but not need) to interact and share but in a more passive way than stopping life and picking up hte phone or taking an email. The benefit of text, twitter, skype etc, all lower the barriers to connecting and that is what can be utilised. 4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?” In my opinion some newscasts can be patronising, biased, ilinformed, edited and unnecessarily late in sharing the information. Tickers and overly graphic led stories are really not making the news any more interesting or effective! 5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast? As long as it is not the lead reason for the show, as identified by earlier comments, I wager your audience would be unphased with the use of "new media" and those who are not yet aware of it could be directed to a location for their definitions and not dumb anything down.
Good luck mulling it over, a new project is always exciting to get one up in the morning :) Mark
Minh
· 7 months ago
First off, congrats on the pilot! That's pretty exciting.
I think your concern about using Twitter, YouTube, etc. being gimmicky is quite valid. My previous employer is a software company that contracts projects for small insurance companies. They’ve recently decided to start a Facebook page for marketing purposes, but I think that’s kind of pointless. I doubt most people on Facebook is going to care about a small software company and the target audience probably won’t even have a Facebook account. I declare epic fail on this idea.
Whatever you decide to do for your show, it has to make sense, and not forced. I think a lot of people would like the opportunity to be able to ask questions about a story. A lot of newscasts just give brief summaries. In most cases, that’s fine. Sometimes, it would be nice to be able to get more details and to be able to ask question, kind of like when you’re discussing a topic with your friends.
If used to add value to the show, I think it would work great. Of course, as with “old media”, you have to exercise a bit of caution so the pranksters don’t disrupt the show. Although media is about entertainment value, so maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Just not over the top like Jerry Springer. ;)
Best of luck! I'll be tuning in to check out the show when it comes out.
Thomas Wahl
· 7 months ago
1. How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence? As a online only viewer of television I would like all of the broadcasts I watch to be interactive and would not have any fear of voicing my opinions regardless of what others think.
2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news? I think the viewers have a lot to say about the days news, but I am more interested in the quality of what they have say.
3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting? I want more knowledge from the broadcast not just news. One podcast that does this simply but effectively is "Marketplace Whiteboard" from American Public Media. They explained the "Credit Default Swap" and its role in the financial collapse in a way many people could understand.
4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?” They do not offer an easy online alternate route to watching the full program like a podcast or stream, although it has been getting better. Even if they do offer a good online viewing experience the program is always delayed until after the television version has broadcasted.
5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast? I do not mind "new media" as long as it serves a purpose and is not just for show.
Kevin Tate
· 7 months ago
Lets be blunt shall we? Only use Twitter/Facebook/Youtube if it works. If you use it as a legitimate way of communication between cast and viewer than it will go a long way in progressing the effectiveness of the show. If you slap it on the screen it will be like that annoying friend that everyone secretly hates ( if you don't think there is one in your group of friends it's probably you :-) ) but puts up with them just because you know their not going away. Trust me, nobody wants that.:-)
Ahh, the "spiral of silence". Oppression in it's most passive-aggressive form. Treat the show like a beautiful woman. Make it accessible enough for the timid to comment/interact but keep the information flow open enough so that the bold won't feel restricted. Anonymous post/emails maybe? Twitter could work well with that because of the character limit.
Listen to the viewers. If something isn't working improve it or get rid of it. I myself as well as most of the modern tech generation disregard any form of useless info or tech that gets in the way of what we want. Sadly patients is not a virtue in today's society. Keep it simple to navigate. If your goal is to have people kicking back with a laptop at the end of a day getting their news fix don't make it complicated or over encumbering.
Speed!!! Find a format that runs smooth and dosen't take forever to load. Maybe break up the news cast into sections like a newspaper. Front Page, Sports, Tech... Anything that can get us to the info we are looking for faster.
Get entertaining news anchormen. I don't want to see a blank stare or a fake laugh. Find people that understand what their talking about so they can comment on the subject or add humor to it. I don't want someone giving me the specs and features on a second gen iPhone that can't figure out how to text.
Spice up the set. Nothing says "old media" like pant suits and fake wooden desks with small stacks of useless paper on top for the anchormen to mindlessly ( not to mention uselessly ) shuffle. A good rule of thumb is if you wouldn't watch/use it why would we. Youth is the demographic, play to it.
Creativity and usefulness is what's gonna make this work. That goes for both sides of the viewing spectrum. Keep an open mind to suggestions and tweaks. LISTEN TO THE VIEWERS FEED BACK!!!! I can't stress that enough.
anon
· 6 months ago
more bookmarks of experts' blogs is what i want/need. so use crowdsourcing technologies (e.g., prediction markets) to identify experts who are then-unheralded, then showcase these folks. to get a feel for the possibilities skim moneyball by michael lewis a/o the wisdom of crowds by james surowiecki a/o, of course, crowdsourcing by ??
Dennis
· 6 months ago
I think one of the major differences between the idea of 'old' and 'new' media is the fact that 'new' media is far more candid, off the cuff and far more human. The factors of initial and immediate reporting seem to encompass the characteristics of personal information.
To give example to what I mean by an analogy: Old media would be more like going to a giant arena, watching someone perform or speak or evangelize. It's a massive undertaking that has many and many of hands and effort to amass something huge and spectacular in every essence of the word. It holds more weight and far more grandeur and stands to be professional, structured and intense without ANY fault. It believes that fault is a major problem that will not be accepted. It is staunch, forceful, without remorse, and is cold and clinical in every sense. The soul and passion has been stripped out to appeal to every single person watching to the point that the people watching DO NOT really have a choice of whether to like it or not. It is what it has intended to be and will not waver, much like an old man in the 50s. He wants his meat and potatoes and will scream bloody murder if he does not get it. And that will put just about every person in that auditorium watching this gigantic presentation in that spiral of silence.
'New' media is far more agile. It's fresh and open and tiny. It's a whisper in your ear, it is a tap on your shoulder, it is there waiting for you when you want it and will give it to you in whatever style you wish. To continue the analogy it would be like meeting the person that is speaking on that huge stage, or that actor that said those lines, or sitting down with a director of a company, or any situation really whatever the individual may be a part of it. It is direct and it is intimate. Though it has it's polish, it really doesn't have to shoot to impress, rather just give the viewer what exactly they are looking for.
Think of this... the newspaper has select space for certain articles. Those articles need to be edited or bloated to the point where they must fill the space to pad the advertising. The same happens with television. Plus how many times have you seen an older reporter/presenter laugh or smile or show any sign of personality.
I think the new media is putting the human touch back into it. Much like you Natali, you will put in a quip here and there, and personally I enjoy that. Does it bias the material? Well...I suppose if people are weak minded sure. But isn't presenting them with a clinically washed and hard edged version of the news also biasing them into being uninterested and detatched from the stories at hand?
Frankly what people have to say about the news, this whole interactive social aspect of media, is really unimportant and usually breeds one of two things in my mind: Major disappointment in the status quo based on poor grammar, ignorance, and flat out nameless/faceless communication(which I will touch on in a second), and also massive frustration as flame wars break out from one second to the next. Should the user have control over the presentation? I don't think so. But I do believe there should be different formats in which the info is presented. If there is interaction it is fine, but to have an entire show based on interaction is somewhat frustrating as a viewer. Why do I want to be interrupted by some dork who knows sweet fuck all about any topic just because he was chosen by the producer to be put on air?
However if it is an interactive format that you're looking at then maybe you should look at perhaps having an interactive, immediate voting system built into the show. You could read off topics or subjects(perhaps even suggested by viewers, or maybe by specialists of the set topic), and then have the 'audience' vote yes or no, show the onscreen graphic, and have the reaction direct and immediate, and then discuss with some of those that pressed the yes or no buttons and see where the opinions are coming from.
The only person that gets off on having a say is the person who is saying it. Just because someone else says what I want to say doesn't mean I will enjoy the ingestion of their retort or point. But if I am included in an on-air voting system, you could debate TONS of subjects and people would definitely sign in to add their votes to the show, if not to interact in the discussion but also to watch their contribution be a part of something, to feel like they are a part of something. One single person can't make a difference without MASSIVE drastic measures. But democracy is a great tool. We know it. We embrace it...or try to...it's a lie anyway. But we really do enjoy having our say and feeling our say isn't just a tiny voice but a massive ROAR.
You could set the set up like a game show. Much like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? with the play at home on your own computer. Have two chairs on a glass floor with a light setup that has red and blue bars starting from under your seats and have them trail into the background and up the wall behind you with a large LCD readout showing percentages of yes or no and you could ask to tally and the light bars would creep along showing instant reactionary counts to the votes.
