Scobleizer - Latest Comments in We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Anton Mannering — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:43:27 -0000

@Robert This is a response to this and your last post. I really am surprised and dismayed at the myopia displayed by these posts. If you were anyone else I'd be accusing you of linkbait but you of all people wouldn't need to, so it can't be that.

I mean WOW! So you are the arbiter of what is relevant and important now. Seriously? Journalistic resources are wasted on sport? Are you for real?
I find it stunning for someone who works with social media and social networks so much to not understand the phenomenan of sport in popular culture.

It's like this, imagine Techmeme and TechCrunch and technorati and google and your blog and every other technology news source combined.
Now imagine that the whole world really cares about it, imagine that in the same way your common interest and expertise in a technology can allow you to socialise with people about it, that there is something immediate and real and dramatic that allows other people to experience the same excitment and joy that you do about technology.
Imagine that the number of people who are empowered by this huge series of social objects and social networks includes almost THE WHOLE WORLD.

Imagine being a poor man living in shit in Africa and seeing a young kid from a village like yours perform and to be able to say "yes we're small and insignificant, but we can compete on the grand stages with anyone".
The social significance and importance of this kind of thing drives down into the heart of the human soul.
It's the ability to say, "that guy who won, he's one of us, he's like me". A natural derivative of which is "if he can excel in his field then so can I".

Isn't that a large part of the value of stories about founders of startups and new technologies. Stories of how someone came out of nowhere and overturned the established order are the lifeblood of the technology community.

I've said for a long time that the Geeks and Jocks are way more alike than they would ever care to admit.

PS> I'm also annoyed that you started THIS post with the statement that you'd "already shown how journalistic resources are being wasted on sport" when you have done nothing of the sort.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Rick Smolan — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:35:21 -0000

If you have any trouble downloading the PDF of BLUE PLANET RUN go to this page on Amazon and scroll down to the box that says: Download a free PDF of BLUE PLANET RUN

http://www.amazon.com/Blue-...

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

LoungeFly — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:02:02 -0000

Since when did the USA become "around the world" ... it might be amazing to people from the USA ... but the world is made up of other countries too. I live in the USA, but am not from here, and it cracks me up when people talk about the "whole world" ... usually they just mean the USA but are to self centered to think about anything outside their country.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Christopher Coulter — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:44:06 -0000

Fresh water is a real and present problem across much the of the socialist-backwater developing-third-world wastelands. But then so is, well, everything. Enter public sector water distribution, you get "shortages" even in Cherrapunji, India, one of on the wettest places on the earth. A good deal of these "crises" are politically generated, and then politically "fixed" -- just like any good consultant, if not broken, must break to fix, validate your reason for existence.

And yes, I believe everything, I say. Being absurd to highlight absurdity, is a common form of wit.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Jason Preston — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:21:25 -0000

Whenever there's a business model, you'll find that the product will inevitably follow the money.

News has been a package business for ages -- the popular, sometimes fluffy stories subsidize the more in-depth reporting that happens because editors think (usually correctly) that it's worth reporting.

One of the big problems with the internet re: news is that it's effectively de-packaged journalism, and provides the statistics to prove it. Suddenly there's clear business logic in cutting out the "important" stuff.

I think, though, that there are a lot of people that care about news outside of sports, and important news coverage will continue to happen. It may not happen on the same scale, but then again, people probably weren't reading it when it was packaged either.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Gerald Buckley — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:11:25 -0000

Christopher - I don't know if you believe half the stuff you write or if you're purely a sensationalist. Presuming your heart is really in what you write... do yourself a favor and download Rick and Jennifer's free PDF at Amazon.

Fresh water is a real and present problem across much of the world. We (the human race) are populating places where fresh drinking water is not abundant. Yes, we're stupid animals in that sense. We pick where we live, etc.

Doesn't make it any less an issue though.

I'm with you on a lot of the hoochie coo that passes for the cause du jour. This one's not in that fold. Hope you'll take a few to learn about it and judge for yourself. (perhaps you already have...)

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Ryan — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:34:48 -0000

@Dawn: They say ignorance is bliss.

People would rather not hear/read bad news ---> advertisers are unwilling to support bad news ---> bad news doesn't get reported ---> people start denying the bad news even happened in the first place.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Guest — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:15:25 -0000

What do I have to do to inform myself?
A. Watch the news or B. listen to the 3000 scientists working for IPCC who got a nobel prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".
Yep, we need independent scientists looking at important issues and we need bloggers to investigate on what's happening to society, like Friedman http://www.nytimes.com/2008...

Of course, these reports makes me feel powerless, insignificant, angry so -human logic- I watch the Olympics. Why? Because this empowers me while I'm sitting on my sofa. I supercharge myself WITHOUT feeling guilty. My server logs demonstrate you are the same way.

