[...] http://codybrown.name/2009/06/09/batch-vs-real-time-processing-print-vs-online-journalism-why-the-b... a few seconds ago from web [...]

[...] http://codybrown.name/2009/06/09/batch-vs-real-time-processing-print-vs-online-journalism-why-the-b... a few seconds ago from web [...]

[...] online written journalism these days: batch and live. For a great 101 as to which is which and why, read this. The real issue here is ethics. Live writing is, in my opinion, more akin to blogging in that you [...]

Latent conflicts are emerging.

Demand for Print, Radio, Television emerged because they offered broader distribution of otherwise limited access live communication (information and entertainment).

But established Print, Radio, Television brands have come to believe that they are better than live. Newspaper editors can research and analyze better than their readers. Audio and video producers can deliver a listening or viewing experience that is better than real.

It is difficult to convince them that there is something lost. We like to analyze for ourselves. There is value to sharing a live performance with others and contributing to the energy level.

The interactivity of the internet offers a virtual opportunity to deliver this energy of live communication more broadly.

This is the beginning of a very exciting time. And it would be very valuable to create an event to talk about the implications of this blog and connect all the stakeholders committed to real time processing of information and transactions.

@comradity

Excellent points. Yes, my analysis is focused on the more idealistic NYT – a paper that saw(sees) itself as a Public Trust.

I think your point about RT already existing in financial markets is really interesting. Of course where this would be different is that it would mix ‘authoritative’ information with analysis, voice, and opinion.

I’m not saying that RT will be the end all be all of news production, I’m saying it will serve as its bedrock. You can build anything on top of it that would satisfy consumers and enable others to dig deeper. Hire a few engaging writers and you could pull together a Sunday Magazine, hire a few filmmakers and you can build a broadcast news station on top of it. All of it for much much less than what it costs now.

It has nothing to do (or very little) with the process.

While you’re expanding your palette, you might also consider taking your model outside Gizmodo: Is RT equally powerful in financial markets where there is an authoritative RT stream of statistical info? When it comes to interpreting and understanding complex and often conflicting financial information— for example, the real estate market, with a maze of often conflicting data (housing starts, unemployment, inventory—RT leaves much to be desired, although it also brings tremendous strength to user-focused needs. In your rush to anoint RT the historical victor over print, you’ve neglected to ask whether RT, and its reporting conventions, are satisfying readers, whether there still might be other realms of innovation for news, reporting, and content strategy to conquer.

That takes me to my last concern: You never mention the C word: customers. For a long time, the Times, Time, and the rest, pissed a lot of us off with their lack of focus on what users want, on that omniscient perspective you call the voice of god. I think this has started to change in a variety of ways. No doubt, early attempts at innovation were half-hearted tech plays, to stave off what was once referrred to (with real terror) as “cannibalization,” and to mollify the digerati. To your point, it’s no longer digerati at the door, it’s history—a paradigmatic shift in the very nature of what we call news. But RT, to my eyes has yet to create a satisfying customer alternative to MSM (yes in aggregate, but a resounding no in terms of a single vendor). Until you figure out what customers want, how RT can be arrayed to create new products worthy of the audiences that want them, you’ll have skipped the boots-on-the-ground battle to innovate new in 2009-10. That may be ok if you’re focused on 2025—but that’s probably enough time for the Times and gang to figure it all out.

[...] Brown has an excellent article which shows the inherent differences between print and online, in terms of how news is processed. [...]

[...] readers increasingly demand, and that makes papers paranoid because it seems to run counter to the “batch” culture of newsgathering that evolved to serve print. But while it’s a cultural shift, it’s not one to fear. By [...]