Good post, Scott. In a more practical way it echoes the point I made in a post entitled What wisdom of crowds? - that relying on popularity as a measure of value is an argumentum ad populum. Popularity has long been recognized as a very different measure / attribute from value or correctness.
The post I wrote was a reaction to the received wisdom I always hear online about voting and the aggregated wisdom of the crowd. I don't buy it. It seems lazy and disingenuous. It (1) devalues wisdom and (2) gives credence to the idea that referenda are equitable, democratic tools. Wisdom is not something you get through the collective responses on a web form. Referenda, as anyone involved with polling will tell you, are deeply undemocratic. The party asking the question / seeking the input constrains the feedback for their own purposes. It ends up as a power-enabling tool, rather than an empowering tool.
Mathew Ingram
· 3 years ago
I think that's a good question, Scott. It's one of the things that newspapers and other traditional media wrestle with too, to some extent: How much of what you print should be what people want to know, and how much should it be what you think they need to know.
In other words, how many articles about celebrities and their failed relationships should you run, or pictures of traffic accidents, and how many pieces about politics and other things that are BBI (boring but important).
I think part of what makes "new" or participatory media so difficult to handle is that it allows readers much more control over what they read or pay attention to, to the point where maybe they're not even going to see the things they might "need" to know. How do we deal with that -- or should we even try? Tough question.
Journalists give people up to four kinds of information that passes as news: 1. What they feel the reader needs to know, 2. What they believe the reader is interested in, 3. What they feel will sell, 4. What they pass for news even if it isn't.
nn
Joanie
· 3 years ago
Maybe the goal of the media should be to give people what they WANT (because that is what sells), and the goal of the audience should be to want what they NEED. After all, whose responsibility is it to ensure that I, a member of the audience, gets into med school and doesn't die an early death from lack of broccoli? :) One would hope it is mine.
Scott Karp
· 3 years ago
Joanie, are you suggesting that with the freedom of media choice, participation and empowerment comes some level of responsibility? Shocking! Don't we maintain the right to blame (even sue) Web 2.0 and Media 2.0 if it doesn't provide us what we want/need -- even when it delivers exactly what we asked for? :)
sbw, I like that taxonomy of news -- it's a sad reflection of the current state of affairs that the categories are not mutually exclusive.
Mark Devlin
· 3 years ago
Obligatory Rolling Stones Quote:
You can't always get what you want But if you try sometimes you just might find You just might find You get what you need
The quote says that as a member of the audience your desires may not match with what is provided. Each media has to try to cater for a variety of needs, wants and passing interests (a hierarchy of desire, if you will). There will be a core group of addicts who need the offering, a wider number who would like it but balance their preferences with other media (I prefer "would like" to "want") and even more who have a passing interest.
My site has a small group of reader/participators, a larger number of regular core readers and then many, many more who simply come by to read one story from a link or search engine. To expect those readers who pass through to participate is unrealistic. But I have to develop all areas to make the site work.
Reinforcement of existing values is a useful function of media. FoxNews was successful because it identified a potential audience (people who perceived CNN as being too liberal) that was not adequately represented and gave the core audience what they needed and a wider audience what they wanted.
Seth Finkelstein
· 3 years ago
Thanks for the kind words. The problem though, is that helping the niche audience, while a viable niche business, often doesn't have the market to justify speculative development. I've seen a few of these types of businesses. And while they do work, they're very small and specialized. It's often someone at a firm already in the business, branching-out. And not at all portable to any other business.
All Comments
The post I wrote was a reaction to the received wisdom I always hear online about voting and the aggregated wisdom of the crowd. I don't buy it. It seems lazy and disingenuous. It (1) devalues wisdom and (2) gives credence to the idea that referenda are equitable, democratic tools. Wisdom is not something you get through the collective responses on a web form. Referenda, as anyone involved with polling will tell you, are deeply undemocratic. The party asking the question / seeking the input constrains the feedback for their own purposes. It ends up as a power-enabling tool, rather than an empowering tool.
In other words, how many articles about celebrities and their failed relationships should you run, or pictures of traffic accidents, and how many pieces about politics and other things that are BBI (boring but important).
I think part of what makes "new" or participatory media so difficult to handle is that it allows readers much more control over what they read or pay attention to, to the point where maybe they're not even going to see the things they might "need" to know. How do we deal with that -- or should we even try? Tough question.
nnnn
sbw, I like that taxonomy of news -- it's a sad reflection of the current state of affairs that the categories are not mutually exclusive.
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need
The quote says that as a member of the audience your desires may not match with what is provided. Each media has to try to cater for a variety of needs, wants and passing interests (a hierarchy of desire, if you will). There will be a core group of addicts who need the offering, a wider number who would like it but balance their preferences with other media (I prefer "would like" to "want") and even more who have a passing interest.
My site has a small group of reader/participators, a larger number of regular core readers and then many, many more who simply come by to read one story from a link or search engine. To expect those readers who pass through to participate is unrealistic. But I have to develop all areas to make the site work.
Reinforcement of existing values is a useful function of media. FoxNews was successful because it identified a potential audience (people who perceived CNN as being too liberal) that was not adequately represented and gave the core audience what they needed and a wider audience what they wanted.