This thought-provoking article; Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable by Clay Shirky sums up our digital quandaries and the desperate state of mainstream media. To me it highlights how critical it is for New Zealand to have a well thought out, future thinking digital strategy that includes the convergence between the digital world and our mainstream conventional media.
A digital strategy must include, but is way more, than delivering broadband to people in their homes, workplaces and places of education. Way more than creating an alignment of ICT strategies within the public sector (though this is certainly essential). That understands and addresses issues of copyright protection, while promoting access to content. That addresses the need for a strong, robust public broadcasting system that can show leadership and set standards. That addresses issues of media ownership and control.
A strategy that is truly trans-sectoral, as respected telecommunications analyst Paul Budde puts it. That crosses all portfolio areas.
At the heart of the digital quandary lies an important notion that Clay Shirky teases out. It’s a notion that goes to the nub of humanity. Instinctive human behaviours and the evolution of how we communicate. Sharing, seeking out, playing together, fighting, protecting territory, creating new communities.
What’s interesting is how so many content generating organisations have missed the mark in their debates about how the internet would work. The most significant effect is on our mainstream media and its slowness to see the impact of the change, let alone adapt effectively.
As Clay Shirky writes:
When reality is labeled unthinkable, it creates a kind of sickness in an industry. Leadership becomes faith-based, while employees who have the temerity to suggest that what seems to be happening is in fact happening are herded into Innovation Departments, where they can be ignored en masse. This shunting aside of the realists in favor of the fabulists has different effects on different industries at different times. One of the effects on the newspapers is that many of their most passionate defenders are unable, even now, to plan for a world in which the industry they knew is visibly going away.
And another comment from Shirky which kind of sums it all up really:
Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That’s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we’re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead.
When we shift our attention from ’save newspapers’ to ’save society’, the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.
I ask: What is the role of government? Surely a principled and professional fourth estate; newspapers, radio, TV and now online media is critical to the functioning of our society and our democratic system? We, as policy-makers and legislators, can’t just leave it to that thing called the market. The media isn’t just about making money for shareholders. It’s so much, much more.
There’s a seismic shift happening here in how information and content is being generated. We must not be asleep at the wheel.
Hat tip: Rick Shera and several others for the Clay Shirky piece
Good piece. Strong journalism is important.
I agree with what you say about the need for a strong 4th Estate, but to my mind that has been severely lacking in NZ for a long time.
Back in March I posted about Shirky’s comments http://bit.ly/1ObY0J, plus those of others, such as Keen and Johnson. In addition if you read that post you will find several otheres both before and after on the question of the impact of new media.
Shirky and Johnson suggest
“Their media may have been different, but their shocking messages were the same: newspapers are history, the two visionaries agreed. The traditional business is no longer viable, Shirky and Johnson both announced; newspapers are being replaced by futuristic digital news networks that will barely resemble their archaic print ancestors.”
Neither Shirky nor Johnson necessarily see the demise of journalism or media, but they do see transformational change in how news is gathered and disseminated.
My inference from your post is that somehow you see a role for government in supporting old media.
It is not in my opinion the role of government to subsidise one form of media over another, nor should government own and control media – that is in itself a contradiction with your stated comment of the need for a professional and principled Fourth Estate.
Your post seems to be a plea for some form of state interference in the media. Whilst no doubt well intentioned it is to my mind an initial step on a very slippery path.
Nor can any government hold back the tide of change, neither can Rupert Murdoch. The Internet is proving to be a transormational technology, that is disruptive as well in the sense that it has triggered sesimic shifts in society and economics which are still underway and not fully understood I suggest by any of us.
Where I do see a potential role for government is ensuring broad, efficient, fast and unfettered access to information for all. That does not necessarily mean free, though if that could be acheived to a considerable degree then good. Aspects of Chris Anderson’s Free concept may well come into play here.
Happy to discuss further
With regard to getting the news out you might find this of interest, a presentation by Shirky
http://bit.ly/34naST
[...] Clare Curran talks about how the Internet is changing the world. [...]
Claire you asked.
I ask: What is the role of government?
The primary role (and it should be the only role) of a government is to protect its citizen’s rights (either from internal threat or external). It should have no business in running (commercial) businesses or trying to nanny its citizens. It should not interfere in the market or should tell it what it should or shouldn’t do, whether it is about internet or private media companies. The government should stay that hell out of interference, but just concentrate on its primary role which is to protect its citizens’ rights.
I agree with the criticism by Clayton Cosgrove of current budget cuts for our Police force. This cuts is unacceptable. No money for police ammo and weapons training, but $50million for a cycle way.
This is where all of you politicians get it wrong. You concentrate of non-core government issues such as $50 millions for cycle way, but ignore the Police (including other law & agencies), which are the very foundations of what a government should exist in the first place. To fund these agencies for the protection of its citizens’s rights. Forget about digital media, cycle way, blah, blah, blah. Protect our rights, and then get the hell out of our way and stop nannying us citizens. If there is a demand in the market for specific services/goods, then just leave them to the market to provide or supply those.
I think that it should be taught to politicians who enter parliament, that the first role (and should be the only legitimate role) of the government is to protect its citizen’s rights and not become busybodies, wealth distributors, market interferences, etc,…