This way you could control your topics of discussion with yes or no(and even have a maybe or other bar in white and ask one or two of them why they said maybe if its pertinent). It would leave you open to disseminate the assholes, vulgar people, or people who are just plain egotistical and talk too much on one subject...much like I have here :| haha
Anyway... that's my idea. Online live vote, subject controlled by your yes or no questions(have viewers write in too), have one specialist on the subject(say like Anna David on sex), and then have an immediate census on the fly shown in an exciting empowering way. Give people some control, and then talk to them through Skype or something after each reaction. Randomly talk to them, let them have discussions with the specialist, etc.
Brad
· 6 months ago
I think there are some things that 'old media' does well that I would like to see more of. 'Old media' is much better at analyzing news than 'new media' is (I am speaking generally, since there are plenty examples of TV news shows that do not analyze well at all). I think if you took time to analyze the news and waited for a conversation to grow around a topic before moving on, it might feel a bit like an old media broadcast, but there would be a much better conversation to draw from. Once you pick through all of the comments and get to what people are really asking, then you will have quality content. That is what I want. I can get up to the minute news, but I have to really hunt for a quality discussion online. As far as what is wrong with 'old media', is that it is to static. It is not portable. I can only get it on cable TV or only on the radio (with a few exceptions of course). And I cannot join the conversation. Even with call in radio, I don't have time to call in the second I have a comment. None of that is flexible. That all being said, I think if you stay flexible and open to comments you are already a step ahead.
Joe Muniz III
· 6 months ago
Hi Natali,
Been a fan of your show on CNET for awhile now. In answer to your query about "old media vs. "new Media" I can clearly tell you that as a viewer I am simply that. I cannot change the news, I cannot engage the news that is being fed to me. I can choose to get my news from a source or variety of sources I like. I like all the new technology that is out. I will not necessarily use it, but I like people to keep innovating and thinking of new ideas. I would like my news to be "news". Just like it used to be, non-biased and up to me to figure out what I think, rather than being told how I should feel. I think "news" as entertainment in the 24hr game has taken away serious journalism and keeps people on constant edge. It can be overwhelming to just listen to the news. Breaking news should be something serious, something to be made aware of. It should not be so and so celebrity is in or out of rehab. It should not be an over zealous fear inciting report on a killer flu that with common sense you will likely not get or be affected by. I have rambled on too much. Hope this helps on some level. Keep up the great work on BOL and your other shows. Later, JOe
Phil Rogers
· 6 months ago
Interesting and challenging because it'll be hard to avoid creating a newcast that is simply regurgitating information people already know.
I never had a great interest in Twitter, but gave in recently to see what the craic was. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but it seems like I get headline news with links to stories, and then the same headline with a link to the same story every 10 seconds or so. There are too many sources disseminating "news" by simply aggregating the work of others.
This seems to fly in the face of what I thought was the Twitter-effect - multi-way sharing of opinions and real-time updates of events/situations.
That's where I would aim for in a new newscast to set myself apart from 'old media' - multiple contributors, and real-time question and answer sessions between experts and the man on the street.
How impromptu could you make the show?
Could you follow the days hottest topics then line up people to share opinions (video, Tweets, email, phone, whatever) live on the show?
'Could you take burning questions at the top of the show and answer them or find expert commentators by the end?
Would this garner a faithful following of both information seekers and contributors?
Mix in some 'traditional' reporting on current affairs or pre-prepared reports and I think even I might be tempted away from Ultimate Dancing with the Idol on Ice!
I do enjoy posting if I have an idea or comment. Feedback on comments can be rough but I am getting use to negative feedback.
I enjoy breaking news feeds and live video. I like discussions with groups like the CBS groups over live stream during the election with Katie Couric.
High Quality HD Video. I have the connection speed I get disappointed when it is not available.
I like video podcast with special guest and regular citizens who can be counted on to be reasonably responsible (not overly swearing)
I use Twitter Search to see what news is Breaking, trending topics. Maybe a show discussing Trending Topics, You could call your show Trending Topics
Natali you will do a great job just like you did with Loaded. I look forward to seeing you on CBS news. BOL (Best Of Luck)
Sincerely Jimmie
Scott
· 6 months ago
Good News is good writing no matter the way it is reported. A problem is today's 1440 minute per day news cycle. News outlets must fill each minute of the day with something and most of it is muddle. There is just not that much news to report. So, to fill up the day they embellish, poll, and get opinions from the guy/gal on the street.
Today News is entertainment. That is what sells ads and attracts eyeballs. Enough said.
Chris Burnett
· 6 months ago
If you can find some copies, take a look for The Screen Savers. Not the junk that G4 put on after they purchased Tech-TV, but the later Tech-TV years with Leo Laporte and Patrick Norton specifically 2000-2004. The show at that time was very good at being informitive, entertaining and interactive. Off the start they would bring up some subjects that seemed to them the most important of they day, have a small discussion between themselves about them, ask for people to call, go to break, come back and continue the discussion with callers. The main thing that made them great were that they did not treat the viewers/callers as idiots, but as a friend with an opinion. Far too many of the shows on TV talk down at thier viewers. While they ask for opinions. They have already decided what viewpoint they want to project and tend to lecture the callers as to why this view is the only correct one, or are dismissive of them. My point is, that if you want to build an interactive audience, treat them as you would if you were talking to your sister or best friend on the phone. Not as a professor talking to a student.
Chris Burnett
· 6 months ago
One other thing to note, there are 8 minute segments and the like on YouTube etc, but if you can, find a good sampling of the full 90 min broadcasts of TSS...
Laura Norén
· 6 months ago
One of the things I miss about new media (as opposed to old media) is that it tends to act as an amplification device rather than encouraging 'feet on the ground' work to uncover stories that are really new. I read multiple online sources and I tend to see the same headlines again and again as different news organizations pull down the same feeds from Reuters and AP. I am not making a new argument when I say that 'google' and 'search' have become synonyms so much so that it's easy to forget what investigation and research used to be - there used to be a lot more traveling and talking and a lot less pointing and clicking. (Important aside: I also laugh every time I see the local news imply superiority by having lots of live coverage when the live coverage is shot from a highway on-ramp (covering traffic) or some other completely common-place location that adds nothing to the story but does increase the number of hours of live coverage they can claim.)
When 'new media' is used to refer to an e-stream from vox populi, it gets old fast and often misses the mark. Just like having one pundit from the left battle it out with one pundit from the right is predictable, reading real-time comments on broadcast news is gets boring because it is so often predictable. What comes off the top of most heads in response to a substantive news story is often intellectually impoverished, especially when it's limited to 140 characters.
New media can extend the reach of old media, especially as old media contracts and there are fewer journalists on the ground. When commenters and other digital citizens are adding relevant content - like, say, when they are sending in pictures and av feeds of protests following an election in a country with few independent journalists - that does add value. When commenters are just applying partisan politics or predictable opinions to the news of the day - meh, not so exciting.
One thing that might be worth thinking through further is how to find good sources of investigative work if the networks and newspapers can't afford to do as much as they used to do. There are universities full of paid researchers out there - maybe having a closer relationship to the academy would help break from the older stock of pundits to fresh faces and novel perspectives. The trick is that it's easy to go to the same academics again and again resulting in viewer fatigue with the same talking heads popping up every week. But using new people all the time runs the risk of airing folks who aren't comfortable in front of the camera or quick on their feet. No easy answers here, either.
Full disclosure: I am an academic-in-training so that could be why I think it's interesting to see what academics have to say. I also watch all my tv over the internet - but I am fine with a fairly standard broadcast format.
Natalie, the fact that you are asking fully contextualized questions of your internet audience is, in itself, a good use of new media.
All Comments
Your #3 stood out to me. What frustrates me the most about "old media" is how slow it tends to be? With the things I'm interested in, I know all I need to know just by following my particular feeds in Google Reader and participating in certain forums. When I hear a tech story on TV, it's usually so old that I want to scream just a little....especially local news. :) The new media should be incorporated with the old in such a way to make the latter more timely.
One powerful thing, though, with this constant stream of information that I love is trends. Scanning the Twitter sidebar a lot of the time the trends generally relate to top news stories, but sometimes you get interesting ones, such as today when I saw #3wordsaftersex.
I think if interesting trends were brought up (perhaps not #3wordsaftersex), stuff that people are talking about but that might not be getting much attention in mainstream news, that would be something interesting.
One advantage Twitter does have is speed and mobility. Here's an interview with Biz Stone on those subjects:
http://www.lifehackingmovie.com/2009/05/20/biz-...
Look at it this way, how bad do we want to get ourselves heard by a huge audience? very much so and if we have to get ourselves smack dap in the middle of a news room we will do it.
