News 2.0

Why the news industry exists

The internet has changed our fundamental understanding of what journalism means. Citizen journalism, blogs, message boards, and newsgroups have empowered amateurs to participate in the journalistic process in completely new ways. So, one has to wonder why professional journalists have been so removed from these transformations that are redefining their industry.

In an age when reporters and readers can communicate directly with one another, how does the New York Times continue to survive? Another way to phrase the question is what value does the Times add to the production and distribution of news? To its readers, the purpose of a newspaper is to collect stories from hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, ensure their credibility, and present them in a format that it is easy to consume. For journalists, a newspaper is there to provide a steady source of revenue for a product that would otherwise be difficult to sell on its own. The reason that the New York Times survives is that it provides consumers with the news they want, and journalists with money they need.

Why it doesn’t have to exist

Now lets imagine how we could replace the established news industry with a new system (let’s call it News 2.0) that can continue to provide these same intermediary services in a new way. In order to do this we need to provide readers with news that interests them while paying journalists for the content that they produce. Luckily, the tools needed to create this system are already at our fingertips.

Collaborative filtering has recently established itself as an interesting alternative to traditional editorial systems. Sites like Slashdot, Reddit, and Digg allow users to post links to websites and news reports that they think other users will find interesting. Once these links have been posted, the other users can vote them up or down with the click of a mouse. In addition, users can post comments about the links, which in turn can be voted up or down. Sorting algorithms ensure that the most popular links and comments stay at the top of the page, where the next group of users is more likely to see them. In addition, filters can be implemented to allow people to block out material that others have found to be inflammatory, childish, or simply incoherent.

Now in order to get professional journalists to submit their work to this system, we need to find a way to pay them. According to industry reports, the American newspaper industry generated around $45 billion in advertising revenue in 2003, accounting for roughly 75% of their total revenue. Since advertisers pay based on the number of page views or clicks that their ads receive, News 2.0 should generate as much revenue as a traditional online newspaper with the same number of readers. By creating secure accounts for all submitting authors, we can record the advertising revenue that each article generates. This revenue can then be split between the submitting reporter and the company that administers the system. Since the costs of running News 2.0 would be only a fraction of the costs of a traditional newspaper, one could pay reporters substantially more than they receive today.

Why this would be better than the current system

Now that we have created this new system, one might ask how its any better than what we have now (since being different just for the sake of being different wont win you many readers). The real value of this system for readers is that they will be able to find more content that is of interest to them. In order to understand this we need to go back to the idea of collaborative filtering once more.

Collaborative filtering does much more than simply figure out which stories are popular and which aren’t. When voting articles up or down, a reader “trains” the filter to recommend new stories that will be of interest to them. By comparing the past decisions of a particular reader with the collective decisions of all readers, collaborative filters can provide each user with the best possible selection of content. Moreover, readers can be given the option of seeing all articles from a particular author, or all articles on a particular topic, using simple keywords.

The ideal design for this system would have a “front page” that displays the most popular stories from each section (e.g., sports, culture, news, business…). Then, with the click of a button, a reader would be able to view a personalized page of stories custom-made for them. Readers could also become members of “community pages” based around specific interests (e.g., tech junkies, left-wing activists, scientologists…), which choose stories based on the decisions of each community member. By allowing anyone to start a new “community,” you could create a countless number of different newspapers based around one single system.

In addition to simply voting an article up or down, readers would have a few different ways to interact with the system. In order to warn others about questionable content, they could flag articles as “offensive,” “poorly written,” or “clearly false.” If an article receives a certain number of flags you can remove it from the system entirely. Also, comment sections on each article would allow readers to discuss, or challenge, the content of a story. The interactive nature of this system would enable it to add value to each article after publication, which is something that traditional newspapers rarely do.

Now, even if we can pay them a competitive amount of money, why would professional journalists risk submitting their best work to News 2.0 instead of, for example, the New York Times? Well, one major benefit for authors is that it would allow them to spend less time marketing themselves. In the traditional news business, most journalists need to spend an incredible amount of energy finding steady jobs, or finding customers for their freelance articles. Even if a reporter is lucky enough to have a steady job, they must write each article in a way that will be acceptable to their editor. This often involves a certain amount of self-censorship, since editors are usually quite resistant to publishing anything that is potentially controversial. By submitting their articles to News 2.0, reporters can ensure that their work will be published, and it will be up to the readers to judge its value. This system would produce a far more diverse selection of viewpoints, since stories would not have to pass through a single, homogenizing channel.

How you can keep the system from filling up with junk

Anyone who has spent much time on public message boards may be concerned about this system getting overrun by garbage from mischievous users, and rightfully so. One of the main weaknesses of cyberspace is that it is so easy for an individual user to disrupt an entire online community, and so difficult for the community to respond. However, while it is impossible for this system to keep out every piece of junk, I would argue that it can come pretty close.

