Hypothetical look to the future

We watched this video in class and it is quite disturbing because what is proposed is not
impossible, but rather very plausible. When computers start not only editing stories but creating them through taking bits of all the versions of the story I become concerned. Now people will read the computer generated news and take it as fact, but who knows what hacker may have changed the news or fabricated his own story. Sounds kind of familiar even in today’s print journalism (Blair). Especially when google starts paying the news posts with the greatest popularity, then what kind of credibility does the news have when it becomes a popularity contest. When the Times moves to print only and is a media for the elite and elderly we will have come full circle. We will have digressed back to a time when only those people were able and willing to read newsprint.

Having watched this video once before, watching it again was just as disturbing as watching it for the first time. I think it is the fact of knowing that this could very well be the future of technology. It also shows what a long way technology has come in just a couple of years. I am waiting for a newspaper to come out and attack the internet because they are now not an important medium because before they can get something to print, it is already out on several different websites. I do not see a paper going completely to print because then I think they would eventually end up folding. I think in 10 years we will be able to everything completely from the convience of our homes, but I think it will have costly mistakes for us in a world where someone can easily break in and steal your entire life by clicking a mouse. Thank you again for letting us watch this video. I have passed it on to my friends for them to see because it is definitely an eye-opener.

I have watched this video twice now and it is really creepy. You are right, it is a full circle. Jonathan said this and we discussed it in class, if newspapers go out of print or are only read by the elderly and elite as they were before all our technology progressed to the point it is today, what have we become? Are we not back to the exact same point we were in the dark ages? Will our news be catered to our preferences? Will it be real news, or what we want to hear?

What scares me is that it could really happen. That seems to be the direction our world is heading in. I think technology is great, but can it be taken too far? Who is going to stop it? Is there any system of checks and balances in the media?

I honestly hope this is not where our world is heading, but who am I to say that it isn’t?

– Having watched this video once before, watching it again was just as disturbing as watching it for the first time. –

If you stepped back in time to the 50’s and showed journalists what we do now; how we work; and how much we pay for coffee, they would have similar [disturbing] feelings. This is no different than the emergence of digital media, the ability to fabricate what people want to hear, or the atomization of news into smaller and smaller sound-bytes. We now have every movie at our fingertips, we can time-shift television to suit our needs to manicure every waking moment, and we can take 10,000 songs with us to the beach (plus another 40,000 podcasts).

Why? Because it’s what we wanted. Epic is what we want too, but in the context of another decade, and only then will it seem normal.

When I first watched this video it frightened me. It is very overwhelming. Then I watched it again, thought about it for awhile, and calmed down.

I think this proposed future challenges journalists to return to the basics of credibility, honesty, and timeliness. With what has happened with the media recently, people are becoming less likely to rely on traditional mediums for their news. They are turning to other outlets instead. I feel that if journalists continue down this path, then they will lose their public and the future portrayed in “EPIC” could happen. However, if they focus on reporting truth they may salvage traditional journalism. It will be interesting to see how all of this unfolds in the next decade or so.

Scary and disturbing? Maybe. I’m a 55 year-old small market magazine publisher and, other than the ominous position given to Google in Epic’s scenario, it’s tough to argue with the thought of technology following customer demand. I love the idea of customer participation and how a dedicated group of readers might help my product evolve. If it remains vital to their interests, they’re much more likely to buy it. Having people assist in the formulation of content is an interesting possibility and one that has raised everybody’s eyebrows a bit, but I think we can use that in a positive way. Under some guidelines, why wouldn’t I want readers (also stakeholders) to define relevancy than for me to have to guess or run focus groups? Publishers will certainly have to monitor how stories are developing and judge whether hackers are adjusting facts. However, in the end, I’m not paralyzed with the thought of technology running wild and becoming “Big Brother.” Instead, I’m curious as to how we’ll come up with the means to effect positive outcomes and become better at what we do. Maybe a lot of others in my age group may not agree and may view all this as a threat, but I get most of my news off the Web anyway and I’m okay with it. Just my .02.