So, unless you are The ONE, this poses a boring but valid question;
How can we make sure our children inherit a clean green world? You can early adapt the right way for us by reporting on what's happening in the real world,
the friction between new technology and politics. Don't you agree that it is a bloggers task to mobilize the needed social cohesion for change? Anyway! to paraphrase you: We get the bloggers we spend our attention on.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Chris — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:33:59 -0000

Just about the entire planet comes together once every four years. Athletes spend near their whole life working for this achievement. And you don't think that warrants major press coverage?

Your point is well taken. Their is an imbalance. But let's not undersell the significance of such a world event.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Tomi Itkonen — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:44:13 -0000

Yeah, I do care about water.

I even have a blog book about it: The Book of W.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Dawn — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:30:54 -0000

When I was in high school in the 70s the media hyped that there was a coming ice age that would destroy life as we know it. Now it's global warning that will destroy life as we know it.

Everything we eat causes cancer. Now cell phones do, too. The purest water is bad for our kids' health because it doesn't have flouride in it.

When I had babies, the "experts" said to put them on their stomachs so that if they spit up, they wouldn't choke to death. Now the "experts" say you must put them on their backs so that they don't smother in the mattress.

Take Lipitor and you won't have a heart attack. Oh, wait, looks like Lipitor might cause brain problems and it doesn't do anything to prevent heart attack.

The trouble with media is that they don't understand that human beings actually know very little and can control even less. I expect that the people who do ignore media live happier lives.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Jerry — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:54:44 -0000

"the coming water crisis"??? You can blame Algore for people not caring about this or that "coming crisis". Almost none of these so called crisis every materialize. In the 70's "the experts" were convinced there would be global cooling. Algore predicts that the year after Katrina the hurricane season would be much much worse. What happened? Fewest hurricanes in years. In the late 60's and early 70's we were told overpopulation would result in thousands upon thousands dying of hunger in the 80's. Uh...don't recall see that news story in the 80's. Maybe I was out of the country that week. And for anyone 100 years old or less, how long have we been hearing that we will soon run out of oil.

Blame Algore and the like for the public not showing any interest in stories like this. 9 times out 10 they end up being Chicken Little stories.

Now, I will grant you that mainstream TV news reporting sucks. Local news is THE WORST. But, that's because its no different than a TV show. They do what they need to do to sell advertising. No one wants to see a story about some unlikely "coming crisis". Doesn't pay the bills. "Dirty Laundry" does.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Jonathan Hull — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:11:51 -0000

"Human history . . . becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."
H.G. Wells

I spent ten years as a journalist at Time magazine (classic Old Media) and I'm delighted that so many fresh and alternative voices have joined the fray. There's certainly plenty of great reporting out there, and a larger variety of viewpoints than ever thanks to the web - but you've got to find it.

Unfortunately, Americans aren't looking hard enough.

Nothing wrong with watching sports, but any hope for an informed citizenry will require a bit less entertainment and a bit more education. Consider: a 2007 Pew Research Center poll found that one-third of adults could not name their state's governor, up 8% from 1989. Yep. One-third. You can bet they know who Lindsay Lohan is . . .

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

plato — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:50:25 -0000

"We get the media we spend our attention on."

duh.

you're the one that stood in front of countless magazines and books in the airport kiosk and then claimed twitter is more interesting.

maybe next time you can pick up an economist, new yorker, smithsonian, mit technology review.

it will require reading more than 140 characters at a time...

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

JoeDuck — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:24:06 -0000

Excellent point about water crisis.... but I think you do care and I think most of us do - it's just that we are skeptical we can make changes happen. Luckily, thanks to the internet, there are a lot of projects like KIVA.org where you can actually see the changes you make.

Rather than the old vague "goodie two shoes" approaches we need more projects where we actually see and measure an ROI on our charity investment. People are generous when they know it really matters, so it's up to all of us to find ways to effectively bring the needed global infrastructure improvements at reasonable, measurable cost.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

digidave — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:10:34 -0000

Scoble: I'm sure you are getting sick of me coming in and - once again - mentioning the project I'm working on spot.us - but this scrapes the side of what I'm working on.

There are passionate people out there: Everyone is passionate about something: the environment, their kids school, healthcare, etc.

As news organizations dwindle - perhaps these people (who are a minority compared to those that want to watch sports) will be able to band together and share the cost of hiring a journalist to cover the issues that are important to them.

I'd love the chance to talk with you more in depth about this (show you the mock-ups for the site).

I'm hoping we will launch in October - but there are a million.5 things to do before then. It seems you are giving this area a lot of thought lately - so your input would be valuable.

