Recently I’ve been doing two things (among many others), reading about the perfect storm that continues to soak newspapers in debt and prompt many to question their future/ existence, and ways that technology may either finish off (unlikely) or transform (almost certainly) print.
As both Adam and I explore the world of online publishing, it has become clear that there is a lot happening that many people, even those in the industry, just aren’t that aware of. For example, a recent blog post I came across via a friend’s Twitter feed decried an article in the NYT discussing the implications of Twitter vis a vis traditional journalism. Responding to this article, the post pointed out that it seems inconceivable that journalists should still be on square one with this, asking questions that are, at best, "16 months old." And, this is the New York Times we're talking about, is it really ok that they still don't know? The author of the post writes:
“No, it's not OK for you to be so goddamn behind the times, or to make weak cynical jokes about tech users. Or to pretend that people who use the technology have never thought about the problems that come with it. We get that.
Mainstream news media is still relevant, still powerful, still immensely useful. But we've got to communicate to them that this cutesy curmudgeonly bullshit attitude toward technology and the people who use it has got to stop.”
I agree, though I don't think I'm as upset about it as quoted above. Thus, in the spirit of moving forward I’ve got a story about something that could be one of the next big things for the future of print (that I hope NYT has heard of). A new program, (that recently entered a closed alpha), called printcasting, allows you to take other people’s blog posts, and edit, arrange and publish them into magazine form. This publication can then be viewed virtually or printed. Imagine the potential for creating regional or even community specific magazines, taking blog posts from citizen journalists around the community, adding a little context, some original reporting, editing and bam! you have a comprehensive, geographic specific publication.
I think that this is a big deal because one of the "futures" of the Internet, that I believe is already clear, is aggregation. The success of sites like HuffingtonPost.com or RealClearPolitics.com, as well as Digg.com and Reddit.com, is because they sort through the cluster f@#k that is the Internet. Whether by editorial decisions or popular vote, these sites serve a vital function in an age where there is more information than you can shake many magnitudes of sticks at (and I would guess that at least 70% of it is not even worth a shake). These magazines will let similar sites come into being, online and off, for very small, specific groups by drastically lowering the entry barrier for information aggregation.
Twitter changes the way I use the internet, and the internet shapes the way I live my life to a large degree. Therefore, duh. Get with it newspapers, I'm starting not to feel bad for you anymore. I think that Printcasting, if it works, will be one of the next big step in bridging the gap between virtual communities and real world communities. Using the Internet in yet another way to augment, rather than replace reality. Twitter already does this, and things like printcasting will help take it to the next level.
Posts
