Survival of the Fittest: The Media Ecosystem

A study has been published by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that provides analysis of how traditional newspapers are still beating online media for how people get their news.

“95% of stories with “new information” came from traditional media, mainly newspapers,” and that, “In studying six major news “threads”, the researchers concluded that, 83% of stories were essentially repetitive, conveying no new information.”

Here’s the thing. Hard newspapers have been around since the 1600’s. Online media, on the other hand, is still fairly new. Why was new information in quotes? Social media does have a viral effect on the news being reported: people see a headline, RT, discuss, post and generate community. Many times, its a social network breaking the news. Hard newspapers are more 1:1. That ratio is author to reader, not author to community. Blogging is more niche that writes to a specific audience – and where the hyperlocal approach is headed.

The study surveyed only one large city: Baltimore. I wold have liked to see a balance of a few bigger cities in the Top 20, as well as a comparison to smaller markets. With many cities utilizing hyperlocal, I wonder how much that played into it. What type of blogs were surveyed? Tech blogs are extremely popular when it comes to online media. Reporters on CNN are reading news directly from social media networks just by monitoring.

Writing that bloggers seem to generate repetitive information from traditional media 83 percent of the time seems a bit blase and ignorant. The news comes over the wire, journalists dissect. I had a journalism professor, a former WSJ chief, in college who told me that “90 percent of journalist stories come from PR pitches.” It shouldn’t be national print v. their online counterpart. The two should be working together to provide information in the best way possible. With print journalism shrinking, one has to figure out how to balance the two.

The Media Ecosystem, if it wants to survive, needs to utilize all tools, not pit themselves against each other. Just as PR professionals are utilizing traditional as the foundation, and online/social as the enhancement, this is where media can strive.

What do you think?

Image copyright of workword.org.

Dig what you read? Share with others:

Tags: newspapers, online media, public relations, social media

Catherine Patterson

I'm all for the media should utilizing these tools-- social media, blogs, print, etc. to provide information. I totally support using photos found on Twitter and submitted to something like CNN's iReport to help cover the news. In the case of the Haiti disaster, journalists weren't there to get the photos themselves, and the information found via social media networks helped the traditional media tell the story. The same thing goes for those hyperlocal sites--a lot of that is user-generated content (www.triblocal.com).

The only thing that concerns me about all the sharing of information is the fact checking. Before hitting "publish", and this goes for PR pros like myself and traditional media and citizen journos as well, we need to make sure the photo or information is verified. I looked through photos of Haiti the other night on CNN.com and noticed a photo with dozens of comments describing how it was taken from an unrelated bridge collapse in Japan several years ago, and wasn't at all a photo from Haiti. How can we verify everything, though? Isn't that what traditional newspapers are all about? Providing the facts?
laurenfernandez

I really liked the point about verification - that is what the media is based on.... providing an unbiased opinion of the facts. If citizen journalism takes the realm, how accurate is it? Will we suffer because of it? All questions we need to ask before completely dismissing traditional. This is why the entities need to work together, not apart.
@jaykeith

There's obviously a lot of animosity out there regarding the "divide" between blogs and newspapers, but the truth is that all of these lines are starting to fade, whether each side likes it or not. But I think that those deep resentments will never go away, it's going to be an ongoing feud. Bloggers will constantly battle for respect, while journalists will consistently look at bloggers as the "second string" and on some levels, beneath them in terms of accurate reporting, etc. But as each starts to utilize the rules and tools that the other does, there won't even be a distinction, especially over a long enough timeline. News will be news, period, and people won't really care what source it ultimately came from, as long as it's accurate. That's going to be the most important thing. But unfortunately the explosion of social media has meant that accuracy has taken a back seat to "being first." So there's some catching up to do there.

The bottom line is that all outlets, be it media, social, blogs, etc. will survive as long as they provide valuable and accurate content to it's readership. Those that don't, will die off.
laurenfernandez

I like the point about how the lines are fading, whether they like it or not. I just don't think the buy in is completely there for those that have been in the trenches of traditional media. Change is hard in something that seemed so solid as journalism.
Caleb Gardner

I love that you mentioned the constant placement of new media and traditional media as enemies. The best way forward is for them to start working together.

Another thing I would like to see from the study: what do they consider "new information"? Are they thinking of this only in the form of a traditional breaking news story? What if a traditional media outlet gets their "breaking news" from a source like Twitter?
laurenfernandez

I wondered the same thing. How did they evaluate new information? Was it saying that all SM and online media outlets get their information from traditional?

I think the line needs to be blurred, and if the ecosystem is going to truly work, they need to work together.

Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Caleb!
davinabrewer

Catherine and Jay make good points about verification and adding value. With the shifts in media, and mass traditional media reporting straight from social networks, the inherent danger is the same story told the same way. There's no need for a divide, but as a way of verifying and adding value to a story perhaps traditional news media needs to find ways to dig deeper and tell a different story.

Of course the catch, as Caleb alludes to, is the real-time nature of social media and how that effects "breaking news." It's harder to expand on stories when you need to constantly produce the latest content as fast as you can. FWIW.
laurenfernandez

I wonder if we will ever strike a balance between real-time and verifying news. In the quest to get the news out there, can traditional media provide what they know, then go do research? Do they wait before breaking? It's a limbo that I hope will work itself out and that they can work together. Hyperlocal is going to have an even bigger play than it already does.
Danny Prager

The emergence of new media has made it extremely challenging for old media stalwarts to sell advertising, and have forced them to incorporate new media platforms.

The biggest downside? As new media sources have grown in popularity people are finding it easier than ever to find news that reinforces their own personal viewpoints.

As the news media caters to individuals rather than advertisers the ideological divide in our country is growing wider than ever. News organizations need to figure out a way to both report the news in an unbiased reliable way, while still incorporating the viewpoints of individuals and attracting advertisers. Sounds easy right?

One success story? The Economist. They are an extremely reliable source of news and are incorporating social media in a way that doesn't take away from the quality of their news reporting.

Thanks so much for the post Lauren.
laurenfernandez

I'm glad you brought up advertising - because like it or not, it's affected just as much. I always liked the Don Draper quote: "I sell products, not advertising." It's true, newspapers cater to the individual. They are providing news to them. However, with the shift, should they be re-evaluating?

I like The Economist way of thinking as well. Wish more would bring it to light.
Matt Cheuvront

I wrote about this AGES ago (I can't believe I even remembered or found this old school LWP post) --> http://www.lifewithoutpants.com/technology/i-am...

In short, I agree with you - we will continue to see a "death" of old media until they start embracing their new media counterparts and realize that the number of people turning to "traditional" media (newspapers, etc) will continue to drop with the immediacy of blogging, Social Media, etc.

As Catherine states above, I do still see more "credibility" with printed media - because, as Ms. Patterson states, it's much easier for us to quickly hit publish - there's no editing process to go through.

Interesting discussion L...
laurenfernandez

They definitely need to work together for a.) credibility b.) ease and urgency of how we receive the news. The landscape of society is changing, and media needs to be able to keep up.
@silvasq3

I think even though newspaper is "winning" the battle, the gap will continue to shrink until an equilibrium is created. I think this is both good and bad. Traditionally, print news is considered to be "harder" and more credible. As print journalist began to fight for an online audience, I think their stories began to take on a certain voice. That's perfectly acceptable for columnists and op/eds, but I don't want any of my hard news to have a slant.

Journlists are supposed to be the gatekeepers of information, the watchdog if you will, and if opinion begins to creep in to stories, everything becomes info-tainment, and we never know the "true" story.

The good part of this whole scenario, is that news mongers like myself have acces to a continuous, instant stream of communication. Let's just keep the bias out.
laurenfernandez

I think credibility wise, traditional is still winning. Delivery wise, online platforms are. But, how can I get credible information in a timely fashon? They HAVE to work together.

I like your point about keeping the bias out - I think it will be harder and harder as citizen journalism takes the stage as well.
Jen

Yay! This makes me soooo happy! I'm the girl who never really got the big reporter break, but I still root for traditional print newspapers. Yet, I'm a social media nut. I'm glad someone else can see how the two can work together rather than social media killing the newspaper.
laurenfernandez

I do too - and I really do think they can work together. Instead of battling each other, they need to have a system is place to get credible information out in record time.
kennethlim

Damn you Lauren... for inspiring me :)

In essence, I agree with you that "traditional media" and "new media" must work together, but I don't necessarily agree with the point that "social media has a viral effect" and "hard newspapers are 1:1".

To start with the latter, a tweet is technically also 1:1, author to reader. And the number of followers someone has is comparable to a newspaper's circulation rate. Therefore, I don't think newspapers lack a one-to-many relationship.

I wouldn't say that the former statement (that social media have a viral effect) isn't true. Oh, it's true. But so does the water cooler. It's less measurable but not absent.

So I did a bit of thinking and came up with this: http://www.kennethlim.net/2010/01/the-new-media...

It's a framework where I let go of (1) the distinction between "traditional media" and "new media" and (2) the directionality of relationships, instead looking at how media should find their way with going about their content.

Thanks for the inspiration :)