When I started thinking about what the New News Media would mean for the average person a few years from now I decided that if a person wanted they could have a more balanced news experience than the one they might have had 10 years ago. The ability to choose what their news is about and where their news comes from allows people to curate their own news 'paper'. When I first realized this, I thought it was great...a newspaper made only by me. Then I myself had to take an unbiased look at what the repercussions of this might be.

Look at the cover of a news paper, or on a news website like The New York Times we are presented with a fairly diverse array of stories. They may not be stories that you want to read, but glancing at page one of any news paper, even for just a moment, you are able to get the gist of what is happening in the world around you. My concern is, what happens when your page one is filled with your interests? Will a lack of outsider curation narrow your perspective further?

When a single person is allowed to decide what to read solely based on personal interests and beliefs, is what they're reading really an unbiased view of the world? Will people really seek the opinions of those who are different than them? It depends on the importance a person places on a diverse perspective and knowledge set.

What I am talking about is obtaining a broader view of what is happening in the world today, not just those things that have a direct impact on the reader. I fear that a purely reader curated news media would give way to a population of people who are relatively ignorant. They would be well versed in their areas of interest but completely oblivious to the world they live in.

As an early adapter myself I have experienced this. With multiple tabs of my Netvibes account dedicated to technology, art, culture and advertising and only one catch-all tab called 'General' where I have a couple of RSS feeds containing general headline news. Aside from the absence of diverse topics, there are so many things to read that I become overwhelmed. While there is a lack of hierarchy that allows me to absorb the news in an unbiased fashion, finding the big stories quick becomes an issue. It is obvious that even my own curation of my news has become slightly one dimensional. I have no idea what is going on in Myanmar right now, and the headlines on the New York Times website tell me I probably should.

User-curated news is a great thing. It provides control over sources and perspectives that people really haven't had before now. It will be interesting to see what larger cultural impacts this has on our societies globally. If no one was reading about politics and the world would we really care how much Bush was spending on Iraq, or that people were dying their every day? Will we come to a point where our lack of global awareness leads us to betray our fellow human? I think if we fail to diversify our news topics, that is possible. That being said, I should probably go read that article on Myanmar now.

User Profile
Name
Bob O'Flaurghty
Age
29 years old
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Occupation
Graphic DesignerThe Scenario: As Bob goes through an average day he wants to get information on certain news items and topics.

When Bob wakes up in the morning he makes his coffee and sits down in front of his computer, he opens up Google News to see what the latest headlines are. Since Google News is a computer-generated news site, he knows he will not experience any bias from any particular publisher as far as what stories are most important. The hierarchy of the page allows all of the stories equal importance (unlike the newspaper), so he can browse until he finds a story that seems interesting.

He selects an article entitled "Busy Day at Court Handling Sect's Children," he looks at the links to sources where he could read the same story and decides that his best bet is The New York Times. He clicks the link. Once on The New York Times website he begins reading. About half way through the article talks about the "Yearning for Zion ranch," Bob has never heard of this before so he clicks the link to learn more about this ranch. There he is able to see an image of the ranch along with several other stories about the ranch, he is satisfied now that he can put an image with a name and clicks the browsers back button to return him to the browser to finish reading the article. (more...)

I started to consider the world we live in today. News media is a primary resource for getting information about events that haven't quite been cataloged in our history books yet. It is our way of knowing what is going on around the world. I would also argue that the news media, by its very nature is tragically flawed. There is no hope of true neutrality in news media as it stands right now. The way our news is curated via omission prevents news media as a whole from every being truly non-bias. I wondered what it might take to create a neutral news media...

Imagine a world where cameras and microphones are everywhere, every angle is watched and listened to. In that world there is a massive database of faces and voices cataloged for easy reference. Now imagine that there are no reporters, what these cameras and microphones are capturing is the news. The system that these cameras hook into would run checks with the databases of people for an accurate account of who was there, the system would understand what was said. The system would then edit this information into a comprehensive news cast that would be available for all of the world's citizens to view.

When the news media is void of human editing does the news then become neutral? How does the addition of technology into the sphere of news media effect the neutrality of our news?

Steve Jobs doesn't wear a belt. His typical attire when in the public eye includes a black long-sleeve shirt, a pair of ordinary jeans, and casual shoes. A "timeless" look to some degree. But what about the belt?

