• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Has the quality of media declined as technology has proliferated?

bigdoublezero said:
People cry about the loss of strong national "gatekeepers" to mold public thought, but the thing most people should be worried about is the gutting of mid-major newspapers across the country. That shit's going to have ripples that will be fucking with communities large and small for at least the next few decades, guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Journalism and especially outlets like you mention are the biggest casualties of the internet. Many issues go undiscussed. Many people don't get investigated.

Even at big papers investigative journalism has been eviscerated.
 
PhDeac said:
Ok. That makes some sense. The user base would have to have some legitimacy for it to take off though.
Click to expand...

Also said user base is essentially just writing Amazon Reviews. Also the company that is picking which books to feature in said book club is just acting as its own Gatekeeper with no self-awareness that they are just like any other gatekeeper in which they are filtering which books they are featuring to their audience. The only difference is they feel they are not the same because they only feature unknown or new writers. They aren't going to feature just any novel though because then why would someone join a book club to read shit works, so they filter and like stated earlier are just another lower totem pole gatekeeper.
 
RJKarl said:
Even at big papers investigative journalism has been eviscerated.
Click to expand...

This is probably too strong of a characterization. Depends on what your definition of a "big" paper is. The majority of their cuts in the past decade or so were to fat. Mid-majors lost flesh and bone.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Talented artists and journalists aren't leaving the field because they're frustrated about a lack of exposure. It's because they're not getting paid in the bigger pool. Until someone can effectively monetize media within the new model, overall quality will suffer.
Click to expand...

Music had a great chance to monetize in a new model and it failed miserably, missed the boat as it were. It's slowly building its way back up with models like Spotify and rdio, but these still pay out pennies to artists. The time to monetize was at the very beginning of the Napster movement when private p2p products like Oink were being taken down en masse. Had the music industry collectively bought one of the platforms like Oink, which had the single greatest digital library of music with the highest overall sound quality ever assembled, larger than the Library of Congress, iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify, Bandcamp, and Soundcloud combined, I think they could have retained the infrastructure and distribution methods, changed the presentation layer and the entry methods, and turned it into a booming, profitable enterprise. Record labels could still distribute and promote content like they already do, except instead of 100 retailers with variable sound quality, libraries, distribution deals, etc., it could have been centralized in a very real monetized way.

Of course it's not that simple. There is no homogeneous, collective "music industry." The internet economy thusly dictated that unbundling was best for everyone involved, that more consumers and more producers must mean more retailers. But now you're seeing other industries trying to copy the Netflix/Spotify model, like Oyster (for books). There is still a way forward for rebundling this material in a smart way with the tech we have. I just don't know if the industries are flexible enough to make it happen.

And then there's people who are still trying to fight the gatekeepers that barely exist anymore.
 
RJKarl said:
Gatekeeprs are needed but they are totally overwhelmed today.
Click to expand...

Herein lies the fundamental misunderstanding. Models like the one I described in the OP are like middlemen between authors and gatekeepers, but those middlemen already exist. Readers, editors, publishers, they've been "overwhelmed" since the time publishers first started incorporating, in the same century as the printing press. Again, this is a solution looking for a problem. It's precisely filtering of manuscripts, followed by the editing, marketing, and distribution that makes good books what they are.

As others have mentioned, the digital age has made everyone a storyteller. Instagram has made millions of people into photographers. Twitter, Facebook, Wordpress, Pinterest, YouTube, all serve as platforms for storytelling, but what evidence was there that stories needed to be proliferated in ways they hadn't before? More solutions without problems. Everybody thinks their every waking moment deserves an audience now, and with gatekeepers falling by the wayside, what we don't need is more subgroup circle jerking.
 
TownieDeac said:
Music had a great chance to monetize in a new model and it failed miserably, missed the boat as it were. It's slowly building its way back up with models like Spotify and rdio, but these still pay out pennies to artists. The time to monetize was at the very beginning of the Napster movement when private p2p products like Oink were being taken down en masse. Had the music industry collectively bought one of the platforms like Oink, which had the single greatest digital library of music with the highest overall sound quality ever assembled, larger than the Library of Congress, iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify, Bandcamp, and Soundcloud combined, I think they could have retained the infrastructure and distribution methods, changed the presentation layer and the entry methods, and turned it into a booming, profitable enterprise. Record labels could still distribute and promote content like they already do, except instead of 100 retailers with variable sound quality, libraries, distribution deals, etc., it could have been centralized in a very real monetized way.

