Readers Pick Stories

After reading your last post about EPIC and watching the video, I was alittle shook up. I cannot imagine a world like that, but yet it is not unrealistic to think that our world will be there soon. The part of the video that really scared me was the part about the magazine having a satallite photo of each subscribers house on the front cover of their copy! That is creepy!

The story about the Chilean newspaper site is interesting. It does sound to me like it is turning into a tabloid (if one of its top stories was what Colin Powell had for dinner!) They will stop getting real news and only read gossip.

Thanks for sharing the information about EPIC and the story about the Chilean newspaper. I can’t beleive that a newspaper would even implement that idea. I mean at first it sounds like a good idea and a great way to understand what readers want to know more about, but like the story explained, in USA Today, eventually the newspaper will report only on insignifacnt topics. Stories about real issues in their own country and in others will become obsolete. The only stories that would be reported would be about celebrites and others in the public eye that had to do with gossip. I think that sacrificing important issues and topics for increasing readership damages the reputation of newspapers.

I can see how this could be both positive and negative. It could be used positively from the standpoint that the newspaper will become aware when a story is no longer interesting to its audience. I am sure that we have all experienced a news story that was interesting in the beginning but we are now sick of because the media won’t leave it alone. (For me it is Micheal Jackson) From that aspect it could be positive. The fact that the journalist are also using this method to determine their future stories is definitely a negative thing. If all they report about is what people are clicking on then before long the audience won’t have anything to click on but information about gossip, celebrities, etc. How is the public supposed to have an interest in a story if they don’t even know it exist?

Like Elisabeth I see the newspapers idea as a positive move, but it also has some negative
connotations. I like the idea of monitoring news stories because it allows to the paper to see
what their public is responding to. But I think the idea of removing items because people do
not read them enough is wrong. What is important to one person might not be important to every person
and just because it is not read enough it should not be taken away. I think they should use the monitoring
to publicize the stories that are getting a lot of hits, but have every story written available for
all readers. If you take away a story because it not getting enough hits, then paper will turn into more
of a tabliod with readers only being able to read more sports and entertainment stories than anything else.
I also agree with Josh that the idea of giving incentives based on the amount of clicks a persons
story receives will possibly turn the paper into more a tabloid. Also, thank you Josh for allowing us
to view the video clip of EPIC. That movie gave everyone including myself a different spin on the impact
of the Internet. It was crazy!

The Chilean newspaper is setting it self up for failure, but with seemingly
good intentions. By keeping track of what readers are most interested in
the paper can continue to provide “news” of greater interest. The obvious draw
back is lots of people want “Brad and Jen” news or The Onion, basicaly
just entertainment more than hard news. I don’t know if I can fault the newspaper because
they are running a business and merely delivering more of what their consumer
wants. I think the problem is with the readers. More clicks on hard news stories
would lead to more follow ups on those type of stories. Thanks for the interesting post.

I have watched the EPIC video several times now, and each time it becomes a bit more disturbing. At first it seemed a bit sensational, but the more I think about it, the more I start to wonder if something like this will actually happen. In a way, it is happening already. With powerful search engines at our fingertips, we can already search for only the information we want to read, and now the Chilean newspaper is following the path of what the EPIC video predicts. I think the big test here will be whether or not the newspaper succeeds. Personally, I would rather read all news rather than something that is customized to my tastes.

I remember my freshman year when I came to Camp War Eagle and was told what I was required to take to complete my University core curriculum. I hate math and I loathe science, but I took both of them anyway. Why? Because it gave me a well-rounded education. I feel that the same idea is being tested with this clickable-deletable-disposable newspaper phenomenon. If stories that aren’t receiving many hits are tossed out, then what kind of a society will we become? I do feel that the media has too strong of an influence on society’s agenda/determining and indicatating what is and isn’t important, but I think that what is going on in the case of the Chilean newspaper is going too far. It’s important to know what is going on around the globe, and while I enjoy reading my People and US Weekly, I know that to be a well-educated citizen, I must stay informed of current events, regardless of their interest or relevance to my own personal agenda.

I agree. Although it seems like a revolutionary idea, wouldn’t people be less interested in international political news? I know I would never click on those stories. However, their presence raises my awareness of them, and a good citizen is a well-informed citizen. Or at least that’s what I would like to believe!

As Jonathan pointed out, in a society controlled by the all-powerful consumer: “The customer is always right.” Although a bit sensational, EPIC brings up several questions that are difficult to take in. What would our world be like if media/communication was soley controlled by computers? It seems as if you can get everything from a hamburger at your favorite fast food chain to up-to-date news stories customized just for you, just the way you want it.What more could you ask for? Mass customization seems ordinary this day in age; however, its effects could be tragic if they are anything like what was presented in EPIC. What is happening at the Chilean newspaper seems dreadful from my perspective. If the general public was left to choose what stories were “newsworthy,” our papers would be full of entertainment news and gossip.

I can’t say that I am that surprised by the Chilean story. Today our society is all about getting what you want, when you want it. Not to mention that most people care more about gossip and Britney Spears than they do about the issues that are shaping their lives. The argument that the editor gives is weak, he should just say that his newspaper is a tabloid and it’s that way because that is what his readers want, which by the way, is making him more money and he cares more about money than real journalism. At least he would be viewed as an honest man. I think this is a very sad issue, but a very real issue that more and more papers may have to face in the near future.

I agree with everything Makenzi said. But just to add on, I really do believe that by letting the public choose what it feels is news worthy, our papers would be full of, well, junk. After watching EPIC, I thought about what my children were going to be exposed to and grow up knowing. What would be their main source of news? And would the same ethical standards that the news media attempts to uphold today even apply then. I think it will be interesting to watch how the media and society change and what news source we will find credible 15 years down the road.

EPIC is an interesting outlook, but it is a little “tongue and cheek”. We all get our news from
different places, and this perception is an example of how news has become so adaptative to our society. It reminds me of Ray Bradbury’s book, 1984, which depicts just how “Big Brother” is watching us through our TV sets.
This is not realistic, however, and people will not only want to get their news
from the internet. They will also want to get their news from people who were there and can describe details of life to them. Broadcasters are allowed into our lives every night and we remember those people and
trust them. Its agreed, however, that news has become less onbjective and more catered to an audience over the years. There is no reason why one story should run for 30 days straight on the cover of the New York Times, except that its what people want to see. We should be weary of this because it takes away our ability to see what’s really important, and not succumb to tunnel vision and concentrate on some positive things that are going on in the world.