Mainstream Media to Webheads: Thanks for the Free Content!
by Peter Kafka
Posted on January 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM PT
Yesterday, in the wake of the amazing U.S. Airways Flight 1549 story, I suggested that the chief benefit of Twitter and “citizen journalism” reports is that they’re very, very fast. That speed is why Twitterer Janis Krums, who took that amazing photo as his ferry headed over to pick up passengers from the downed plane, is now an instant celebrity. Did you catch him on “Good Morning America” today?
But this morning I got a missive from an employee at one of the cable news networks, who tells me I’ve got it all wrong. Speed is nice, but these days, there are other considerations that are much more important for media companies:
It’s not the speed of Twitter photo that’s remarkable. It’s that it’s FREE. In the past, we would have got that pic from one of the agencies. We didn’t need anything from the agencies yesterday. Anything we couldn’t get from our own crews, people sent us FOR FREE.”
See? Who says old media have been slow to adapt to the Web?
There are some Webby start-ups premised on this idea, too. NowPublic, notably, is trying to organize amateur reporters and photographers into something resembling a newswire, or at least an interesting site. But those guys still have to figure out how turn that into a business.
But the big guys already have a business. It’s a pretty good one, too: Selling TV airtime to advertisers for a lot more money than the Web guys will ever hope to get. And if they can squeeze a few more dollars out of free Internet content, via outlets like Twitter and Time Warner’s (TWX) CNN iReport site, so much the better.
Comments
It’s one thing to use photos of things the newsies miss. It’s another to settle for mediocre and let photojournalists twist in the wind to save a buck.Yeah, and it will be worth the price paid. Just wait until the hackers and jokesters start sending in fake photos. The rumor of Steve Jobs death (NOTE: HE IS NOT DEAD) that caused such a problem for CNET on their user-contributed webspace a few weeks back, which also caused Apple’s stock to tank, should be a lesson.
Sadly editors seemingly would rather use jaggy, out-of-focus, photos from amateurs because they’re too cheap to pay for better photos from journalists who use cameras if they don’t have to.
But then word herders have been waiting for this day for a long time so they could stick it to those uppity photographers who care about such things as the journalistic integrity of the photos more than what might sell today’s paper.
Me a former newspaper photographer bitter? Nah. I’m much better off now in my current job as a globe-trotting editorial photographer and educator. But I haven’t forgotten where I came from and who had the power.
Posted by Eric Welch at January 16th, 2009 at 10:59 amIs it really free? TwicPics terms state “All images uploaded are copyright (c) their respective owners” and I don’t see anything saying that Janis uses Creative Commons licensing. Did anyone get permission before using his content?
Your friend’s network probably gets a lot of citizen submissions they didn’t used to get, and I assume the terms indicate that you grant rights by submitting. But I hope news agencies don’t just forget about licensing as they troll Twitter, Flickr, etc. for content.
Posted by Scott Mark at January 16th, 2009 at 12:57 pmEric, it was CNN’s iReport that posted the Steve Jobs rumor. I do think that the value of a lot of photographs – just like other forms of content – has decreased because the Web has made it less scarce. That also, I think, will eventually make truly unique content more valuable. In this case, Web or no, when you have an astounding story that takes place in outside the doorstep of a densely populated city, you would have had a ton if images regardless.
Scott, I’m assuming that if anyone at the news orgs thought about it, they just assumed that it qualified as fair use. But I don’t want to put words in their mouths.
Posted by Peter Kafka at January 16th, 2009 at 1:50 pmThe US Air coverage is a terrific snapshot of the evolution of storytelling.
While I work just a few blocks away from where the plane descended into the Hudson, my first indication that anything was going on came from Twitter.
I then went to CNN, 1010 wins, and WABC.com – trying to get some coverage. Minutes went by.
I’m not one of these people that believes that citizen journalism replaces professional news organizations. But I do think that the very nature of what mainstream media does is changing.
Today – people are equipped with news gathering devices (cell phones). So first-person breaking news is going to come from the sources closest to the event. Then, organizations like CNN are going to have to determine when reports are credible – and this may not mean having their own reporter confirm the news. It may be that 5, or 10, or 20 twitter posts that all say the something will be considered verification. Or, news organizations will have to come up with new ways to classify what they’re reporting.
The idea that this is some sort of bargain basement of low cost news gathering diminishes the importance and the interesting evolution of media.
Blaming first person reporting for the demise of news is like blaming Craigs list for the current condition of the Newspaper Industry.
When I lauched MTV UNfiltered in 1994 – it was clear that formerly passive viewers would evolve into media makers and active participants.
With that handwriting on the wall, smart media will embrace and engage user generated content, and provide trusted filters that balance speed with accuracy.
Posted by steve rosenbaum at January 17th, 2009 at 9:28 am