Of course it's not that simple. There is no homogeneous, collective "music industry." The internet economy thusly dictated that unbundling was best for everyone involved, that more consumers and more producers must mean more retailers. But now you're seeing other industries trying to copy the Netflix/Spotify model, like Oyster (for books). There is still a way forward for rebundling this material in a smart way with the tech we have. I just don't know if the industries are flexible enough to make it happen.

And then there's people who are still trying to fight the gatekeepers that barely exist anymore.
Click to expand...

Industry flexibility has been a major stumbling block in the information age. Often intentional inflexibility.

I think the "gatekeepers" -- more like tastemakers -- will return as the diffusion of media continues and industries figure out how to monetize within the ethos of the Internet age (no easy feat). Trust used to be taken for granted, but people will pay for it and take it much more seriously someday in media like they do in other spheres, like business.
 
TownieDeac said:
Herein lies the fundamental misunderstanding. Models like the one I described in the OP are like middlemen between authors and gatekeepers, but those middlemen already exist. Readers, editors, publishers, they've been "overwhelmed" since the time publishers first started incorporating, in the same century as the printing press. Again, this is a solution looking for a problem. It's precisely filtering of manuscripts, followed by the editing, marketing, and distribution that makes good books what they are.

As others have mentioned, the digital age has made everyone a storyteller. Instagram has made millions of people into photographers. Twitter, Facebook, Wordpress, Pinterest, YouTube, all serve as platforms for storytelling, but what evidence was there that stories needed to be proliferated in ways they hadn't before? More solutions without problems. Everybody thinks their every waking moment deserves an audience now, and with gatekeepers falling by the wayside, what we don't need is more subgroup circle jerking.
Click to expand...

Without question there are a multitude of people who have entered the market who should have stopped at writing Christmas cards. At the same, there are others who are talented and had no idea of how to get into the market. There are some that are getting squeezed out. There are small publishers that are trying to bring more voices to the public.

Due to the madness, many fine manuscripts can fall through the seems and need to be found.

Just like kids can take SAT courses and score much higher than equally talented people, there are companies teaching hopeful writers how to put together more attractive packages than in the past. This also keeps some from being seen or found.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Industry flexibility has been a major stumbling block in the information age. Often intentional inflexibility.

I think the "gatekeepers" -- more like tastemakers -- will return as the diffusion of media continues and industries figure out how to monetize within the ethos of the Internet age (no easy feat). Trust used to be taken for granted, but people will pay for it and take it much more seriously someday in media like they do in other spheres, like business.
Click to expand...

What do you think of listener-supported business model like podcasts? I listen to several podcasts from a network that does a fund drive every year (basically like NPR or PBS), and people support them pretty well
 
RJKarl said:
Without question there are a multitude of people who have entered the market who should have stopped at writing Christmas cards. At the same, there are others who are talented and had no idea of how to get into the market. There are some that are getting squeezed out. There are small publishers that are trying to bring more voices to the public.

Due to the madness, many fine manuscripts can fall through the seems and need to be found.

Just like kids can take SAT courses and score much higher than equally talented people, there are companies teaching hopeful writers how to put together more attractive packages than in the past. This also keeps some from being seen or found.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking from limited experience for sure, but when I worked in publishing (mass market nonfiction), the unsolicited manuscripts were hot garbage. Most legit stuff, in my experience, is being published by someone. I've personally found that there are plenty of outlets to publish in most markets (ie Ashgate in academic publishing comes to mind).

In your experience, RJ, how good are these works exactly?
 
BeachBumDeac said:
What do you think of listener-supported business model like podcasts? I listen to several podcasts from a network that does a fund drive every year (basically like NPR or PBS), and people support them pretty well
Click to expand...

I think it's a niche that won't fill the void. Nothing against subscription/fundraising models, because they have a place, but it's not the endgame.
 