# How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
There is as many opinions as there are people, people want to get their opinion through and that is a fact. Just stop at the next accident and you find those people circling the area to lay their opinions on the fellow rubbernecks.
# What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
Let's face it the headlines has become steadily more boring as we go deeper into recession, maybe the broadcast stations should cut down on the amount of news and make the news that are actually there more interesting.
# What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”
I remember twitter back a while when there was a shooting in a emigrant center in New York, people were talking back and forth figuring out how to listen in on the Police radios in the area, it was a guy from Spain that figured it out and we were exchanging news about the incident all day, you can not get that kind of interaction from "old media"
# Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?
Oh I think they care, there is something exiting about being able to reach the news casters on air, like when they have a twitter account, you know they will see your tweet when you send them one, it is just great.
Summary: As a viewer I want as many details as possible, if that means using the Internet which is does I Say out with "old media" in with "new media"
Just my opinion, good luck with it all Natali.
1. How do you expect a viewer/listener to interact? Especially if you're doing something live, what avenues are you planning on using? Chat channels? FriendFeed rooms? Twitter hashtags? Will you allow users to interact with you through live video? Skype or iChat channels? Do you want to be able to edit or screen that kind of feedback?
2. I love multiple person engagements. I think it would be great if you can provide someone who really is a devil's advocate to your position. No, you don't need a Dvorak, but a Molly Wood type (or Molly herself!) would be great. I also like a male/female balance when possible. That's just me. It's what I enjoy the most (thus one of the reasons I was a BOL listener since it's start). The most important thing to provide in a pundit though is someone I can respect, male or female, young or old - they need to have real cred in that topic.
3. Don't include twitter because it's "new media" - include twitter because it provides a relevant topic for discussion. It's a tool like any other, it's not the special sauce that will make a broadcast hip or cool. Include twitter, facebook, youtube or whatever because it's part of how you dialog. It has to be an extension of you, of how you do things - if it's not, then you'll look as goofy as these Fox News at 10:00 anchors that are suddenly trying to be "cool" after striving so long to be "the news you can turn to."
I think I cross-pollenated the answers, but I think I did answer all the questions. Sorry it's not two page double spaced. Rock it now!
Best,
Phillip
http://phillymacmedia.com
PS At the top of this Post a Comment area I did not see what each of the three fields was for in Safari 4 beta. Hope they came out OK.
The best types of feedback that the users can provide are:
1. Followup questions
2. Additional information
3. "Well actually" corrections
4. Opposing viewpoints
Just think of the BOL chat room, only filtered.
As for the spiral of silence, that normally only applies to public settings. With twitter, etc., people remain relatively anonymous and don't worry about reprisals (see Trolls).
Good luck!
Genuine dialogue on difficult issues. I am so tired of the predictable dance between Dems and Republicans. Old media (and sometimes new media) provide the stage for the dance. Obama made some effort but was shut down so its biz as usual. The media, old and new, should force politicians to answer questions and engage in real dialogue, and real solutions. Bring in a mediator and have a real discussion. Thanks Natali!
people dont necessarily mind being "talked at" by a broadcast, as they understand ventriloquism is a one-way street. they simply want their own questions answered by the end of the broadcast... but of course, some type of interaction is required to do that.
How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
only enough to answer everyone's questions about the news presented. it's gone far beyond "old media's" reporting of "what, where, when, why, and how."
What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
answers and entertainment, to be blunt. if your questions arent being answered, the viewer will tune out. in addition, the source material has to have entertainment value. if you report on something your viewers arent interested in, say, "organic sawdust for hamsters" on a tech oriented show, you're obviously going to lose them.
What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”
i dont see "old media" as you defined it in your argument. i see it as the inability to monetize their material enough for widespread distribution with a cripplingly slow dissemination method. the internet has given everyone an instant voice on today's news. no one chats over yesterday's news from a paper with friends at a cafe anymore.
Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?
honestly? i dont believe so. i believe the viewer only cares about their "15 minutes" by having their questions and comments addressed by the talking heads. "twitter" simply seems to be the name of that method to get your opinion redistributed publicly, and thus in a way validated.
These are important points to make, and it's good that someone in your position is bringing them up. There will always be a place for old media, at least for the foreseeable future. I think it'll be a while before things change over completely.
That said, here are my thoughts on it.
The world is different now. People write emails, not letters. They voice their opinions on blogs and web sites. How much of "old media" was saved due to "new technology" (eg: Jericho)? I think that there can be a middle ground where old media works with new technology to at the very least have some form of interaction.
But does everything NEED to be interactive? Do I NEED to talk back with the people that bring the media to us? It depends on the personalities of the newscasters and the culture of how the news is broadcast. For example, I don't see "old media" broadcasters caring about what's on Twitter. When was the last time there was a Tweetup with the people from a New York news show? And yet, I'll interact with you, Tom, Jason, Molly, and Veronica because that's the culture that has been created around what you all do. In fact, interacting with you all seems natural because none of you put up a barrier that says "read only". Maybe start there. Bring in some form of interaction without it taking over the whole show.
To answer some of your questions:
1) As I said before, in my opinion, it depends on the culture of the show. I've seen shows that rattle off chat room text which is a terrible distraction. Interaction needs a balance. I always thought The Screen Savers and Call For Help had that down perfectly.
2) Hard to say. How much DO they know about the news?
3) Here's a personal example. When TechTV died, I felt like there was nowhere else to go to watch responsible tech news every day. Sure there are blogs and such, but TechTV did it right and it wasn't until Techzilla and BOL came around afterwards that I didn't feel like there was a gap in tech news. Look at what people want and fill that gap.
4) One word: sensationalism. I hate it. Hate, hate, hate. I don't even like it in blog titles.
5) Maybe. In my opinion, it has to be done in a way that's not obtrusive. Reading emails/comments at the end of a show is a good way to read back what's no more than 60 minutes old and still not interrupt the flow of the show.
This is something I've been thinking about as well. I've been struggling with moving in a new direction and trying to find something that will appeal to an audience while keeping it interesting.
Good luck on your new show!
How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
honestly, nothing very pertinent, but it's a lot of it. they just want to say it NOW, when the news is fresh in their head; i find it akin to two people at a table, one reading the paper and stumbles across something shocking enough to share and the discussion that results from it.
I think that the entire newscast shouldnt be based around user input but I feel that some good ways to deal with it are as follows:
you can divide it into segments meaning have a general/important news update and then you can have the viewers vote on what topics they want to hear next week (video games,foreign news, etc). Another segment could be actual interaction with the viewers via webcam or some chat element, the webcam could be subject to the spiral of silence but it usually doesnt hurt that bad but the chat client could be annonymous and you can choose either to have a nickname or use your actual name. In the interactive segment you could select one or more topics covered that day and interact with the viewers (of course let them know about when to be on). I would also allow the viewers to submit their own ideas for topics to be covered because sometimes people can have really good ideas that you would never think of, they could also have the option of you acknowledging who submitted it or not.
2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
Well depending on your target audience and the content people could have a lot. If it is a little bit of everything I think it would get the best response because there will always be something to spark some people.
3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
I personally feel no power as a viewer as what content will be displayed for example on a lot of broadcasts I often will hit days at a time where I have no interest in what is being broadcasted. I also feel a lack of intimacy with the viewing audience on the part of the people producing the show.
4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”
Lack of interactivity and user input as well as the way it is presented. To elaborate on the first part your general newscast rarely takes into account the people when picking the actual news they just pick what they feel the viewer will want to see which is often not the same thing. For example the news shows so much bad news often people want some good news. As to the second part of my argument I feel that sending of one medium dates different casts, even those that show on just one website are often written off. I think that if you do, for example: podcasts and a regular cast and maybe like a ticker on the main site it would be more new information friendly.
5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?
I do because I personally like to be involved and I dont always have a set time frame when I can sit down and watch the news so new media gimmicks work fine for me.
I want my new broadcast to be something you watch while you are sitting at home with your laptop in your lap at night, either answering emails, playing games, surfing Facebook, or sitting with your spouse while they watch some embarrassing reality show. I want you to watch it, absorb the days’ news, engage with it, learn from it, and talk back to to it. Live, of course. I want you to hear and be heard. But I am so deathly afraid of the gimmick trap. I don’t want to use YouTube videos just because it sounds cool. I’m not going to rely on Twitter just because it is the new black. But I do want to incorporate all of that. So I ask you, dear reader, what do you think? What do YOU want? I know you don’t want a talking head just spitting the news out to you as he/she reads a TelePrompTer. I know you don’t want to watch me read Twitter and tell you “This is what you think!” I know you don’t want extreme political opinions. And I know that adding 6-8 pundits to a broadcast does not make it 6-8 times more interesting. But what does make it more interesting?
