Comments on: Can the Statusphere Save Journalism? http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/ Defining the convergence of media and influence Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:02:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Give Your Customers Something to Talk About – Chapter 6 http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-44082 Give Your Customers Something to Talk About – Chapter 6 Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:37:48 +0000 [...] Brian Solis of PR 2.0 is a thought leader that is constantly evaluating PR’s role in shifting marketing landscape.  I absolutely have fallen in love with a term that Brian has coined.  It’s called the ‘STATUSPHERE’. [...] [...] Brian Solis of PR 2.0 is a thought leader that is constantly evaluating PR’s role in shifting marketing landscape.  I absolutely have fallen in love with a term that Brian has coined.  It’s called the ‘STATUSPHERE’. [...]

]]> By: Who are All of These Tweeple? http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-37307 Who are All of These Tweeple? Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:01:26 +0000 [...] if they can effectively make the leap to grab attention where its focused, social actually breathes new life into their ecosystem rather than extinguishing it.  The hooks change and they’re migrating [...] [...] if they can effectively make the leap to grab attention where its focused, social actually breathes new life into their ecosystem rather than extinguishing it.  The hooks change and they’re migrating [...]

]]> By: air max shoes http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-27091 air max shoes Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:54:24 +0000 Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really reasonable and you guy give us valuable informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good information we can learn in this forum! <br> <a href="http://multi-cavity.com" rel="nofollow">multi-cavity</a> Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really reasonable and you guy give us valuable informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good information we can learn in this forum!
multi-cavity

]]> By: Taking your Brand into the Statusphere http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-13597 Taking your Brand into the Statusphere Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:48:23 +0000 [...] Brian Solis of PR 2.0 is a thought leader that is constantly evaluating PR’s role in shifting marketing landscape.  I absolutely have fallen in love with a term that Brian has coined.  It’s called the ‘STATUSPHERE’. [...] [...] Brian Solis of PR 2.0 is a thought leader that is constantly evaluating PR’s role in shifting marketing landscape.  I absolutely have fallen in love with a term that Brian has coined.  It’s called the ‘STATUSPHERE’. [...]

]]> By: Rumors of the Death of Blogs are Greatly Exaggerated | Brian Solis http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-11881 Rumors of the Death of Blogs are Greatly Exaggerated | Brian Solis Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:02:51 +0000 [...] Personally, I would simply say that choice and the democratization of media is actively luring the attention of a once devout and loyal media audience. Blogs, for better or for worse, are cutting into the [...] [...] Personally, I would simply say that choice and the democratization of media is actively luring the attention of a once devout and loyal media audience. Blogs, for better or for worse, are cutting into the [...]

]]> By: Dev Newz: Articles and Resources for Professional Developers » Blogs Still Serve A Valuable Purpose http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-10440 Dev Newz: Articles and Resources for Professional Developers » Blogs Still Serve A Valuable Purpose Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:56:25 +0000 [...] Personally, I would simply say that choice and the democratization of media is actively luring the attention of a once devout and loyal media audience. Blogs, for better or for worse, are cutting into the [...] [...] Personally, I would simply say that choice and the democratization of media is actively luring the attention of a once devout and loyal media audience. Blogs, for better or for worse, are cutting into the [...]

