It feels to me, that lately newspapers have tried to make me hate them with their ignorance and narrow-mindedness. Again this morning I read about how one Finnish daily magazine is painting pictures of how social media with its services will soon collapse and people start again living real life and meeting friends in the real world and, of course, reading newspapers again.
This getting back to your real life and meeting friends seems to me like they don’t get the whole idea behind things like Facebook. It’s not like we are moving our social life totally to the web, it’s more like social media is an extension of that. We are not just sitting on our butts in front of our computers the rest of our lives, we are also planning and eventing with these new tools which enable us a richer social life. And for example, there’s even these things in Facebook called Events. What do they think people are doing with those? Setting up virtual meetings?
This middle aged columnist is also very sure of that according to his own observations “social media, managing without paper and magazines, has come to its peak and now from here on it’s downhill”. What are these observations he talks about and why I, who follow news broadcasts about these things very intensely, don’t find anything indicating like this?
What I do find is that services are currently finally beginning to find real business models behind these ‘everything free for all’ models. This was also a one thing he attacked towards in his column: not currently having a profitable business model. When a journalist says a thing like that, in a national business magazine, it tells that some people have really lost the game. Some of the new ways of doing business are so way out of what they have used to, that they don’t even believe they can be done like this.
I don’t understand this battle and talk about this social media vs. newspaper anyway. It’s too transparent why some papers write about these things like they do. Not very intellectual way to handle the pain that comes from the reader figures that are coming down. Somehow I feel the smearing of these new ways of communication people seem to like, just another way to some people out there still try to maintain the status they’ve used to have.
I want to end this to a quote from the column: ‘What goes up, must come down’. He meant this with social media, but why wouldn’t this apply to newspapers too? What god has given them the omnipotent status to be the institute of delivering information?
Before the papers there were the travelling salesmen who delivered the news to people with word of mouth principle. They became obsolete when local stores, newspapers and radio hit through.
Look at the situation now. We have in real-time all the information and news from all over the world to see and explore that we can possible digest. I can also ask a valuable question in this situation:
For what do we need this media that delivers yesterday’s news, – out of which many, like the sports section, won’t interest me at all – is produced in a way that wastes so many trees every day and people just throw it away after using it once?