I think what would make it more interesting is as I said throwing out some power to the people and recoginition of their ideas. I think if you are really willing to invest time in it here is a good general idea for how you could set it up:
Early on in the day make a broadcast of some interesting things currently going on and maybe some of the topics that were submitted that you found especially clever. Then leave it open ended and ask the viewers to submit what they think about the days topics and the news that you covered and maybe submit their own ideas for things.
Later on in the day (prolly like 4 or 5) broadcast a second one that combines the comments of the viewers of the early broadcast and then does live interaction with people (via webcam, chat client, or both).
Keep in mind these are only rough ideas so they may not be amazing but they are my opinion and you kind of asked for it :)
1. A lot, at least I do find useful that I can comment and express an opinion on a certain subject/note given on a broadcast (I do that on Loaded regularly) because I know that even if my annotation is not featured, it was at least read and taken into account.
2. Depends, sometimes a single piece of news becomes very repetitive leaving the viewer little to comment about it; but again it depends on the importance of each.
3. Good question, viewers want a broadcast that it´s easy to watch, that it's not to long and that offers something new once in a while like... live viewer questions/comments or viewer recommended content. Something that makes viewers feel part of it. That helps getting engaged :)
4. Talking-reading heads... definitely
5. Don't think too much about the "gimmick" factor... You are a great, very talented woman (there goes the unsolicited flattery) that have always known how to (and not to) use emerging technologies. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube... you name it, are just tools that you *can* use, not that you *must* use, keep that in mind because if your new broadcast is not tech centered, Non tech-savyy viewers may have a hard time getting use to the "gimmicks"
Don't give yourself a hard time thinking so Macro, sometimes it's better to let things just flow by...
I'm glad that you opened this to us, your readers/viewers. Here's hoping your upcoming newscast be a blast, as every other endeavor you do.
-Marco from México
You have asked good questions, and I can only tell you my current view of media in general. It needs to find itself. I don't want local news from CBS, and I don't want global news from my local newspaper's web site.
I recently helped a friend develop a Wordpress site for news specifically about a community of 2500. This is the future of news. Find a niche and fill it, and "they will come."
I couldn't care less about "new media" vs. "old media." That's just BS. There's "good media" and "bad media."
Number one is story. Number two is story. You get the idea. If you have a good story to tell, people will gather around to listen to you. If you tell it really well, people will pester you to death to get you to tell them another story.
I think that's all there is to it. If you have a good story, it will tell YOU how to tell it. Just listen.
I think that you should look at all these “new media” tools as a means to an end.
The basic premise, from what I can read, is that you want to tell us the news of the day in your very lovable way, that’s great! From there on, take this premise as your starting point. First and foremost, think about what you want to do will your show. Now think about how you want to achieve such things or with what tools are you going to do it. From there forward, try to implement the tools at your disposal to solve the problem.
Say for example that you talk about the weekend’s shuttle landing. CNN and others probably contacted their resident “expert” and got them on the show via a satellite feed. Now, you obviously won’t be able to rent a satellite feed for your segment nor you have a large research department to help you, but that’s where the “new media” tools become your allies. As you may be very well aware, most of us that watch your shows (ie. B.O.L.) are pretty smart people, so you should consider having your resident panel of experts on a wide range of subjects so they can help you tell the news they way you want them to and most importantly, so we as your audience can relate to them. We don’t want an old hag how doesn’t have a clue what a computer is talking to us about things we care in a language that we do not understand. We want someone that we can relate to and who live their lives around the same things we do, that’s really missing from old media, as they need to cater to a large audience. You have an incredible opportunity to become very successful with a niche audience (just because is a niche audience doesn’t mean it has to be small).
How are you going to know about their level of expertise? Well, that’s what new media is for. A little poking around their online profiles, their Twitter feeds, podcasts and you should have a pretty good idea about them. This is also a great way to know your audience. Just because someone doesn’t have a degree doesn’t mean that they don’t know a lot about a subject. Some of the most passionate people I know, love what they do and don’t have a single piece of paper to prove their expertise.
And please, don’t try to fit all these tools around you, it should always be the other way around. You and the news should always be at the center of the show and the most important thing. Everything else is just a fad. Google is just the new Lycos and Twitter will not always be the most talked about thing in town.
As for interaction, some people will always love to talk and other will just stand there and listen. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Also remember that not one opinion is necessary more important than another. Try to keep a fair balance between both sides on a subject and always be fair to both of them and you should not have any problems with the “spiral of silence”.
I’m not saying you that you should always have experts on the show, but everyday folks almost always have something interesting to say. I can assure you that most of the people that will comment on this post, don’t have a Communications degree, but you will most definitely will get some great ideas from their contribution.
And finally, please, I beg you. Don’t make the same mistake that “old media” is making: Don’t use a tool or service just because it’s “cool” or because everybody is doing it. You don’t have to use every single thing out there to make your show a success, you just need to use what works for you and your audience. It may not be Twitter, it may very well be. You won’t know until you try. And now is the time to do it! Once you have your set of goals, work this tools around you, your audience and your show and I can assure you that you will be successful.
Also, please remember: Not everyone is made of gold, and hence, you are not bound to make everyone happy, but, as long as you stay happy with what you do and how you do it, it will always be reflected on the things that you do. Last week’s show from SFO proved it: you looked and sounded happier than in recent months (probably because you where home) and that was instantly reflected on your performance and your work.
I hope this helps and sorry if it was too long.
Thanks for making our lives a little bit better and keep up the good work!
between a lecture and a discussion session. When I was in high school ( back
in the 60's) school was basically lecture. The teacher would tell us the facts
that we should know and then we would memorize them and repeat them on
the next test. The only classes that I really enjoyed were an honors physics
class and an english lit class where we read facts outside of class and then
discussed them in class. The discussions were moderated by the teacher
but they were pretty far ranging, in physics for example, we would discuss
what our responsibility was as prospective scientists. We talked about the
development of nuclear energy and ultimately the development of the atomic
bomb (the results of which we were living with each day - these were the days
of "duck and cover" drills). In literature we discussed the Kennedy assassination
in relation to Hamlet (was Kennedy a tragic figure like Hamlet?) In both cases
we had to learn facts first. Just having an opinion without a real understanding
of what you are talking about seems to remind me a little too much of the last
eight years. You can't have a gut feeling if your gut is not being guided by your
brain. But once facts are established, they can be interpreted in light of your
own sense of morality and the life experiences that you have. So a news
broadcast or a new paper article establishes the base of knowledge and the
editorial page gives differing view of what these facts mean. Things like
blogs and twitter allow a discussion to happen. Of course the anonymity of
a blog entry or tweet allows you to sometimes express ideas that you might
not face to face. I work as a software engineer and I embrace all that is geek
so I know a lot of quiet, shy people who are very opinionated when they blog.
Having said that I think that the "new" media, if viewers are doing it get the
most out of it requires a lot of work. You need to a) understand the issues
that are being discussed. b) have spent some time thinking about what they
mean. c) express your opinion clearly. And remember it is just your opinion,
not a delivery of revelation from heaven.
So a news media that both informs about events and then allows for discussion
is tricky. The inform part has to be free of bias. The discussion requires a lot
of work on the part of all participants. Some people don't want to take the time
they just want to hear about what is going on in the world and be able to tell
the television an opinion without having done any work. Others want to discuss
things to get other peoples ideas and to express their own.
The technology that is developing around blogs is just a way people have of
sitting around a campfire and talking about what is going on in the world.
Now you and I can discuss the world events even though you live in NYC and
I live in the southwest. The idea of being able to discuss things with people
who have a varied amount of experience and knowledge is what makes this
use of technology exciting to me. In my office all of the people are basically
tree-hugging liberals so we just re-inforce our options we don't really discuss
them. Being able to listen some one else's opinion and have them listen to
yours helps each person grow from the experience.
A webcast that involves the audience is difficult because of the parts I talked
about above. Giving information, digesting the information, deciding what it
means and expressing my ideas about the topic. This all takes some time
and the details of how you do this are not something that I don't really know
about. But discussion groups have been done before and I know that a
good moderator can make them effective. So a webcast is just an expanded
discussion group of many people in a lot of different locations. Picking topics
that people will be interested in will also be difficult but experience should help.
I am not sure if any of this is relevant or helpful, but thanks for listening.
Another idea adding to this, although a gimmick, would be to allow the viewers for lack of a better word to "Digg" or Bury short news stories. If the majority vote is in favor of learning more about a story, you could focus on it either with viewer questions or by simply going more in depth with your coverage.