TownieDeac said:
Music had a great chance to monetize in a new model and it failed miserably, missed the boat as it were. It's slowly building its way back up with models like Spotify and rdio, but these still pay out pennies to artists. The time to monetize was at the very beginning of the Napster movement when private p2p products like Oink were being taken down en masse. Had the music industry collectively bought one of the platforms like Oink, which had the single greatest digital library of music with the highest overall sound quality ever assembled, larger than the Library of Congress, iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify, Bandcamp, and Soundcloud combined, I think they could have retained the infrastructure and distribution methods, changed the presentation layer and the entry methods, and turned it into a booming, profitable enterprise. Record labels could still distribute and promote content like they already do, except instead of 100 retailers with variable sound quality, libraries, distribution deals, etc., it could have been centralized in a very real monetized way.

Of course it's not that simple. There is no homogeneous, collective "music industry." The internet economy thusly dictated that unbundling was best for everyone involved, that more consumers and more producers must mean more retailers. But now you're seeing other industries trying to copy the Netflix/Spotify model, like Oyster (for books). There is still a way forward for rebundling this material in a smart way with the tech we have. I just don't know if the industries are flexible enough to make it happen.

And then there's people who are still trying to fight the gatekeepers that barely exist anymore.
Click to expand...

Good post, but man, that would been asking a lot of the music industry in the late 90s. There just weren't many folks effectively monetizing the internet.
 
PhDeac said:
Good post, but man, that would been asking a lot of the music industry in the late 90s. There just weren't many folks effectively monetizing the internet.
Click to expand...

There just wasn't an incentive to at the time, either. Their desire was to profit within the confines of the model that was working for them at the time. Just because music or publishing industries, to name two, should think forward doesn't mean that they do.

There's a reason why so much innovation nowadays comes from the consulting and entrepreneurial sectors (or from industry outsiders, more generally), even though it would seem like a good idea for firms to do their own innovating.
 
Strickland33 said:
I'm speaking from limited experience for sure, but when I worked in publishing (mass market nonfiction), the unsolicited manuscripts were hot garbage. Most legit stuff, in my experience, is being published by someone. I've personally found that there are plenty of outlets to publish in most markets (ie Ashgate in academic publishing comes to mind).

In your experience, RJ, how good are these works exactly?
Click to expand...

some are horrible and some have won awards..
 
bigdoublezero said:
I think it's a niche that won't fill the void. Nothing against subscription/fundraising models, because they have a place, but it's not the endgame.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I love them, but other than the very few that can get sponsors, there's not much of a business model there. Having said that, the ones I listen to are among my favorite media sources. Mac Power Users, Mac Geek Gab, TechHive's Clockwise, and that home improvement show from Charlotte are the ones I listen to weekly.
 
The proliferation of technology has fundamentally altered peoples' expectations. We expect instant gratification because, by and large, we can have it. Music, information, whatever. This also means we more easily absorb what is most readily available regardless of quality. Since quality is watered down, what we absorb is watered down. In other words, we have the ability to be kings of everything, but the ease of access makes us lazy and fucking dumb as shit.
 
Just remember that the battle for the mind of North America will be fought in the video arena: the Videodrome. The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye. Therefore, the television screen is part of the physical structure of the brain. Therefore, whatever appears on the television screen emerges as raw experience for those who watch it. Therefore, television is reality, and reality is less than television.
 
crossing-the-digital-divide-lg.png
 
I have a lot of thoughts on this subject, but am too lazy to write all of them. Bret Easton Ellis talks a lot about the changes in the modes of distributing and consuming content in his podcast. Its a great listen if you have the time.

In short I think that the argument is valid when it comes to 'print' media, but bullshit when it comes to music.

Papers have been cannibalized and their profits have plummeted. As a result, they cant afford to pay people to cover the news. The result is that you get beat reporters who have RJ like typing skills, but they are the only ones who will do the job for $27K a year. Sucks for everyone.

I think the music argument is bullshit. Earnest Greene was a UGA grad that couldnt find a job and moved back in with his parents. He produced two LPs in his bedroom studio with a Mac and some basic instruments. That got him signed to SubPop and his first full length which he also produced debuted at 26 on the Billboard 200 and 6 on the US rock and alt charts. The albums sound much better than many major label releases of the same year.
 
Last edited:
When people talk about how music sucks these days and it was awesome back in the day, they're not really talking about the music itself (although they probably believe this). The issue isn't whether good music is produced now. It's about how that music works its way into the culture. The model that served the music industry relatively well for 50 years is shattered, and until they find a way to weave that back into the culture, the "no good music" argument will persist. It's really, really hard for a society to produce compelling media on a wide scale without money. Clearly it happens, but not often enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top