Hope all is well. Keep on rocking. (feel free to send me a quick note: david at Spot dot us

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

mike3k — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:06:41 -0000

It's worse here. On many occasions, the top news story at 6PM and front page of the newspaper was who the Dolphins or Marlines hired or fired, or what celebrity is on what reality show. Meanwhile, there are wars going on & cops are getting killed.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Joe Franscella — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:41:25 -0000

I disagree with Flack Attack, this doesn't cause PR people to go "down hill." PR people cause themselves to go down hill when they fall into the trap of believing that all the journalists are only interested in "low level" stuff. There are plenty of journalists and publications out there willing to take the time to listen to and report on a valid news story that intrigues readers by adding value to their lives and businesses. Scobleizer is one of them. Good PR people are interested in the value of news for news sake, and there are some of us that take the time to develop a good story because we love the news and respect its importance same as many journalists.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Nellboy — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:20:46 -0000

We do feed the monster, I guess the question is; which came first?... the monster, or the feeder?

I honestly see the human brain as a kind of evolutionary mutation... We're just chimps with brains, I don't think we're capable of handling all of the power and technology we have correctly... Who knows, maybe we'll learn... or maybe the earth will just get pissed and get rid of us, thereby restoring the balance of nature... Personally I think the insects deserve a chance at global domination... the lizards and humans have both had their day ;)

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Christopher Coulter — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:07:57 -0000

Water and Food Crisises, Global Microwaving, Economic Meltdowns, War Hell and Pandemics anew. Doom, gloom, everything always a crisis, pay attention now, spend money on this or that, Congress and VCs must fund, we must tax you silly, create drama, non-profits and fascist legislation, demand attention, scream, yell louder, childish temper tantrums never ceasing. The End is Near, please have your notebooks and cameras ready.

It's not that people don't care, it's just that 99% of all this fluff is prefab over-hyped manufactured fakery, the false religions of anxiety. When cause for real concern, the news responds accordingly.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Noble Acuff — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:01:33 -0000

Long ago in my college days I had a philosophy professor who did a great job highlighting a similar issue. We spent a great deal of time discussing Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and how television and electronic media were impacting the quality of discourse in American life.

While I certainly agree that the general public has pushed much of journalism
straight into the realm of entertainment, I am hopeful that blogs like this one + other new media outlets can take up the torch (no pun intended) and help focus people's attention on more pressing issues - like running out of water.

Thanks for the post and the link to the PDF!

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Ian Mikutel — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:55:59 -0000

Great post Robert, it's the truth too. One thing I found refreshing about the Primary race was that since so many were interested in it,the media gave it to us.

Also, I couldn't find the free version of the book on the new Amazon link you posted.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

jackH — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:50:43 -0000

link works here when not opening it in a new tab but in this window. javascript?

Anyway:
We get the topics we want.
But even for topics we are interested in, we don't get the reports we need.

Have you compared US, German and Russian media on the current conflict? The sum gives you an idea of the situation but they are very different. And sure if I had just Russian news I wouldn't understand why you would disagree with Russia stopping Georgia from genocide like behaviour. If I just had US media I'd think that Russia did all the main destruction. (okay, maybe I had to few media coverage from the US).
That's the way you build a cold war: create two regions on the earth you give only selected info so they come to very different conclusions.

But maybe that's just your point. Actually you want to hear only the news that fits your world view.
We have to get much more information on the rational of people that disagree with us!

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Pete — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:45:18 -0000

"our journalistic resources"

...whose, exactly? And who gets to decide what is a valuable use of "our" journalistic resources and what is "squandering" them?

Are you laboring under the impression that there's some "right" thing to be publicizing and a bunch of "wrong" things that shouldn't be?

Put another way: who says that sports reporting is some sort of monumental waste?

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

mlprice — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:41:15 -0000

I don't know if all the cameras are $9000. Many are probably EOS 1Ds Mark II and EOS 1D Mark II which are down below the $5000 mark now that the Mark IIIs are out. (LOL).

I think the thing you're failing to consider is that the number of journalists and photographers is directly related to our insane copyright system. I'm pretty sure that all those photographers are working for multiple news outlets. Each owns their own photographs and cannot use the photographs of others.

It is actually a fantastic model of how too much protection of "intellectual property" results in massive duplication of effort, massive wastes of resources.

News outlets make decisions on what they believe is important to you and I and that is where they send their resources.

I don't know much about how the "journalism" industry works, but it would seem to me that pooling resources would be more effective. If there were photography companies that hired the photojournalists and posted them in different locations, and at special events maybe they would cut down on the number of lenses.

Then again, looking at the photo you posted, is that really that many for the entire world?