Everyone wants to believe they have a voice and an avenue to express it through. I believe viewers would appreciate the interaction they would gain access to when Old Media grows up. An example of this line already being blurred is a show you were a regular satellite feed guest on, Attack of the Show on G4TV. Although some things they try are gimmicky it never seems forced, it just seems 'fun'. As far as blurring the line with everyday news, substitute fun for being 'informative' and it will never come across as forced.
Good luck Natali, I can't wait to tune in.
I would agree with Jose Luis here; the most gimmicky thing you could do is do what I have seen some newscasts do - the "look at us - we're using Twitter!" that comes across as desperate.
Social media like Facebook and Twitter give you an excellent sounding board - getting feedback on ideas, etc. Their strength is their immediacy. Use them to solicit follow-up questions for your on-air guests, for "man/woman on the street" quick opinions on the day's news. Don't overuse them, though.
2. Many people have a lot to say on the days' news but will have difficulty either expressing themselves succinctly or at all. They may also wish to get into a conversation as apposed to making statements. This may be a skilled that could be learned by those who participate but will definitely take time.
3. The ability to question the "facts" seems like my biggest want. I mostly listen to NPR and BBC for my news because they seem to at least attempt to show more than one side of a story. I also like that the people speaking seem to have an actual understanding of the stories they are covering.
4. Besides the normal, it takes to long to get the story out there, I repeat the above statement. I am not looking for people to give their interpretations of things but an understanding of the story is nice and maybe some context of the world events. The news stories that are reported are not done so in a vacuum but part of a much larger world and this needs to be addressed. Along with this is an appreciation that I am not an idiot, which is what it feels like "they" (old media) think I am. I do not claim to be up on all the world politics or the intricacies of international relations but I do not need things dumbed down for me either, challenge me a little.
5. Unfortunately gimmicks are just that gimmicks. While somethings can be come tools that allow for better interaction or greater understanding they are just that. Trying things out is fine but the most important tool for news broadcast is the mind of both the on air personality and the viewer.
The things that do make it more interesting is the intelligent analysis of stories. Having a point of view is human, hiding the point of view and disregarding an intellect opposition is where I have the issue. Bring us intelligent reporting and discussions on the stories, those are the important things.
You have let out little snippets every now and again that indicate to me you do think about things deeply and would love to hear your thoughts, the more intelligent a discourse we have out in the world the more people may think in something other than sound bits. Have smart people whose opinions are different than yours but will actually discuss them, include the audience to bring out points that you may have missed. A must, I feel, is that an environment must be fostered where every sentence is not carved in stone. In a live show that is reporting news, what one thinks about a subject will come out and it is appropriate that it should but as such things will come out where opinions will change, which is only right. We, both you and the audience, have to allow for this to happen there must be a dialog and as such what is though will evolve and no one should be punished for thinking one way and than have their thoughts on a subject changed.
"What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?"
My dream broadcast would go like this. A news segment on say, the California state budget, is aired. Arnold says, we're going to have to make some cuts in education, health care, etc... Those keywords trigger a semantic-based pop-up, I can interact with, and when expanded, show aggregated data with a 10-year history on the budget.
Charts showing what the budget for each area has been, so I can see if the levels were raised thanks to all the property tax revenues from the housing boom and are now just needing to be re-adjusted to pre-boom levels, or are in fact being cut below their historical trend lines. Then I can add other metrics such as average test scores for education spending, percentage of health care costs compared to the overall budget, or even Freakonomics type correlations. Micro and macro levels. Data verified from at least 3 authoritative sources and studies.
Basically, if you were in President Obama's shoes, and wanted to know something for sure, here's what people would give you.
All of this to information to provide the most accurate, objective picture, free of self interests. Then, have at least 2 experts on hand to debate both sides of the issue, continually drilling down, pulling out nugget after nugget of aggregated goodness.
That depends on the show, the personalities, and the audience - BOL makes it very easy to interact, for example, the show is like a comfy couch in a local cafe where friends show up to chit chat and drink entirely too much coffee.
Would I want to do that with Dan Rather? Yeah, not so much.
2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
Should a viewer have any say?
I look at it this way, if I want specific stories, I have endless options to choose from, everything is a google away. (If I may use that as a verb). What makes a show good to me is a broad mix of stories - talk about the big stuff, and then surprise me with something I've never known about, or know little about, do it with passion and personality, and I'll be there every time.
Take, for example, our pal Molly Wood. It's not that I agree with her when she gets ranty, but when she does, she's generally well versed, has a strong opinion to start from, and clearly *cares* about what she's talking about.
I would'nt want to watch a show that features you just covering "whatever" stories, Natalie, or trying to please everyone by covering whatever the most vocal (and usually insulting) minority demands. That, i feel, would start the spiral of silence.
I would want to watch a show that has stories that interest *you*, what gets *you* fired up over, good or bad - and cover it and discuss it in *your* style. That, I will tune in for every time. (Pluralize that if there are more hosts planned)
Neal Stephenson is a cyberpunk author, but he wrote a story for Wired about laying trans-pacific telecommunications cables, that was one of the best features they ever had - it was superbly written, well researched, and clearly something he has a passion for.
I would never have asked for that story. And I'm damned glad I read it!
Besides, in today's short attention span world, you'd never get anywhere trying to let the viewer shape the content - it would change hourly, if not worse. You should define the show, not us.
3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
Links to the deeper story, more in depth coverage (not dummied down for the 10 o'clock news), and a feeling of community. Local news, if that's what I'm looking for.
4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”
Banners everywhere, an overwhelming and oppressive advertising presence, obvious scripts and a clear lack of any knowledge or care from the talking head, corporate and governmental censorship, and bias.
5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?
No. Gimmicks are just that, and best left to the hacks. If you bring to this new show what you bring to BOL, you won't need gimmicks - although they may be fun to play with from time to time.
Bring us what you always do, with passion and energy, and leave the gimmicks to those who have to scream and shout and pull stunts to get attention.
1. I want to interact with news that I get. When I hear something of interest, I want to share it with other interested people, but I really want to have a dialog with the people presenting the information. This is why I really like the BOL podcast. Your level of interaction with your user base is engaging. You present the news, then you discuss it. But you don’t stop there. You invite the consumer of your show to chime in with opinions and expertise that they may have. I think this adds to the value of the show. Additionally, I believe your spiral of silence reference is somewhat relevant, but limited in scope due to the relative level of insulation the Internet offers. Fear of reprisal is not as acute when people just don’t know you.
2. I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at here, but I think it depends what content you’re talking about and what motivates each viewer. I like to engage in conversations and debates on topics of interest to me. I tend to skim over other things that are of limited interest.
3. I think viewers want to trust that what they’re getting is the whole truth, without bias (to whatever extent that’s possible), and they want to feel like they can contribute in some way. I watch lots of political news and not one source is considered unbiased. I wish I knew of a source that gave me all sides of an argument and let me decide what side I want to come down on. Also, I’ve tried contacting these show host/commentators (Rachel Maddow, for one), and have never gotten any acknowledgement that my note was even received. I know these shows can’t read every email personally, but I don’t see any effort. I want to feel like the user is important.
4. I dismiss a broadcast as “old media” if it doesn’t try to engage the user in some way. That could be a Facebook page, Twitter @Replies, or even email. if the host/commentator isn’t trying to interact with users via that medium, then they’re just using it as a stage prop and it’s worthless.
5. If, by Gimmick, you mean the claim to the use of new media without embracing the benefits it offers, I think savvy users are put off by that. It’s viewed as un-genuine. However, I don’t think that embracing and leveraging of new media in otherwise traditional broadcast is gimmicky. It’s important for traditional broadcast to evolve as the viewer evolves because if they don’t, we’ll find other ways to consume our news.
I think this is an important topic and I think it’s noteworthy that you are addressing it. If Twitter and Facebook and FriendFeed and Digg and any of the other social networks are any indication, people want to be involved in ways that were not possible 10 years ago. We’re just looking for a news outlet that’s willing to make that available us. I watch MSNBC because I like the content, but I’m not happy with their level of interaction with their users. If you and CBS (presumably) are going to leapfrog them in terms of embracing the ‘new media,’ I will consider switching. I like to offer insight where I can, ask questions where I must and generally help the conversation move in directions that may increase the value of the show. Any network that offers me such opportunities will win major points in my book.
*Local News* and introduce commercials after a few months, attract viewers before they're chased away by annoying commercials.
This is the last idea for now...Archives, keep interesting segments, that are clearly "tagged" and easy to find, so the viewer can share clips s/he thought was interesting--thus attracting new viewers!
-Round table discussion about a topic (not politics) use Skype for guests or in house.
-Comedy - example: fark.com
-Parity - spoofs of silly news. or just silly news.
-Don't cover the "Typical" main stream news. There is so much more that goes on and is worth reporting.
Keep it simple. To much fluff turns off viewers.