I began to ponder why this innovation superstar did not opt to wear a belt, and then it occurred to me that he decided he didn't need one. He didn't need the help of that third-party apparatus. And then it all made sense.

Apple has become a superstar in the technology world by reinventing the approach to technology. The products are beautiful. The products are cutting-edge in technology. The products are marketed well, and people will pay a premium price for them. Oh, and they last a long time, but that's why Apple's stock has dropped drastically... people don't need to buy a new one anytime soon. So how has their revenue model changed?

Subscription Model

Apple's Itunes has become a powerful force and direct venue for lots of micropayments. But according to Financial Times they might take it one step further and push an "all you can listen to" subscription that is either a one-time fee when buying a device, or a monthly fee. This consistent cashflow is something nice to have I'm sure.

So to tie it back to the "no belt," Apple has a vertical merger that has a created a perfect Apple experience from the fancy computer, through the simple intuitive software, through the easy, convenient, and fast supply chain, and now you're experiencing your favorite media, whether a movie, a book, or music. All done Apple Style. If the shirt and pants work, why do you need a third-party belt? It just interrupts.

Belts are Out of Fashion.

Media on the internet has become an uncontrollable monster with illegal downloads, torrents, and the works. The only true way to bring it back is to make it more convenient the user, and make it unlimited. This is why I think the subscription model will work, and is where the industry needs to move. Internet TV however does not need a subscription because we are conditioned to commercials. Hulu rocks:)

So in conclusion, Steve Jobs doesn't need a belt, as Apple doesn't need a "belt". I believe this trend will become a staple for media distribution. But if Jobs goes on stage without a shirt, we might all be in trouble!

If you have time any free time on your computer, outside your traditional routine, check out this archive of web 2.0 companies that have brilliant ideas on how to make your life a little easier, but will probably disappear in the next few years.

These entrepreneurs understand our problems and are solving them individually, but how do they get incorporated into our daily routine, when they are so... distant? Let me explain further.

Trying the Jott Trot.

Upon first glance, in the sea of beautiful fresh logos, I chose Jott, whose tagline is "Voice-Powered, Hands-Free Messaging and To-Do Lists," sounds pretty useful. The site is nice, so I went a little further. One tutorial movie later, it became very apparent that it is a solution to a problem that isn't really a problem to most people, but does offer some amazing features that, after registering and testing it out, is quite useful.

I registered quickly, and had my account. Connected my mobile with my Jott account, and then liked my Jott account with my Google Calendar account. This was awesome because if these new technologies can't link to something "standard" like Gmail or Facebook, users will forget to use it

The Countdown Begins.

Even being sick and sounding very nasal, Jott recognized my spoken statement, and placed it on my google calendar in the right day and time slot. Amazing. This technology is able to flow into the mobile phone realm, but how long will this market be around before every mobile IS a computer with internet? The registration and linking of accounts was more difficult than my dad could handle, so it's targeting the same demographic that is eagerly waiting for gen 2 of the Iphone. Jott is now in my mobile however, and I will probably play with it for a week or so, but that might be it until I discover how it works with other steadies in my routine.

The whole process took about 40 minutes, including testing and playing. And then I was back to the site, searching for the next big thing. Do you see the problem here?

Win Me, or Confuse Me?

Time-management and convenience is a web epidemic that is hot right now, but making one process more streamlined does not necessarily make room for other stuff. And as companies try and out-tech the competitor, they loose the average consumer in their race, and suddenly only the young web-saavies can make use of their product. It is truly innovative stuff, I just want to see how it gets to everyone and into the average Joe's routine. That is the underlying question that needs to be answered. Comment if you have an answer.

With the recent public launch of Hulu a couple of weeks ago I started to think about what effects Internet TV will have on our culture and our lives. People are slowly relinquishing their television sets as their primary way of watching network content. Online video and Internet TV sites are giving people a venue through which to be social, communicate and interact about what they're watching in different way.

Sites such as Hulu, Brightcove, YouTube, and Break allow users to rate each show/video, ask questions, and encourage social interaction. All of these sites allow the audience to share their videos with friends in many different ways (embedding video, email, IM, etc). But if the way by which we interact about television shows is changing, I wondered what will happen to the water cooler? (more...)