Just so we're all on the same page (no pun intended), I'm writing this blog post from a iPad. I Just wanted to get my potential bias out of the way.
I have been wondering for quite sometime what the fate of print media would be once Internet media came into full swing. I first started developing my hypothesis back in 1999 when I was the webmaster for my high school newspaper. At first I thought online viewership would struggle to surpass our print count. All it took was dropping the URL into the print version to blow that number away. Then a submission to Yahoo! Search pushed the number of daily views to nearly 10 times of our monthly print count. This is where I truly learned the value of online publishing. And you better believe that we never missed getting a story, picture or sports score online. The online edition became an extension of the print edition.
That is the key business model that I think could save newspapers. They need to embrace the web and it's distribution techniques. This is where the true value is in online production; reduction in production costs and the sheer volume of your readership.
The buiness model that works is not to "pay-wall" everything but to simply flip the paradigm. Where physical papers used to cost money and online was a free extension there needs to be a change. Online needs to become the primary method of production. Print doesn't go away but simply becomes a subscription only service or at least a better forecasted print count. Why spend money to print 25,000 physical papers when not even half of those papers are consumed? In the past this hadn't been an issue but with margins diminishing, every unused paper counts.
It's not that print is going to die tomorrow, many people still prefer the feel of a physical paper to the feel of an e-reader. News sources just need to be more intelligent about how they leverage print versus how online outlets are leveraged. There is a delicate balance and while I think some news papers are getting that figured out many can't see that this balance is slowly shifting towards online distributions.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
I'll ban their Teacher's Editions.
I have to admit I was really taken back at the Fox News article detailing the banning of the Dictionary in California schools. I wonder just how far it will go. Running their logic to its conclusion; they should also ban the Thesaurus, any Human Anatomy book, any Biology book, any book relating to physical health or well-being.
Hmmm.... that will really lighten the students' course load.
While I understand that some books are not for younger kids, I also see a real value in classic literature and how literature itself has evolved in the history of humanity.
I went to the ALA's top ten most frequently challenged books by year page and I have to say I was more than a little surprised. Looking only at the books that have been challenged since 2001, I saw several that I had read in high school. When I see the reasons for the challenges and reflect back on the books, I rarely remember a point that would fit under any of the challenges. This leads me to believe that either I was way more mature than I should have been at that age or that the passages simply didn't have an effect on me.
The book that I was the most shocked to find was "To Kill A Mockingbird," by Harper Lee. This book was challenged on the basis of racism, offensive language and being unsuited for the age group it was taught to.
While I do remember themes of racism and some fairly mild language (which was usually to demonstrate the level of racism) these were inserted to be struck down. You have to show the evil in order to display overcoming it.
I know another very important book that had been censored for ages due to its provocative content. The Song of Solomon from the Bible. For ages Jewish boys were restricted from this book of the bible due to the descriptive nature of a man's relationship with his wife. The symbolism was so strong that it was labeled as pornographic. While I do agree that there is some pretty provocative stuff in that book, you have to look at context.
Is it not OK for a man to pine over his wife?
Is it not OK to paint a community as racist so that one man can stand up to them?
If we ban books for having evil of any kind or "bad words," we will be left with nothing. Even true stories would be banned or made completely nonfactual. Our history as we know it would be lost.
Should some books be kept out of schools? Yes, I don't think the 50 Years of Playboy book should be in our schools.
But... when a book is a proven accurate portrayal of society and our protagonist has to overcome the shortcomings of this society. Then a, within reason, description of the dark side of that society shouldn't send everyone into a censorship hissy fit.
Hmmm.... that will really lighten the students' course load.
While I understand that some books are not for younger kids, I also see a real value in classic literature and how literature itself has evolved in the history of humanity.
I went to the ALA's top ten most frequently challenged books by year page and I have to say I was more than a little surprised. Looking only at the books that have been challenged since 2001, I saw several that I had read in high school. When I see the reasons for the challenges and reflect back on the books, I rarely remember a point that would fit under any of the challenges. This leads me to believe that either I was way more mature than I should have been at that age or that the passages simply didn't have an effect on me.
The book that I was the most shocked to find was "To Kill A Mockingbird," by Harper Lee. This book was challenged on the basis of racism, offensive language and being unsuited for the age group it was taught to.
While I do remember themes of racism and some fairly mild language (which was usually to demonstrate the level of racism) these were inserted to be struck down. You have to show the evil in order to display overcoming it.
I know another very important book that had been censored for ages due to its provocative content. The Song of Solomon from the Bible. For ages Jewish boys were restricted from this book of the bible due to the descriptive nature of a man's relationship with his wife. The symbolism was so strong that it was labeled as pornographic. While I do agree that there is some pretty provocative stuff in that book, you have to look at context.
Is it not OK for a man to pine over his wife?
Is it not OK to paint a community as racist so that one man can stand up to them?
If we ban books for having evil of any kind or "bad words," we will be left with nothing. Even true stories would be banned or made completely nonfactual. Our history as we know it would be lost.
Should some books be kept out of schools? Yes, I don't think the 50 Years of Playboy book should be in our schools.
But... when a book is a proven accurate portrayal of society and our protagonist has to overcome the shortcomings of this society. Then a, within reason, description of the dark side of that society shouldn't send everyone into a censorship hissy fit.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Blog Bytes: Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanack
When asked to find a bit of wisdom in the almanack that I liked, I didn't have to look far. Page 4 has a wonderful statement; "Content makes poor men rich; Discontent makes rich men poor." Click here to see the original.
