Sounds like a super solution to save journalism and find workable business models for news, right? Well, I thought it through and came back with the following comment:
To “stop wasting resources on writing the umpteenth undifferentiated story that is available elsewhere” sounds great in theory, but there are a few formidable issues to realizing that vision:More posts by Ian Lamont on the future of media:
1) Audiences overlap, and the same story may have to be tailored in minor ways to appeal to different audiences, based on local issues, the “tone” or expertise of the publication, and other factors. Two stories that may appear “undifferentiated” to you actually have different angles, emphasis, or additional facts that actually make them more suitable or the audiences they are aimed at. Publications want to be differentiated in some way, and using the same outsourced copy does not help them achieve that goal.
2) There needs to be a system of trust and baseline quality in place, but also great flexibility considering the types of content providers and multitude of publications using it.
3) Making Reuters and a few other specialist players the powerbrokers will lead to news oligopolies — kind of like we had before the advent of the Internet, execept on global scale. That doesn’t sound like progress to me.
The Industry Standard
- The crisis in journalism: Short-term hope, long-term uncertainty
- The Tiger Woods accident simulated in 3D shows the future of newscasts
- The business of media: The newsosaur speaketh
- The business of media, part II: Blame journalists' ethical lapses?
- Boston Globe advertising: What's wrong with this picture
- Boston Globe relaunches forums, but they're doing it all wrong
- Google News: Biased or broken?