New Media and the Decline of Old Media

To many Americans,
today?s newspaper is
irrelevant, and network
news is as compelling
as whatever is
being offered over
on the Home
Shopping Network.
Maybe less.
–Terry Eastland

New media are threatening the power and dominance of old media. This isn’t a new story, but analysis about why it’s the case is sparse. Most writing on the new media is still written from a point of view that seems to be either gee whiz promotion or by those who are discovering it for the first time.

Terry Eastland provides an overview that explains how the new media are replacing the old, and why. It’s a good summation of what is happening and offers a clear historical perspective of the growth of the elite mainline media and their humbling decline today.

The divide between
publishers and the
public is collapsing.
This turns mass
media upside down.
It creates media
of the masses.
–Stephen Baker
Heather Green
BusinessWeek

BusinessWeek writers Stephen Baker and Heather Green explain why blogs are necessary for businesses and how major corporations are using the blogosphere.

They also say that blogs are not like the dotcom bubble that burst because it had no substance. Blogs will continue, they say, because they are in the hands of “masses of people with computers, no budget, no business plan, no burn rate…and no bubble.”

The most striking statement is the role the web is beginning to play in the lives of everyday people. Blogs are a public connection. Constantly changing. Ever updating. “They create a global conversation.” Baker and Green say blogs track what’s on our minds. This is the exciting thing.

Not so exciting is their claim that big companies have scale that individual bloggers don’t have, and therefore, the ability to reach niche audiences in a targetted way unavailable in mass media. What’s not exciting about this to me is the absorption of blogs as yet another tool for the self-serving ends of corporations. Yet another form of advertising.

However you feel about this, both articles present a clear and compelling case; blogging is redefining media. Blogging is not only making history, blogging is changing the global conversation.

Can We Talk?

John Richard Neuhaus asked in a rhetorical aside last night on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer if a national conversation is possible on the issue of the rights of individuals and the responsibilities of the civic community to protect those rights. He was part of a panel dissecting the Terri Schiavo story.

A national conversation is occurring about these complicated matters of personal rights, legal protections, moral obligations, ethical considerations and the role of government. It’s a healthy conversation.

I’ve read several printed comments on the web and find the level of thought in the printed media to be, for the most part, insightful and notably balanced. That’s encouraging.

The television coverage, on the other hand, reveals conflict and extreme opinions that don’t leave me hopeful that the conversation can be conducted in a civil, constructive way.

Perhaps it’s the nature of the medium. Visual media need action. They are better at depicting conflict than unraveling subtlety. Thus, the conversation on television often degenerates into polemics.

In the television stories I’ve seen spokespersons for the various groups with agendas in this debate have made statements for impact. This doesn’t necessarily add to our understanding or move the conversation forward constructively.

Perhaps its the nature of the respective media that creates these results. Print results in more reflective, analytical processing of information. Visual media engage us in emotional identification and reaction.

Understanding this, and how different people use the media, may be a necessary survival skill if the debate about end-of-life decisions is to be conducted constructively. That means, to me, that I must take a step back and assess both the messenger and how the messenger is using the medium in order to evaluate the message adequately.

It’s very important to do this today in order to guard against manipulation and exploitation. There are those who have mastered the use of media and seek to manipulate and exploit us to achieve their own ends.


This is not a diatribe against the media. But I do think we who are witnessing this event through the media need to approach media coverage with a critical eye and, perhaps, even with a skeptical frame of mind.

As I write this, I am of the opinion that the national conversation that will be most constructive will occur in the reflective media, which are primarily print-based, and not in the visual media. Television is looking for the cryptic and sensational. This story requires more. It requires dissecting complex rights and responsibilities, moral positions and ethical behavior. Television isn’t good at this.

That said, I thought the News Hour provided us with a well-rounded discussion by people who were informed in end of life matters and who, while certainly opinionated, were civil. It presented a fuller range of opinion than I’ve seen on other programs.

I hope we can conduct this conversation in a manner that leads to constructive policies, if such are needed, and provides all of us with better information to prepare us for important decisions about our own lives and those of our loved ones.

I hope we rise above polemics and simplistic slogans and get to a conversation that does inform and enlighten.