]]> By: Jamie http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2869 Jamie Fri, 01 May 2009 17:36:00 +0000 Brian, got to say I disagree w/you and Mossberg on this. I think it's arrogant to say that only a few great journalists matter. There are great (young) journalists working at small papers who just haven't made it to the Wall Street Journal yet, and may never make it. The whole process of getting to the 'big paper' is a combination of luck, timing, demographics and talent. I was one of the lucky ones to get to a major metro daily, but some people prefer to stay in their hometowns and do a great job there.<br />What's more, your discussion discounts the whole issue of local news -- yes, so-called 'citizen journalists' may be able to contribute, but there's no guarantee that these people will be impartial (unlikely in fact).<br />At the same time, your argument ignores the issue of support -- libraries and research staff, lawyers for defending journalists and journalism (note the jailed journalists in Iran and Korea) etc. Big papers have the dollars and the clout to do serious journalism. It's a lot harder for someone operating independently. Of course people who work for well-known media outlets have many Twitter followers. That's a nod to their fine work, indeed, but it sure helps that they work for brand-name companies.<br />This is not to say that journalism/newspapers cannot change. Of course change is coming. I think the real issue is the distribution model. A printed paper requires drivers, trucks, delivery people, printers, presses and paper. Expensive. What if news became an online subscription? Perhaps readers could even purchase subscriptions to some mashup of news and news sources -- selecting something from a local journalism source, something from a favorite blogger, local sports scores, an article from a magazine, a few columnists, the national headlines, maybe even something from broadcast journalism, etc. Readers could choose to print if they like, but they can also read on their e-reader or mobile device, etc. There's no question about the value of news. The real issue is who pays for it. I'd argue that such a model would attract many subscribers and eventually advertisers as well. Brian, got to say I disagree w/you and Mossberg on this. I think it’s arrogant to say that only a few great journalists matter. There are great (young) journalists working at small papers who just haven’t made it to the Wall Street Journal yet, and may never make it. The whole process of getting to the ‘big paper’ is a combination of luck, timing, demographics and talent. I was one of the lucky ones to get to a major metro daily, but some people prefer to stay in their hometowns and do a great job there.
What’s more, your discussion discounts the whole issue of local news — yes, so-called ‘citizen journalists’ may be able to contribute, but there’s no guarantee that these people will be impartial (unlikely in fact).
At the same time, your argument ignores the issue of support — libraries and research staff, lawyers for defending journalists and journalism (note the jailed journalists in Iran and Korea) etc. Big papers have the dollars and the clout to do serious journalism. It’s a lot harder for someone operating independently. Of course people who work for well-known media outlets have many Twitter followers. That’s a nod to their fine work, indeed, but it sure helps that they work for brand-name companies.
This is not to say that journalism/newspapers cannot change. Of course change is coming. I think the real issue is the distribution model. A printed paper requires drivers, trucks, delivery people, printers, presses and paper. Expensive. What if news became an online subscription? Perhaps readers could even purchase subscriptions to some mashup of news and news sources — selecting something from a local journalism source, something from a favorite blogger, local sports scores, an article from a magazine, a few columnists, the national headlines, maybe even something from broadcast journalism, etc. Readers could choose to print if they like, but they can also read on their e-reader or mobile device, etc. There’s no question about the value of news. The real issue is who pays for it. I’d argue that such a model would attract many subscribers and eventually advertisers as well.