1. My opinion is that the viewer wants to interact with the news in a way that they can somewhat shape it to their interests while still leaving room for general news. This means having seperate sections available for topics such as Tech, Economy, Special interest, whatver, etc, and one available that has all the stuff in it. I dont think viewers will be scared to voice their opinion becuase they will have no repercussions from it other than a few twitters or emails about it.
2. The viewer has a lot to say about what happened in today's news because if it is interesting to them then they will share it with their friends and the news will propagate through the network of people. I don' think they have much to say to the broadcaster because they know the broadcaster will filter or take their feedback out of context if it even airs (this is the case with traditional TV broadcasts...)
3. I think if the viewer is watching the broadcast they are getting at least most of what they want out of it or they wouldn't be watching.
4. The things that make a web savvy person dismiss broadcasts as "old media" (ugh, these *** media terms are getting annoying) is the lack of a guaranteed ability to give feedback on their opinion to the broadcaster and get their voice heard. This is dismissed as old media because it is one way. One way news will eventually die out as people want to get their voice heard. A good example is Newspaper vs Buzz Out Loud. Newspaper has a few small handpicked letters that they put in their letters section. By contrast, BOL has at least 20% of the show devoted to listener feedback and discussion of the listeners opinion.
5. I have come to the conclusion that people dont really give a care about "new media" crap that is shoved into archaic television broadcasts. The TV station says "Follow us on Twitter" but it is just another avenue for broadcast.
I would love to have another show with interesting stuff like you described in your post, and espescially with great personalities like Molly (awesome rants!) to add some zest (sorry couldn't think of a better word) to the show. There are some shows that are good like loaded or TWiT or BOL and there are bad ones like "The feed" from g4 (Talking head alert, with 'hot girl' for initial viewership) that are basically the same as the kindle voice reading the newspaper to you (some of them have fatiguing voices like that too). I hope your forthcoming show will be a good one!
--amddude
Try to uncover stories that are not widely reported, stories that can make a difference.
I usually read the same story about 10 times in a day from all my newsfeeds and I’m sick of it by the end of the day, but I would probably like to know more details about that same story (that usually go unnoticed and don't get reported). Case and point: Your Loaded take on the whole Ghost app for the DSi, I loved that! Everyone reported about it today, but you were the only one that actually made me laugh and smile about it and in the process showed me how it actually works. You made me smile with a story about frightening ghosts around me, no less!
I want to learn something from my news and most importantly, I want to know how it affects me and my way of life and also, why not guide us in ways how we can contribute to solve a problem reported in the news. New media tools are perfect for this.
That would be true interaction: Not just commenting on the news, but actually being able to do something about it and making a difference. (granted, we won't be able to achieve world peace, heck even Sandra Bullock couldn’t do it!), but we can definitely make a difference in so many ways: Online petitions, supporting a cause, making a donation to something, even having the answer to a problem. We would use new media tools for all that.
How many times have you seen something reported on the news and you wanted to do something about it? If you had the means to interact and get your message across to the other party, wouldn’t you be more likely to do something about it and get more involved?
I’m not saying that this should be a everyday thing (maybe, who knows), but definitely your core audience is very vocal and involved in the things we do and talk about and you can definitely use this for a good cause or just to make us learn something new and that by the end of the day we are left with a smile our face and the satisfaction of knowing that we actually didn’t waste our time watching you and we got something from it (and who know, maybe we’ll watch it with our undivided attention instead of being on Facebook while we hear you in the backgound ;-) ).
As you can abstract from the previous posts: a) no one cares what the layman thinks is newsworthy (dancing cats and American Idol comes to mind), and b) no one cares what the layman thinks about the news because they levy un-researched, uneducated, and unfounded accusations.
Try modifying the model: substitute the lay masses with experts. Use instant messaging, Twitter, etc. with a massive network of well informed individuals. That would actually be useful.
I hate to be so cynical, but that won’t work either. What is the product being discussed here? The networks don’t sell information, they sell ads – as a result they only run stories and comments that titillate or placate the average American.
Question 1 & 2:
I think everyone innately participates in anything that they find they are somewhat knowledgeable about or have a strong opinion about. Your 1st couple of questions reminds me of when we were all back in class and the professor explains a topic and asks for a reply. If you think you the have concept you give it a try and I hope you answer it the best you can. We choose if we want to participate or not but the difference now is that the pool of ideas is much larger.
Question 3:
Viewers want the information without all the hype around it so they can formula their own thoughts about without having to filter unnecessary junk.
Question 4:
For the web savvy news person, things that I think that may categorize it being old is seeming not stream lined. It is the age of the web where we want our information fast and to the point, if it takes too long to convey the message it we simply move on to something else.
Question 5:
I would say some gimmicks do have their place in liven up the way information is delivered but sometimes it can over shadow the news it's self. Remember the whole thing with the hologram projection during the elections? Everyone was more intrigued with how that was done then the information the correspondent was presenting. As long as the gimmick adds in the delivery of the information, I don't think it's not that bad off.
Well, hope this helps and doesn't confuses you more. Man, I'm glad I didn't get essay questions from you when I was in college, they are really tough. I can see why you have been racking your brain about it.
Take care and Good luck, hope you find the answer you are looking for...
You can also read comments/questions on the air, take live calls, etc. But the real breakthroughs will come when the networks stop thinking of "new media" and "old media" as separate businesses and just focus on creating quality content across the board.
For example, when CNN covers a big event, they use their top anchors on the TV channel, but their live stream has a bunch of "new media" people chirping about Twitter and "going to the blogs." It feels so gimmicky that I'm actually sort of embarrassed for the anchors.
(Tangentially-related rant: Instead of dividing their networks into "new media" and "old media" entities, news organizations need to think of their businesses as simply "content creation", "distribution" and "ad sales." It shouldn't matter how I get my news, only that I get it from [your network here]. Supplemental content is fine, but don't punish me for choosing one distribution medium over another.)
On your show, I'd like to see you report the news in a way that reflects how you discover it. If a story breaks on Twitter, give attribution to the user so we can follow them. Show clips from YouTube when appropriate, and allow the people you're reporting on call via Skype to share their side of the story.
It's going to take some experimentation to find a format that works for the audience without feeling gimmicky, but I have faith in ya!
Here're the big problems with "old media" news/current affairs shows: they too often cover topics the audience doesn't care about; when they interview people, the presenters focus on the wrong questions from the audience perspective; and much of the analysis is biased, and based on "what people in the news room think" rather than based on any kind of meaningful data.
I think the big opportunity that new technology offers is to really understand your audience. If you're doing the show live, this could be especially interesting.
For example...
Let's say there are ten potential stories you could feature, but there's time on air to cover five - your audience could tell you which five they care about the most - in ranked order. So, this can help with the running order of stores, and how much time you spend on each.
Or if you're interviewing someone live, the audience could give you the authority to ask your subject the really difficult questions, "Well, Mr X, I have to tell you the viewers really aren't impressed with you not answering the question. Let me give you another chance."
Or, the audience could give you high-quality data for analysis of a major story e.g. play a video clip, and with clever software, allow viewers who register and fill in a profile on your site, to record their reaction on a second-by-second basis - e.g. keep pressing "1" during the video if you like what's happening; and keep pressing "2" if you dislike what's happening. So we could all learn what the public thinks of the details of a story, broken down by age, political leaning, sex, nationality etc. For example - "When Obama started talking about Korea, women really didn't like what he was saying, but they reacted more positively when they saw he was taking a strong stance." Huge amounts of valuable insights into a story could be possible with this kind of thing.
Obviously, what you're able to do here depends on budget, size of the team etc. You get the idea, though: the more you understand the audience; the more you take their views into account in terms of show content; and the closer to real-time you can react to the audience, the better they might like the show.
The corollary to all this, though, is that no-one is going to want to watch you reading through Twitter streams, or stumbling over trying to interpret real-time statistics etc. Not only is that gimmicky, it's also uninteresting. So, for this kind of thing to work well, I think you'd need someone to do that in the background, and talk to you in your ear, and maybe prepare visuals. That way - you're informed of what the audience is thinking, while remaining focused on presenting to the audience. Not saying it has to be *super* slick, just not amateur ;-)
Anyways, that's my two cents...
1. I want to interact through delivery. In other words, if I want to watch a story online, I want to have options through the story to follow links, other stories or viewpoints on the same subject.
2. Truthfully, any time (especially on radio) a caller speaks, I tune out. If I knew I could expect an insightful well thought out comment, I would be interested. Unfortunately, most times this is not the case. A parallel would be the "man on the street" interview on the local news. The reporter does not want to dig far for an interview, as such the "interviewee" is the guy or gal standing there who just wants to be on TV, has nothing important to say, and can't believe their nice neighbor Jeffrey ate all of those people.