Obsolete Schools, Declining Industries

“American high schools
are obsolete. By
obsolete, I don’t
just mean that
our high schools
are broken, flawed
and underfunded. …
By obsolete, I
mean that our
high schools – even
when they are
working exactly as
designed – cannot
teach our kids
what they need
to know today.
–Bill Gates

No matter where you turn today, it seems the basic institutions and organizations that have been the foundation of the society in this country are found to be wanting. Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times, is concerned that our educational institutions are not preparing young persons with the skills they need to compete in the global marketplace.

While his point is that the educational system must teach skills that make youth more competitive in a global marketplace, there is another lesson there that isn’t about competition. It’s about the ability of an institution to help people function in new social and cultural realities.

That’s a much more challenging concern, it seems to me, because it’s about how we adapt to new conditions, conditions so fundamentally different from past eras that the institutions can’t keep up with the changes.

Managerial capitalism
has outlived the
society it was once
designed to serve.
It successfully achieved
the efficient production
of goods and services,
but today’s individuals
want more.
–James Maxmin
Shoshana Zuboff

Shoshana Zuboff and James Maxmin contend that managerial capitalism has outlived its effectiveness. They claim that newly empowered individuals demand more today than the old form of capitalism can deliver. The search for meaning and purpose is deeper and more complex than mass market capitalism can meet. They propose “deep support” services for a fee as the next generation of capitalism.

While Zuboff and Maxmin concentrate on consumption, their analysis–that people want more meaningful relationships is helpful. I’m don’t agree with them about consumption, but their analysis helps us to understand the society in which we live and how it is responding to human needs and desires. We can study it without accepting the premise that a more helpful form of consumption is the answer. In fact, more consumption isn’t the answer, but it’s all the marketplace can offer. The model is breaking down.

Not only are
our various civic
and religious structures
and systems in
in fundamental
disarray, but our
conceptual frameworks
are shattered too.
–Gary Gunderson

A compelling analysis from a faith perspective is found in Gary Gunderson’s book Boundary Leaders. Gunderson is a prophetic, even loving, voice critiquing the existing religious and civic structures. He’s not a harsh critic, he’s a product of the very institutions he’s concerned about. He says they are not only in disarray, they also lack the conceptual frameworks to function well today. They’ve fallen and they can’t get up.

Each critique offers its own suggestion for a way out of this dilemma. Gunderson’s is more attractive to me. His thesis is that boundaries are not limits, they are artificial lines that can become intersections where opportunity is found, if we see them in that way and work to intersect with those who are on the boundaries. The bad news is that established institutions can’t, on their own, make the change that is required to create new solutions to the long-term problems that plague us. New thinking is required and existing institutions get mired in thinking about how to survive.

The good news is that there are people working already at the edges. Gunderson calls them Boundary Leaders. Because they are free of institutional encumbrance, they can think new thoughts and create new solutions.

There is hope in each of these critiques. Each critic is holding up higher standards, better organizations, more effective relationships. None is criticizing merely for the sake of criticism. Each sees hope and is working on steps to get to a better place in the future. This is healthy criticism, and organizations that want to recover their vitality will do well to hear and enable change to start.

Health Facts–Did You Know?

Every major
developed nation
has achieved
universal coverage
while spending
one half to
two-thirds as
much per capita
as we do and
achieving health
outcomes at least
as good as ours
or better.
America does not
need more money
for health care.
We need a better
system.
–Dr. Henry Simmons

Health and wholeness are moral and ethical issues that go far beyond economics and delivery of services. But the debate in this country bogs down in these two areas. Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times says entrenched interests have kept the current inefficiencies in the U.S. health care system because they profit from the present conditions. He also says this makes it enormously difficult to change.

On the face of it, the current system is broken and must be repaired. You don’t have to be an expert analyst to know this. Everyone one of us who has come up against the health care delivery system has experienced it. That’s why it’s so important. It’s a day-to-day part of our lives.

No one lives without coming into contact with it, and its problems. Therefore, it affects us in fundamental ways–our dignity, our use of resources, our sense of wholeness, our relationships, our ability to live a life of quality. We should have a system that includes everyone, and it should be carried out fairly and equitably. That’s a theological issue. It’s about justice. Justice is an expression of faith.