]]> By: Jamie http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2868 Jamie Fri, 01 May 2009 17:35:00 +0000 Brian, got to say I disagree w/you and Mossberg on this. I think it's arrogant to say that only a few great journalists matter. There are great (young) journalists working at small papers who just haven't made it to the Wall Street Journal yet, and may never make it. The whole process of getting to the 'big paper' is a combination of luck, timing, demographics and talent. I was one of the lucky ones to get to a major metro daily, but some people prefer to stay in their hometowns and do a great job there.<br />What's more, your discussion discounts the whole issue of local news -- yes, so-called 'citizen journalists' may be able to contribute, but there's no guarantee that these people will be impartial (unlikely in fact).<br />At the same time, your argument ignores the issue of support -- libraries and research staff, lawyers for defending journalists and journalism (note the jailed journalists in Iran and Korea) etc. Big papers have the dollars and the clout to do serious journalism. It's a lot harder for someone operating independently. Of course people who work for well-known media outlets have many Twitter followers. That's a nod to their fine work, indeed, but it sure helps that they work for brand-name companies.<br />This is not to say that journalism/newspapers cannot change. Of course change is coming. I think the real issue is the distribution model. A printed paper requires drivers, trucks, delivery people, printers, presses and paper. Expensive. What if news became an online subscription? Perhaps readers could even purchase subscriptions to some mashup of news and news sources -- selecting something from a local journalism source, something from a favorite blogger, local sports scores, an article from a magazine, a few columnists, the national headlines, maybe even something from broadcast journalism, etc. Readers could choose to print if they like, but they can also read on their e-reader or mobile device, etc. There's no question about the value of news. The real issue is who pays for it. I'd argue that such a model would attract many subscribers and eventually advertisers as well. Brian, got to say I disagree w/you and Mossberg on this. I think it’s arrogant to say that only a few great journalists matter. There are great (young) journalists working at small papers who just haven’t made it to the Wall Street Journal yet, and may never make it. The whole process of getting to the ‘big paper’ is a combination of luck, timing, demographics and talent. I was one of the lucky ones to get to a major metro daily, but some people prefer to stay in their hometowns and do a great job there.
What’s more, your discussion discounts the whole issue of local news — yes, so-called ‘citizen journalists’ may be able to contribute, but there’s no guarantee that these people will be impartial (unlikely in fact).
At the same time, your argument ignores the issue of support — libraries and research staff, lawyers for defending journalists and journalism (note the jailed journalists in Iran and Korea) etc. Big papers have the dollars and the clout to do serious journalism. It’s a lot harder for someone operating independently. Of course people who work for well-known media outlets have many Twitter followers. That’s a nod to their fine work, indeed, but it sure helps that they work for brand-name companies.
This is not to say that journalism/newspapers cannot change. Of course change is coming. I think the real issue is the distribution model. A printed paper requires drivers, trucks, delivery people, printers, presses and paper. Expensive. What if news became an online subscription? Perhaps readers could even purchase subscriptions to some mashup of news and news sources — selecting something from a local journalism source, something from a favorite blogger, local sports scores, an article from a magazine, a few columnists, the national headlines, maybe even something from broadcast journalism, etc. Readers could choose to print if they like, but they can also read on their e-reader or mobile device, etc. There’s no question about the value of news. The real issue is who pays for it. I’d argue that such a model would attract many subscribers and eventually advertisers as well.

]]> By: jane.dodd http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2867 jane.dodd Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:39:00 +0000 Absolutely love your piece. You have hit the nail on the head. As a business media outlets have focused on revenue generation through advertising and along the way have forgotten the need for great content that people want to read, watch, hear. Who produces that content? Great journos of course. Just today at lunch some colleagues and I (PR people in NZ) were asking if there was any leadership in the journalism profession to help them evolve in this environment. No there is not. The journo's are the working bees and the leaders of their sector are the managers who are frantically trying to generate or retain revenue. Absolutely love your piece. You have hit the nail on the head. As a business media outlets have focused on revenue generation through advertising and along the way have forgotten the need for great content that people want to read, watch, hear. Who produces that content? Great journos of course. Just today at lunch some colleagues and I (PR people in NZ) were asking if there was any leadership in the journalism profession to help them evolve in this environment. No there is not. The journo’s are the working bees and the leaders of their sector are the managers who are frantically trying to generate or retain revenue.

]]> By: EMM http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2866 EMM Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:00:00 +0000 Brian:<br/><br/>A brilliant analysis. I love good journalism and know how important it is in our democratic republic. <br/><br/>But as I read the accounts of writers, editors and publishers trying to find their way out of the current slide, I've become convinced that it will be not they but techno-and Web-savvy entrepreneurs who will find the way, an entirely new way. Those of us who have worked in newsrooms can't seem to get the ink out of our blood long enough to dispassionately examine alternatives.<br/><br/>This post will generate tremendous conversation, Brian. Thank you for putting it out there. Brian:

A brilliant analysis. I love good journalism and know how important it is in our democratic republic.

But as I read the accounts of writers, editors and publishers trying to find their way out of the current slide, I’ve become convinced that it will be not they but techno-and Web-savvy entrepreneurs who will find the way, an entirely new way. Those of us who have worked in newsrooms can’t seem to get the ink out of our blood long enough to dispassionately examine alternatives.

