 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Thursday, August 24, 2006
>>"River of news" is a neat moniker, a pithy slogan, and people like that, and so it's an easy story to tell, but then again so what? So two things happen. One: the neat moniker and pithy slogan raises interest and development in an area that publishers and users have both back-burnered up until now. Two: the publishers find a new and appropriate way to distribute editorial. And maybe some new business models to go along with it. As with Danny, I want to get past the personality stuff (where conversational entropy commences immediately) and into the meat of what you're talking about. Because I think *that* stuff is interesting. >>(Especially so what if there's not all that much bandwidth left over for adverts, the monetary lifeblood of 'news' channels.) Okay. But how about if the publishers and broadcasters find creative ways to make money without milking the same old advertising teat they've been squeezing for the last eighty years? Can they do that? I think so. In fact, I'll be putting some of those thoughts up soon at Linux Journal. >>>Into what sort of behavioral contexts will this river of news flow? And if we follow it downstream, to where might it be taking us? Who needs a river of news and where? While standing in line at the supermarket? In your taxicab? In line at the theater? Riding your bike? at the gym? >>I guess the on-the-go set can't get enough of this sort of water, but on a mobile screen its always gonna end up more of a trickle than a life-giving sort of river, isn't it? And in the midst of all the hype sure to follow, isn't it likely that the fundamental question which arises from this metaphor is just altogether missed -- namely a RIVER is something that supports human life. The history of civilization is closely tied to water, is it not? So the question is, is such a river of news life-supporting, in the sense of a real river, or is it not? Let's stop there for a second. Think about it: our current reference frame is cell phones and phone/PDA hybrids currently led by Blackberries and Treos. But the world is getting bigger than that. Manufacturing and service provision is getting more available and customizable than that, at many levels below the old Big Boys. Right now there are new breeds of cell phone companies (one is Rave Wireless, which I consult) that cut their own deals with carriers, phone makers and customers (in Rave's case, universities), where the provided services are wide open to innovation and not limited to the silo'd stuff that the equipment makers and carriers normally provide. Rivers (or choose your metaphor) of text messages can be mashed up and syndicated out selectively to self-selecting groups. Among many other possibilities, some of them surely life-supporting. >>This is a much more interesting question to me than who got there first. Agreed. >> And i suspect it will be examined well enough, once people start noticing that in a world full of information, that river of news is drowning out other significant life-giving signals, and covering the road to higher ground. I think that's a stretch, but I get your point. >>The river of news metaphor also seems to unfortunately confuse the quality of the content with the mode of delivery. News on my mobile, neato keeno, now i can REALLY keep up to date, anywhere. >>But doesn't a human context require some sort of perspective? Isn't understanding more significant than immediacy? Isn't context as important as connectability? And doesn't a human context require a perspective a bit larger than the 3x3 inch screen on your mobile, while you are on your way to, or actually involved in, something else at the time? I think those are all good questions, and I think River of News is one very helpful approach to answering some of them -- because I think behind it is an understanding of simple and direct relationships between writers and readers (not "content producers" and "consumers"). As a writer I am a source. As does every river. That's why I made the points I did about how I'm re-thinking how I write and syndicate my blog. I have a relationship with readers that may need some adjustment, that may need to follow new and helpful paths of progress. >>In this river of news scenario, it looks to me like, no matter where you are, you aren't really there, are you, cause your mind and attention is somewhere else. This is always a risk in every situation in which we find ourselves. Try to look at what's possible here in terms of writers and readers relating in new ways. Also remember that *every* metaphor is wrong in its literal sense. Time is not really money. Life is not really travel. News is not really a river. People don't eat their feeds. The Net is not really tubes. Yet we need metaphors to understand everything. That's just the way we'rel built. Which means we need to settle for a certain degree of wrongness all the time, about everything. Such is life. There are responses to this message:
|