The National Coalition for Health Care offers these facts that, it seems to me, pertain to justice and the wholeness of life:

  • The number of uninsured rose by 1.4 million people between 2002 and 2003.
  • Approximately 45 million Americans, or 15.6 percent of the population, had no health insurance coverage in 2003.
  • Young adults (aged 18 to 24) remained least likely of any group to have health insurance in 2001. More than 28 percent of adults in this age group lack health insurance coverage.
  • Uninsured children face a higher risk of developmental delays than those with health coverage.
  • Uninsured adults hospitalized for a traumatic injury are more than twice as likely to die in the hospital as insured adults — even after controlling for the severity of the injury.
  • In 2001, the cost of medical care for uninsured Americans residents totaled $98.9 billion.
  • The United States spends about $35 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with medical care, often for preventable diseases that could be treated more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.
  • Americans spent 1.4 trillion dollars on health care in 2001.
  • The United States spend a greater portion of the gross domestic product on health care than any other industrialized nation.
  • Despite its high level of health care spending, the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden and Japan.
  • Americans use about 3 billion prescriptions each year.
  • On average, seniors spend about $2,300 on legal prescription drugs.
  • More people die in a given year from medical errors than from automobile accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS.
  • Twenty-two percent of sick adults in America were sent for duplicate tests by different health care professionals in the last two years.
  • In 2002, twelve percent of sick American adults reported receiving the wrong medication or dose by a hospital, doctor, or pharmacist in the last two years.
  • All “Did you know?” facts can be found under the “Facts About Health Care” section of the website of the National Coalition on Health Care .

The Health Care Crisis

Frankly, the
problems of
our health
care system
have become
so large,
so serious,
and so pervasive
that they
are beyond
the ability
of any one
organization,
no matter
how large
or shrewd,
to overcome.
–Dr. Henry Simmons,
National Coalition
on Health Care

“We are in very serious trouble. And unless our political leaders act quickly, our problems will become even more severe,” Dr. Henry Simmons, President of the National Coalition on Health Care , told the members of the General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist Church recently. He was addressing the national health care crisis.

The nonpartisan coalition, whose members include Verizon, Pfizer, Lucent, Georgia-Pacific, the AFL-CIO and the National Council of Churches, among many others, believes health care reform must occur quickly and comprehensively in order to stave off even worse conditions than we already face.

Dr. Simmons told the GBCS that rapidly escalating costs, a huge and growing number of citizens without health coverage and an epidemic of substandard care threaten our health, our national economy and our industrial base. The coalition projects 53.7 million will be uninsured in five years. Today 45 million are without health coverage, an increase of more than 10 million in two years time.

Every 30
seconds
someone
in the U.S.
files for
bankruptcy
in the
aftermath
of a
serious
health
problem.
–Prof. Elizabeth Warren
Harvard Law School

The economic toll in this escalating crisis is both personal and systemic, undermining individuals, governments and corporations. Every 30 seconds someone in the U.S. files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem, according to Professor Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School. Dr. Simmons told the group “the projected liability of Medicare alone (excluding Medicaid) is $27 trillion in 75 years, eclipsing the projected deficit for Social Security which is estimated at $3.7 trillion by the Comptroller General of the U.S. , David M. Walker

Simmons said uninsurance results in staggering economic losses. Citing figures from the Institute of Medicine, he said total economic losses attributable to uninsurance amount to between $65 billion and $130 billion a year.

He said substandard care is also a result of the current system. Reviewing the findings of a RAND study that reviewed thousands of patients in 12 metropolitan areas, he told the group the study found that patients received on 54.9 percent of recommended care.

Simmons said the health care crisis is not beyond solutions but reform must be systemic, it must be implemented systemwide, and it must be accomplished quickly (within three years.)