3. Timeliness. Granted more time goes in to putting a package together, but when it's ready, put it online. I know "they" want people to tune in at 6 or the top of the hour because of advertising dollars, but times are a changing.
4. See #3. Just because we have always done it a certain way, doesn't mean it is the best way to do it. Broadcast media delivered via the web should always be in true perpetual motion. In place of a talking head, you would have an app. The viewer would chose what is important to them and in what order to watch the stories.
5. Others have fleshed this out rather well. Although I rely on my feeds a lot, I have found myself using news tweets quite often. Mostly because the print media puts them out there immediately. I would like to subscribe to news topics like following someone on Twitter. For instance, if I want to follow every story about "North Korea", I would follow the "North Korea" stories. As soon as a NK story pops up, I'm notified via Twitter, email, homing pigeon, or whatever...
Good luck!
Mike
I've read a couple of the comments (too many long ones to finish them all) and it seems you'll have a whole load of healthy opinions. All I can say in response to your queries (and forgive me if they have be already stated):
1) Viewer participation is simply the way of the future. I don't see the whole media dynamic so much as "old vs. new" unless it's a circumstance where a media group actively works against the changing landscape instead of trying to adapt to it.
All of these new social vehicles that allow news providers/media groups great ways to get a quicker response from their customers and tailor their products for them. The problem I think is that these news providers are no longer providing their viewers with much in the way of information and more in the way of glaze. There's no depth to a lot of reports. Media groups are not necessarily focused on informing their viewers so they don't have to focus on providing their customers with the same level of depth.
Viewer participation is vital for news providers to redevelop themselves into better businesses which can then try to better inform their viewers. News providers can only improve with smarter viewers who then in turn push the news provider to become a better company (ala a "circle of life" kind of deal).
2) I'm personally partial to roundtable discussions on a given topic. A problem with this is the current pundit network that goes on in the background where people, supposedly informed on a topic, are fighting to just get their face on the magical picture box. There's no reason roundtables cannot still exist but with actually informed individuals talking on a subject. I don't want to see another experience as I did last night: one of the cable news channels had on George Lopez to discuss President Obama's new Supreme Court Justice nomination. Both insulting and highly offensive.
3) Lastly--I think I answered your other questions above--there's nothing wrong with experimenting with "new media" gimmicks. Simply let the viewer know that you're experimenting to see how it works for yourselves and your viewers (see "circle of life" above). Just as long as you don't look desperate/pathetic in your gimmick choices (see CNN's holograms during election night).
I can honestly see what you're talking about as a sort of 21st Century 60 Minutes if it all comes together right. Remember the key is using smart technology to truly inform your viewers using truly informed individuals.
Well, I hope this helps out and good luck to you chica. Finding out about two Latinas advancing in society on the same day is always a great thing. Keep it up.
In the UK we have iPM (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/) on BBC Radio 4, it is a blog which generates discussion and leads and then it is a weekly radio show acting on what the blog has been talking about and greatly involves the audience. It is a BBC Radio 4 show which means it has an older demographic but they have all responded well to this. The reason for mentioning is I think they go some way to deliverying a show which meets audience questions, using technology and in a very welcoming manner.
I lived in the US for 3 years and would equate Radio 4 listeners to NPR, but the local station I volunteered at (KPMU) were barely on top of Podcasts so it would mean the main netwroks would need to do it. That means it will need to be more mainstream than I believe it needs to be. I feel that Twitter can bring the instantaneous nature of topics (like DIGG) to the broadcast, unlike the news which is old. Your gap looks to me to be the now - not what happened today, but what is happening now. This is exemplified by the Hudson plane, earthquakes and even that poor fella who was arrested in the middle east.
1. How much does the viewer want to interact with their broadcast and how much do they fall victim to the spiral of silence?
Rather than having a must see show, it sounds you are wanting a 'background show'. It runs on meta brain listening similar to how I am listening to Man Utd being beaten by Barcelona while writing.
2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news?
There will be opinions which can be shared via numerous methods, but maybe they can be categorised or tagged and then % shown of the state of play, add some geographic data and it is already painting a differnet story to any old news networks. A story like our current politicians and their expenses would certainly get an opinion from the most retiscent viewer.
3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting?
Opportunity (but not need) to interact and share but in a more passive way than stopping life and picking up hte phone or taking an email. The benefit of text, twitter, skype etc, all lower the barriers to connecting and that is what can be utilised.
4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?”
In my opinion some newscasts can be patronising, biased, ilinformed, edited and unnecessarily late in sharing the information. Tickers and overly graphic led stories are really not making the news any more interesting or effective!
5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast?
As long as it is not the lead reason for the show, as identified by earlier comments, I wager your audience would be unphased with the use of "new media" and those who are not yet aware of it could be directed to a location for their definitions and not dumb anything down.
Good luck mulling it over, a new project is always exciting to get one up in the morning :)
Mark
I think your concern about using Twitter, YouTube, etc. being gimmicky is quite valid. My previous employer is a software company that contracts projects for small insurance companies. They’ve recently decided to start a Facebook page for marketing purposes, but I think that’s kind of pointless. I doubt most people on Facebook is going to care about a small software company and the target audience probably won’t even have a Facebook account. I declare epic fail on this idea.
Whatever you decide to do for your show, it has to make sense, and not forced. I think a lot of people would like the opportunity to be able to ask questions about a story. A lot of newscasts just give brief summaries. In most cases, that’s fine. Sometimes, it would be nice to be able to get more details and to be able to ask question, kind of like when you’re discussing a topic with your friends.
If used to add value to the show, I think it would work great. Of course, as with “old media”, you have to exercise a bit of caution so the pranksters don’t disrupt the show. Although media is about entertainment value, so maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Just not over the top like Jerry Springer. ;)
Best of luck! I'll be tuning in to check out the show when it comes out.
2. How much does the viewer have to say about the days’ news? I think the viewers have a lot to say about the days news, but I am more interested in the quality of what they have say.
3. What does the viewer want from a broadcast that they are not getting? I want more knowledge from the broadcast not just news. One podcast that does this simply but effectively is "Marketplace Whiteboard" from American Public Media. They explained the "Credit Default Swap" and its role in the financial collapse in a way many people could understand.
4. What are the things that make a Web-savvy news junkie dismiss a broadcast as “old media?” They do not offer an easy online alternate route to watching the full program like a podcast or stream, although it has been getting better. Even if they do offer a good online viewing experience the program is always delayed until after the television version has broadcasted.
5. Does the viewer care about “new media” gimmicks in their news broadcast? I do not mind "new media" as long as it serves a purpose and is not just for show.
Ahh, the "spiral of silence". Oppression in it's most passive-aggressive form. Treat the show like a beautiful woman. Make it accessible enough for the timid to comment/interact but keep the information flow open enough so that the bold won't feel restricted. Anonymous post/emails maybe? Twitter could work well with that because of the character limit.
Listen to the viewers. If something isn't working improve it or get rid of it. I myself as well as most of the modern tech generation disregard any form of useless info or tech that gets in the way of what we want. Sadly patients is not a virtue in today's society. Keep it simple to navigate. If your goal is to have people kicking back with a laptop at the end of a day getting their news fix don't make it complicated or over encumbering.
Speed!!! Find a format that runs smooth and dosen't take forever to load. Maybe break up the news cast into sections like a newspaper. Front Page, Sports, Tech... Anything that can get us to the info we are looking for faster.
Get entertaining news anchormen. I don't want to see a blank stare or a fake laugh. Find people that understand what their talking about so they can comment on the subject or add humor to it. I don't want someone giving me the specs and features on a second gen iPhone that can't figure out how to text.
Spice up the set. Nothing says "old media" like pant suits and fake wooden desks with small stacks of useless paper on top for the anchormen to mindlessly ( not to mention uselessly ) shuffle. A good rule of thumb is if you wouldn't watch/use it why would we. Youth is the demographic, play to it.
Creativity and usefulness is what's gonna make this work. That goes for both sides of the viewing spectrum. Keep an open mind to suggestions and tweaks. LISTEN TO THE VIEWERS FEED BACK!!!! I can't stress that enough.
To give example to what I mean by an analogy: Old media would be more like going to a giant arena, watching someone perform or speak or evangelize. It's a massive undertaking that has many and many of hands and effort to amass something huge and spectacular in every essence of the word. It holds more weight and far more grandeur and stands to be professional, structured and intense without ANY fault. It believes that fault is a major problem that will not be accepted. It is staunch, forceful, without remorse, and is cold and clinical in every sense. The soul and passion has been stripped out to appeal to every single person watching to the point that the people watching DO NOT really have a choice of whether to like it or not. It is what it has intended to be and will not waver, much like an old man in the 50s. He wants his meat and potatoes and will scream bloody murder if he does not get it. And that will put just about every person in that auditorium watching this gigantic presentation in that spiral of silence.
