Now I’m the first person to point out that the great thing about most research is that anyone can bend the findings to support their own opinions.
So indulge me here.
Some of my biggest issues with the prevalent Web 2.0/Smeedia thinking are:
- The belief that the demise of traditional media is a good thing for society – and that the media’s demise is a “fact” (it’s not)
- The acceptance of content that’s “good enough” rather than researched, reviewed and objective
- The online, self-styled, Web 2.0 experts, who have never practiced Public Relations in their life, but feel they are qualified to provide in-depth analysis on the impact of new online media and tools on our profession. (I’ll post more on that particular topic at a later date.)
The idea that sites like Wikipedia are a great thing – regardless of how accurate the content is – because loads of people collaborate, is flawed. I don’t like it as a citizen, as a parent, as a consumer, or as a PR practitioner. We must fight for standards ladies and gentlemen.
A report from UK media research firm Metrica [Flash alert], which included 3,000,000 articles from 700 UK media organisations over the past decade has some interesting findings.
It found that online coverage was far more likely to deliver “high message delivery” and a company spokesperson than traditional media:
Haste and paste: High message delivery and spokespeople mentions suggest the emergence of a copy and paste publishing trend in online media. Online featured the strongest message delivery of any media type with half of coverage delivering key messages, and an average of three message deliveries per article.There is also some indication of a similar trend amongst regional titles.
Now obviously as a PR guy that’s what the client is looking for. But as a citizen you want to ensure there is a strong media providing consumers with a balanced news agenda – after all if you’re getting fluffy coverage, so is your competitor.
- According to the research for 2007, not surprisingly, the UK daily and Sunday newspapers are the least favourable outlets, while regional TV, print and radio are the most favourable.
- The most favoured sectors are charities, trade bodies, media and leisure, and entertainment.
- The least favoured sectors are finance, government & public sector, retail, fashion, health & beauty and transport.
I accept that no research is perfect, but it presents an interesting view and perhaps presents a case why the survival of traditional media (whether in print or online) is important to society and business.
Read more at the Metrica blog.
Update:
Stuart Bruce has pointed to a site I’d never seen before, the Churner Prize 
“High message delivery and spokespeople mentions suggest the emergence of a copy and paste publishing trend in online media. Online featured the strongest message delivery of any media type with half of coverage delivering key messages…”
So is Metrica saying that online coverage is good because of strong message delivery, or bad because of the copy and paste culture?
The messages may get ‘delivered’ (i.e. printed) but are they credible? Do they have a positive impact? Or does the consumer simply see them as re-hash of a corporate press release and dismiss the story’s independence as they might an advertisement?
I think the point that you hit on early in the post about ‘citizen journalism’ is interesting.
I see ‘citizen journalism’ as a double-edged sword (excuse the cliche please). On one hand it’s great because we have honest opinions from consumers, but then on the other hand it’s worse than traditional media because they are still one persons opinion and the writer probably has very little journalism training, therefore diluting the medium.
(disclaimer) Again, I’m posting with very little experience in PR (five months) but I feel strongly about the way in which our media consumption evolves, and as I said over at http://tinyurl.com/2ow6jc sometimes Web2.0 experts create a little mircocosm of a revolution…
@Mark: I agree with you, the jury is out. I think they are saying that online is less rigourous and more likely to publish what’s they’ve been sent.
I think your second point is a harder one. The credibility of the message relies on two factors: 1) the sender 2) how sophisticated the consumer is. If a source is unreliable but the consumer doesn’t realise it, then the message might be seen (to them) as credible – regardless of whether it is or not. For example, advertising still works!
We should start with the audience.
@Jed: You’re spot on.
Firstly the Web 2.0 digeratti do sometimes operate in an echo chamber, which presents adoption as mainstream, when in fact the mainstream are still reading USA Today and watching cable.
Secondly, I imagine we’ll have a mix of traditional and Citizenship journalism, with the audience deciding on it’s preferred mix of both.
As always the answer to all these questions is, we don’t know (yet)!
Thanks
Tom
Tom, did you see Dan Farber’s interview over at Silicon Valley Watcher? Dan gave a list of insights into how cnet is run today with blogs. Two that seem relevant to your discussion:
- Publish a story as quickly as possible, edit it later.
- Stories are updated constantly.
I don’t know if that means that the step of fact checking is missed, I suspect not, but maybe not all of the facts are gathered before going to press.
Im a PR student in Stirling in Scotland and one of the papers that i did was about new and old media and if the PR practitioners should use them. I believe that Online is a major medium that PR practitioners should use efficiently and rationally for effective public relations. With the use of online media the effective communication is achieved and strong relationships are created between the organizations and the publics.
From a survey that i found you can see that: The explosion of news and entertainment sites on the internet, combined with a decline in daily newspaper reading means the internet now accounts for an average of 10% of media consumption in Europe.
The UK and Germany remain the biggest internet users, with 49% and 47% penetration respectively, although France and Spain are catching up.Of those online users, 56% used the internet for news and 83% for email. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/dec/01/newmedia).
So the Web.2 and the new media have already impacted……