The reason why it is so easy for individuals to disrupt an online community is that there is often no good way for the community to police itself. In contrast, the system described above gives users enough power to collectively govern themselves, without giving any single user too much control. If someone posts low quality or inappropriate material, it will be read by a few people and immediately voted down, which ensures that other users wont have to see it. If someone consistently posts junk, their “karma” (which is determined by the collective scores of their submissions) will go down and their future posts will start with a negative score. While it is possible for someone to start a new account, you could design it so they would also have to open a new PalPal account (which is difficult enough that it will keep out most trolls).

The flip of side of negative karma is, obviously, positive karma. If someone consistently posts material that the community likes, each new post will begin with a positive score. Karma is a very important feature in this system, since it encourages people to submit their best work while discouraging spam. The best journalists will establish strong reputations (high karma) and have their work immediately appear where people will see it, without having to wait for it to get voted up. Since the money paid to each author is based on the number of readers it attracts, there would be a very real incentive for people to keep their karma as high as possible. While collaborative filtering may not be perfect, it is a powerful tool that may prove to be more effective than the opinions of a single editor.

The real value- breaking down the broadcast model

The broadcast model that has traditionally defined the news media is designed to provide all consumers with one single viewpoint. Editors act as a gatekeeper between journalists and their readers, publishing only those stories that will be acceptable to the readership as a whole. A system that can provide content directly to its intended audience will allow for a far greater diversity of opinion, something that is noticeably lacking in the established news industry. Moreover, turning the news into an interactive process between journalists and readers will provide a far richer understanding of the issues facing society.

Postscript-

Between the time I wrote this article and the time I posted it, Newsvine.com was released to the public. Newsvine uses a publishing structure that is very similar to the system described above. While there are a few features that I would like to see them add (like the ability to vote articles down and the option for users to start their own “community pages”) I think they have done an excellent job creating a user friendly interface.

I would also like to see them phase-out the articles from the major wire services. The reason for this is that relying on the AP wire for most of the high-profile news may lead to a two-tier system, where the traditional news industry provides the “hard-news” content and amateur journalists provide the culture, sports, and commentary. For Newsvine to live up to my expectations of News 2.0, they will need to convince professional journalists to submit directly to them, rather than through one of the traditional wire services.

Free Markets 2.0

Cyberspace has enabled the development of entirely new information resources that were unimaginable only a few years ago. However, the transformation of existing information industries from real-space to cyberspace has produced far fewer transforming innovations.

Consider the numerous resources that the were first developed on the net, from Wikipedia and blogs, to Google, Flickr, and reddit. An interesting question to ask is why none of these resources existed prior to the web. This may seem like a silly question, but it demonstrates an important point. The reason why these resources did not exist 20 years ago is that their existence is only possible in cyberspace. The architecture of cyberspace, not limited by the physical constraints of real-space, makes them possible.

Now, let’s consider those information industries that were originally developed in real-space. Here I am talking about books, magazines, music, movies, software, newspapers, etc… What is interesting is that while most of these resources can be found online, they are rarely substantially different from their real-space counterparts. P2P file sharing has changed the way people share movies and music, but record companies and movie studios haven’t changed their underlying business models. Online newspapers and magazines have various electronic bells and whistles, but their fundamental structure is the same as their printed counterparts. E-books have not only failed to revolutionize the book publishing industry, they have barely been able to get off the ground. Even software vendors, arguably the most high-tech of the real-space industries, largely rely on product-based business models that were developed before the days of the web.

One might ask why record companies, software vendors, movie studios, and book publishers would be so resistant to embracing the potential of the internet, when doing so almost certainly means that they will be left behind. A common, but naive, answer is that these real-space companies just don’t get cyberspace. Now it is quite possible that some of these companies just don’t get it, but it’s hard to believe that everyone in these industries is that irrational or ill-informed.

A more likely explanation is offered in Lawrence Lessig’s The Future of Ideas. Lessig examines the notion of the Inventor’s Dilemma and explains that “leading companies within a particular market will outperform others in perfecting the technology that defines their existing market,” but “what these companies can’t do is identify and develop disruptive technologies.” Established companies “see real revenue from existing customers who need marginally better technology,” but they “don’t see the revenue from radically new technologies that depend upon unidentified or undeveloped markets.”

In order to transform these pre-existing industries, companies with new business models must compete with the established players in their market, since change will not come from the industry leaders themselves. In contrast, startups that create entirely new markets do not face competition from established companies. They have the advantage of existing in virgin territory, without the baggage that comes from an established market. Moreover, they do not have to deal with the legal barriers that reinforce the existing information industries.

Innovative production and distribution models will shape the future of cyberspace far more than any technological advances. Only by harnessing the potential of the internet to address the real needs of a market can new business models hope to succeed. In the following entries I will examine new means of creating, managing, and distributing information that build on the unique architecture of cyberspace in order to redefine the information industry.