This really hits home for me. Last year I went on a personal crusade to become more content with my life. I worried about everything and I mean everything. Even things that were beyond my control would frequently dwell in my mind.
Like much of Poor Richard's Almanack, the terms of rich and poor are sometimes misunderstood. Here, I believe, "rich" and 'poor" talk about much more than money or possessions. Contentment is something that money and possessions truly cannot buy. Contentment comes from being at peace with your life.
This really hits home for me. Last year I went on a personal crusade to become more content with my life. I worried about everything and I mean everything. Even things that were beyond my control would frequently dwell in my mind.
Like much of Poor Richard's Almanack, the terms of rich and poor are sometimes misunderstood. Here, I believe, "rich" and 'poor" talk about much more than money or possessions. Contentment is something that money and possessions truly cannot buy. Contentment comes from being at peace with your life.
Currently, this concept is almost counter-cultural. The "American Dream" seems to be all about having more money and more stuff. I didn't start that way. The american dream started as being free and self sufficient. Not having 50 collector cars and more money than your children could ever spend but as usual, the dream has been twisted and distorted into a view of lavish lifestyle.
I think if more people had adopted this simple principal, the US wouldn't be in quite the economic hole we are. I don't believe that being content will keep the economy from having the corrections that it is supposed to but I think we would have seen far less foreclosures and bankruptcies.
Ben Franklin's advice is simple: Find what truly makes you happy and your life will feel rich but often rich men seek contentment with things which do not satisfy.
One easy way to start being content with where you are in life and what you have is to check out LastYearsModel.org. This is a movement based on contentment, or laziness depending on your view.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Does the Internet limit real social interaction?
This was an excellent question. I have actually been found on both sides of the debate and I truly believe it is a serious issue facing our global society.
In my opinion, many people get tripped up on the definition of Social Interaction. Is a social interaction simply chatting with someone or smiling at a person you see walking down the street? Does it go deeper than that?
I believe it goes deeper than that.
For true, real social interaction, there are numerous cues and idioms that are lost in the translation between the synapses and 1's and 0's. The ability to read and react to body language is a perfect example. Over the last several years, I've watched the ability of those around me to read and understand body language dwindle and quite frankly, I'm not surprised.
My favorite example is of two of my female friends. They are best friends and even live with each other. Last year at this time one of these ladies had made a semester-long commitment to the athletic department at K-State which required long hours of strenuous work. The two simply never saw each other except for the occasional quick brush over the weekends. Their relationship quickly began to deteriorate. Both roommates came to me and asked me why they no longer seemed to get each other. After talking extensively with both of them individually and together I think we got to the root of the issue. The two couldn't read each other anymore because they just hadn't spent any time together. Sure they frequently chatted on Facebook but no real face time. Of course any time they did spend together, the annoyed each other because each was trying to re-learn the movements of the other.
This was so disruptive to both of these ladies' lives that they nearly parted ways. I encouraged them to set time aside to spend more time together doing activities, not just sit at home. Both took my advice to heart and are now best friends again. I'm sure if you were to ask them why their relationship almost ended, they would site the lack of real, face-to-face interaction.
It is true that societies can exist online and show realistic social interaction. I believe that Second Life and The World of Warcraft have shown us that online societies and real-world societies act in much the same way but there is still a piece of the interpersonal level of communication missing. When you can hear the strain in someone's voice over a stressful situation or see them shift their weight when talking about an uncomfortable subject, the conversation and interaction lose a great level of depth. Losing this level of depth seeks to make us more machine like in how we converse by removing the emotion from the equation.
In my opinion, many people get tripped up on the definition of Social Interaction. Is a social interaction simply chatting with someone or smiling at a person you see walking down the street? Does it go deeper than that?
I believe it goes deeper than that.
For true, real social interaction, there are numerous cues and idioms that are lost in the translation between the synapses and 1's and 0's. The ability to read and react to body language is a perfect example. Over the last several years, I've watched the ability of those around me to read and understand body language dwindle and quite frankly, I'm not surprised.
My favorite example is of two of my female friends. They are best friends and even live with each other. Last year at this time one of these ladies had made a semester-long commitment to the athletic department at K-State which required long hours of strenuous work. The two simply never saw each other except for the occasional quick brush over the weekends. Their relationship quickly began to deteriorate. Both roommates came to me and asked me why they no longer seemed to get each other. After talking extensively with both of them individually and together I think we got to the root of the issue. The two couldn't read each other anymore because they just hadn't spent any time together. Sure they frequently chatted on Facebook but no real face time. Of course any time they did spend together, the annoyed each other because each was trying to re-learn the movements of the other.
This was so disruptive to both of these ladies' lives that they nearly parted ways. I encouraged them to set time aside to spend more time together doing activities, not just sit at home. Both took my advice to heart and are now best friends again. I'm sure if you were to ask them why their relationship almost ended, they would site the lack of real, face-to-face interaction.
It is true that societies can exist online and show realistic social interaction. I believe that Second Life and The World of Warcraft have shown us that online societies and real-world societies act in much the same way but there is still a piece of the interpersonal level of communication missing. When you can hear the strain in someone's voice over a stressful situation or see them shift their weight when talking about an uncomfortable subject, the conversation and interaction lose a great level of depth. Losing this level of depth seeks to make us more machine like in how we converse by removing the emotion from the equation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)