The National Health Care Coalition calls for five measures to solve the crisis:

  • coverage for all Americans within 2-3 years after passage of enabling legislation;
  • manage costs more effectively through a core benefit package and transparent supplemental coverage;
  • accelerate development of an integrated national information technology infrastructure and incentives and capital for upfront investments to build infrastructure;
  • reduce or eliminate cost-shifting (charging one patient more to cover costs for what another patient doesn’t pay);
  • simplify administration of health care.
  • The most hopeful thing Simmons told the Board members is that despite the enormity of the problem, it can be solved if we are determined, comprehensive and committed.

How Health Care Costs are Changing Ministry

In recent
months, GM
officials have
said soaring
health care
spending has
become
the leading
factor
undermining
the automaker?s
competitiveness.
–The Detroit News

General Motors attributes some of its current problems to the rising costs of health care for workers. The company says $1,400 of the cost of each car it makes goes to pay health care costs. That’s not the whole reason for GM’s difficulties, of course, but it’s significant that the company sees health care as a contributing factor

It’s not being discussed in these terms yet, but health care costs are also contributing to the re-shaping of ministry in many mainline denominations. Those denominations such as mine, The United Methodist Church, with many small local congregations–roughly 25,000 in our communion–are seeing personnel costs increase so rapidly they threaten placement of seminary-trained clergy.

My point here is not to debate whether this is a good or a bad thing. I have no axe to grind in this debate. But, it seems to me decisions about the quality of education and professional skills we want in our pastoral leaders should be made based on solid theological and biblical discussion and not on economic necessity. Economics should not dictate how the church carries out ministry.

the health
system is
rapidly
becoming
a health
hazard
–Barbara Ehrenreich

However, when health care costs increase by double digits as they have for the past several years, that’s exactly what happens. The costs of maintaining full-time clergy become too burdensome for small membership congregations to sustain. They reduce costs by moving to part-time clergy leadership, lay pastors and the placement of a group of pastors defined in our denomination as “local pastors.” Often, these are persons who have full-time jobs and function as pastors in addition to their first vocation.

They are highly dedicated and often skilled in multiple disciplines. However, they face time constraints which limit their ability to seek seminary training in the disciplines that have historically been considered important for effective ministry–church history, Bible study, theology, and religious education. They are unlikely to pursue clinical pastoral education and other forms of specialized skill development because these require a time commitment they can’t make.

I came into the ministry through this route and I’m especially sensitive to the extraordinary demands that confront an individual who is trying to work full-time, serve the needs of a local congregation and complete a course of study leading to licensing and, ultimately, ordination.

Healthcare
costs are
sucking the
blood out
of the
economy
–Barbara Ehrenreich

Moreover, these individuals usually function without the community support of other clergy because they can’t attend group meetings except during their few off-hours. They do course work for ministry through correspondence. Thus, they function without benefit of professional support and pursue knowlege outside of an educational community while attempting to meet the considerable demands that dual vocations, family and congregations place upon them.

What does this have to do with health care? My denomination is sliding into this pattern not through a conscious, planned strategy, but by default. It’s the result of adaption to economic circumstances driven by health care costs.

Barbara Ehrenreich says in the LA Times that health care costs are sucking the life out of the economy of the United States. If General Motors and The United Methodist Church are both experiencing economic constraints because of health care, why, for Pete’s sake, isn’t someone doing something about it? Neither of these is a small business lacking in the resources to tackle a problem that is fundamentally changing them. You would think they’d rather be in control of their own destiny, in so far as possible, than to be in a reactionary posture that, basically, leaves them out of control.

I believe access to health care should be a universal human right. It should be beyond question that with the resources available to us in the 21st. Century that everyone should have access to prevention and treatment that make for physical health. But if that’s not enough reason to change our health care practices then the survival of our basic industries and institutions should be. We are at a point where that survival is put in jeopardy by runaway health care costs.

Rather than spurious debate about Social Security, we need to be problem-solving the health care crisis in this country.

Open Source Radio

There is a
profound shift
under way
in the way
we use
technology
that allows
everyone
to have
a voice.
–Joel Hollander
CEO, Infinity
Broadcasting


Podcast radio is here.The first open source radio station is receiving podcasts from listeners starting today, and it will start broadcasting on May 16.