This post will generate tremendous conversation, Brian. Thank you for putting it out there.

]]> By: Brian Solis http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2865 Brian Solis Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:38:00 +0000 Thank Matt, very thoughtful comment. Indeed Mr. Mossberg among many others are leading the way. Good journalism must always be tied to ethics, homework, and the equal presentation of the facts to help others interpret, share and respond with their personal perspective. The difference is how journalists will connect that content to the people they're hoping to reach. The rest is then dictated by the platforms and communities that amplify voices to those with opinions as well as those seeking them. Thank Matt, very thoughtful comment. Indeed Mr. Mossberg among many others are leading the way. Good journalism must always be tied to ethics, homework, and the equal presentation of the facts to help others interpret, share and respond with their personal perspective. The difference is how journalists will connect that content to the people they’re hoping to reach. The rest is then dictated by the platforms and communities that amplify voices to those with opinions as well as those seeking them.

]]> By: M. Hendrick http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/can-statusphere-save-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2864 M. Hendrick Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:14:00 +0000 Brian,<br/>Loved this point - "Perhaps the reinvention of the publishing model starts with journalists, where people become the ambassadors for content and the flagship brand they represent." Personally, I can already see that working in the way that I consume news. There are publications, online and off, that I read specifically because I am searching for new content from a journalist who has previously impressed me with their work. For example, Mr. Mossberg himself represents the idea of a "content ambassador", as so many of us have grown to appreciate his opinion and look to his reviews when we begin to form our first impressions of new products or services. Why? He has found a way to create a flagship brand for himself, and I trust that he can give an accurate, fact based report of whatever it is that he is reviewing at the time. <br/><br/>My only real question, monetization aside, is will this further perpetuate the shift that many people are making away from strictly "fact based" news towards more "fact + opinion" style journalists and organizations? If journalists are truly creating a brand for the content they represent, could this tempt them to cater to a more specific audience, thus watering down the overall quality of their reporting? Of course, there will be those who maintain their journalistic integrity, but will consumers be driven towards reporters who more closely reflect their own value system, thus reinforcing the very idea of fact + opinion based news? From cable news to print to blogs, we've seen opinion creep further and further into the daily news over the last 10-15 years, and I just wonder if the idea of journalists as ambassadors of their own brand of news is going to further perpetuate the problem. Could it only be a matter of time until we all consume different versions of the same story or am I reading too much into it? Would love to hear what you think. Brian,
Loved this point – “Perhaps the reinvention of the publishing model starts with journalists, where people become the ambassadors for content and the flagship brand they represent.” Personally, I can already see that working in the way that I consume news. There are publications, online and off, that I read specifically because I am searching for new content from a journalist who has previously impressed me with their work. For example, Mr. Mossberg himself represents the idea of a “content ambassador”, as so many of us have grown to appreciate his opinion and look to his reviews when we begin to form our first impressions of new products or services. Why? He has found a way to create a flagship brand for himself, and I trust that he can give an accurate, fact based report of whatever it is that he is reviewing at the time.

My only real question, monetization aside, is will this further perpetuate the shift that many people are making away from strictly “fact based” news towards more “fact + opinion” style journalists and organizations? If journalists are truly creating a brand for the content they represent, could this tempt them to cater to a more specific audience, thus watering down the overall quality of their reporting? Of course, there will be those who maintain their journalistic integrity, but will consumers be driven towards reporters who more closely reflect their own value system, thus reinforcing the very idea of fact + opinion based news? From cable news to print to blogs, we’ve seen opinion creep further and further into the daily news over the last 10-15 years, and I just wonder if the idea of journalists as ambassadors of their own brand of news is going to further perpetuate the problem. Could it only be a matter of time until we all consume different versions of the same story or am I reading too much into it? Would love to hear what you think.

]]>