'New' media is far more agile. It's fresh and open and tiny. It's a whisper in your ear, it is a tap on your shoulder, it is there waiting for you when you want it and will give it to you in whatever style you wish. To continue the analogy it would be like meeting the person that is speaking on that huge stage, or that actor that said those lines, or sitting down with a director of a company, or any situation really whatever the individual may be a part of it. It is direct and it is intimate. Though it has it's polish, it really doesn't have to shoot to impress, rather just give the viewer what exactly they are looking for.
Think of this... the newspaper has select space for certain articles. Those articles need to be edited or bloated to the point where they must fill the space to pad the advertising. The same happens with television. Plus how many times have you seen an older reporter/presenter laugh or smile or show any sign of personality.
I think the new media is putting the human touch back into it. Much like you Natali, you will put in a quip here and there, and personally I enjoy that. Does it bias the material? Well...I suppose if people are weak minded sure. But isn't presenting them with a clinically washed and hard edged version of the news also biasing them into being uninterested and detatched from the stories at hand?
Frankly what people have to say about the news, this whole interactive social aspect of media, is really unimportant and usually breeds one of two things in my mind: Major disappointment in the status quo based on poor grammar, ignorance, and flat out nameless/faceless communication(which I will touch on in a second), and also massive frustration as flame wars break out from one second to the next. Should the user have control over the presentation? I don't think so. But I do believe there should be different formats in which the info is presented. If there is interaction it is fine, but to have an entire show based on interaction is somewhat frustrating as a viewer. Why do I want to be interrupted by some dork who knows sweet fuck all about any topic just because he was chosen by the producer to be put on air?
However if it is an interactive format that you're looking at then maybe you should look at perhaps having an interactive, immediate voting system built into the show. You could read off topics or subjects(perhaps even suggested by viewers, or maybe by specialists of the set topic), and then have the 'audience' vote yes or no, show the onscreen graphic, and have the reaction direct and immediate, and then discuss with some of those that pressed the yes or no buttons and see where the opinions are coming from.
The only person that gets off on having a say is the person who is saying it. Just because someone else says what I want to say doesn't mean I will enjoy the ingestion of their retort or point. But if I am included in an on-air voting system, you could debate TONS of subjects and people would definitely sign in to add their votes to the show, if not to interact in the discussion but also to watch their contribution be a part of something, to feel like they are a part of something. One single person can't make a difference without MASSIVE drastic measures. But democracy is a great tool. We know it. We embrace it...or try to...it's a lie anyway. But we really do enjoy having our say and feeling our say isn't just a tiny voice but a massive ROAR.
You could set the set up like a game show. Much like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? with the play at home on your own computer. Have two chairs on a glass floor with a light setup that has red and blue bars starting from under your seats and have them trail into the background and up the wall behind you with a large LCD readout showing percentages of yes or no and you could ask to tally and the light bars would creep along showing instant reactionary counts to the votes.
This way you could control your topics of discussion with yes or no(and even have a maybe or other bar in white and ask one or two of them why they said maybe if its pertinent). It would leave you open to disseminate the assholes, vulgar people, or people who are just plain egotistical and talk too much on one subject...much like I have here :| haha
Anyway... that's my idea.
Online live vote, subject controlled by your yes or no questions(have viewers write in too), have one specialist on the subject(say like Anna David on sex), and then have an immediate census on the fly shown in an exciting empowering way. Give people some control, and then talk to them through Skype or something after each reaction. Randomly talk to them, let them have discussions with the specialist, etc.
I think if you took time to analyze the news and waited for a conversation to grow around a topic before moving on, it might feel a bit like an old media broadcast, but there would be a much better conversation to draw from. Once you pick through all of the comments and get to what people are really asking, then you will have quality content. That is what I want. I can get up to the minute news, but I have to really hunt for a quality discussion online.
As far as what is wrong with 'old media', is that it is to static. It is not portable. I can only get it on cable TV or only on the radio (with a few exceptions of course). And I cannot join the conversation. Even with call in radio, I don't have time to call in the second I have a comment. None of that is flexible.
That all being said, I think if you stay flexible and open to comments you are already a step ahead.
Been a fan of your show on CNET for awhile now. In answer to your query about "old media vs. "new Media" I can clearly tell you that as a viewer I am simply that. I cannot change the news, I cannot engage the news that is being fed to me. I can choose to get my news from a source or variety of sources I like. I like all the new technology that is out. I will not necessarily use it, but I like people to keep innovating and thinking of new ideas. I would like my news to be "news". Just like it used to be, non-biased and up to me to figure out what I think, rather than being told how I should feel. I think "news" as entertainment in the 24hr game has taken away serious journalism and keeps people on constant edge. It can be overwhelming to just listen to the news. Breaking news should be something serious, something to be made aware of. It should not be so and so celebrity is in or out of rehab. It should not be an over zealous fear inciting report on a killer flu that with common sense you will likely not get or be affected by. I have rambled on too much. Hope this helps on some level. Keep up the great work on BOL and your other shows.
Later,
JOe
I never had a great interest in Twitter, but gave in recently to see what the craic was. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but it seems like I get headline news with links to stories, and then the same headline with a link to the same story every 10 seconds or so. There are too many sources disseminating "news" by simply aggregating the work of others.
This seems to fly in the face of what I thought was the Twitter-effect - multi-way sharing of opinions and real-time updates of events/situations.
That's where I would aim for in a new newscast to set myself apart from 'old media' - multiple contributors, and real-time question and answer sessions between experts and the man on the street.
How impromptu could you make the show?
Could you follow the days hottest topics then line up people to share opinions (video, Tweets, email, phone, whatever) live on the show?
'Could you take burning questions at the top of the show and answer them or find expert commentators by the end?
Would this garner a faithful following of both information seekers and contributors?
Mix in some 'traditional' reporting on current affairs or pre-prepared reports and I think even I might be tempted away from Ultimate Dancing with the Idol on Ice!
http://tinyurl.com/r2tqyn
I enjoy breaking news feeds and live video. I like discussions with groups like the CBS groups over live stream during the election with Katie Couric.
High Quality HD Video. I have the connection speed I get disappointed when it is not available.
I like video podcast with special guest and regular citizens who can be counted on to be reasonably responsible (not overly swearing)
I use Twitter Search to see what news is Breaking, trending topics. Maybe a show discussing Trending Topics, You could call your show Trending Topics
Natali you will do a great job just like you did with Loaded. I look forward to seeing you on CBS news. BOL (Best Of Luck)
Sincerely
Jimmie
Today News is entertainment. That is what sells ads and attracts eyeballs. Enough said.
The main thing that made them great were that they did not treat the viewers/callers as idiots, but as a friend with an opinion.
Far too many of the shows on TV talk down at thier viewers. While they ask for opinions. They have already decided what viewpoint they want to project and tend to lecture the callers as to why this view is the only correct one, or are dismissive of them. My point is, that if you want to build an interactive audience, treat them as you would if you were talking to your sister or best friend on the phone. Not as a professor talking to a student.
When 'new media' is used to refer to an e-stream from vox populi, it gets old fast and often misses the mark. Just like having one pundit from the left battle it out with one pundit from the right is predictable, reading real-time comments on broadcast news is gets boring because it is so often predictable. What comes off the top of most heads in response to a substantive news story is often intellectually impoverished, especially when it's limited to 140 characters.
New media can extend the reach of old media, especially as old media contracts and there are fewer journalists on the ground. When commenters and other digital citizens are adding relevant content - like, say, when they are sending in pictures and av feeds of protests following an election in a country with few independent journalists - that does add value. When commenters are just applying partisan politics or predictable opinions to the news of the day - meh, not so exciting.
One thing that might be worth thinking through further is how to find good sources of investigative work if the networks and newspapers can't afford to do as much as they used to do. There are universities full of paid researchers out there - maybe having a closer relationship to the academy would help break from the older stock of pundits to fresh faces and novel perspectives. The trick is that it's easy to go to the same academics again and again resulting in viewer fatigue with the same talking heads popping up every week. But using new people all the time runs the risk of airing folks who aren't comfortable in front of the camera or quick on their feet. No easy answers here, either.
Full disclosure: I am an academic-in-training so that could be why I think it's interesting to see what academics have to say. I also watch all my tv over the internet - but I am fine with a fairly standard broadcast format.
Natalie, the fact that you are asking fully contextualized questions of your internet audience is, in itself, a good use of new media.