Poynter Online reports that Infinity Broadcasting’s KCYC-FM, San Francisco will drop its talk radio format and broadcast listener’s podcasts. The station will stream at KYOURADIO.com Open Source Radio.

As the website points out, ten months ago podcasting was unknown. Today, it’s a radio format.

The Cost of New Media–Less Comprehension?

some experts
worry the
shift from
print- to
video-based
instruction
could be
coming at
a cost of less
comprehension.
G. Jeffrey MacDonald

Watching video seems the least demanding of passive pursuits. We do it for relaxation, entertainment and sometimes for learning. But we are not taught how to extract information using the same critical skills that are required in reading, for example.

As a result, we may not be getting the full value of the content available in a video, or we may be receiving information that, if viewed with a more critical eye, might be received with different meaning than intended by the producer.

This sounds esoteric, but it isn’t. It’s really apropos to the increasing use of visual media by youth and adults to receive information. It is in this way that media shape our attitudes and form our perceptions. It’s how culture is, in part, created and passed on. So, it’s not really an exercise without real-world application. In the long-term, it’s about values education, in addition to other results.

Generations reared on Sesame Street have developed viewing skills intuitively which means their viewing habits are not critically formed. Lacking this critique leaves us unprepared to analyze what we see for messages that are conveyed subtly. I’m not concerned with the hidden persuasion that Vance Packard wrote about years ago. His thesis was that text messages could be delivered subliminally to manipulate us.

Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, G. Jeffrey MacDonald reports on the efforts of educators to help viewers use critical thinking skills when watching video. The concern of many educators is that viewing visual media stimulates emotional response, but doesn’t result in better comprehension of information. When we don’t apply critical thinking to our viewing we act as if viewing is a harmless pasttime. It isn’t. We’re processing the world even if we’re not fully conscious of the process itself.

Therefore, the idea that we are passive consumers of visual images coming at us in an ever-flowing stream is unhealthy because it leaves us unprotected. Visual images are designed to influence us for nearly every purpose under the sun. The messages aren’t hidden text edited into single frames, as Packard proposed. His concern was that hidden messages would affect our perceptions even if we don’t comprehend them consciously.

But in our highly mediated world messages are packaged and presented to us with skill and careful forethought. We need to be aware of the subtle ways this packaging is designed to influence our emotions and our consciousness. And we need to teach these skills to our children.

It’s true that children develop a healthy skepticism without being taught overtly. Their experience of the world the see on television and their real world don’t always jibe and they learn to doubt what they see on the screen very early.

Leaving this to chance is not a good practice, however. It leaves too much to the child who has no means to evaluate the authenticity of the visuals except personal experience. That’s not fair to the kids.

I have long thought that schools and churches should be teaching media education as standard parts of their curricula. And parents should be taught how to assist their children to view media with the critical skills necessary to process our world. The cost of these visual media is not just the loss of comprehension, it is the shaping of our perceptions without critical thinking. It’s about how we help our children perceive the world and what values are necessary to live in it.

The Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a broadcast regulation that in its simplest form imposed upon broadcasters the responsibility to provide their audiences with a forum for all sides in a public issue that received attention on their airtime. If a so-called liberal spoke on an issue in a public service program, for example, a countervailing viewpoint from the conservative side had to be given equal time.

Utterly
marginalized
in the
post-doctrine
landscape
were the
voices of
women …
people of
color and
not only
progressives,
but even
liberals
–Susan J. Douglass

This doctrine arises from the principle of ownership of the airwaves by the public. In Fairness Now, Susan J. Douglass offers an overview of the Fairness Doctrine, noting that it was not a panacea, but it was better than the present broadcast environment in which dissenting voices and those of women, minorities and others with limited access to media barely get a hearing.

The broadcast spectrum is not owned by individual licensees who use the airwaves for profit. The airwaves are held in public trust, administered by the government. The government is the protector of the people’s rights.

In 1987 amidst great fanfare this simple idea was attacked, mainly by corporate owners of broadcast licenses, and the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. This occurred as deregulation swept through the nation. Today, it’s hardly recognized that this principle of fairness was written into policy to encourage and protect free speech in the public airwaves. It supported the principle that broadcasters operate in the public interest and they must be held accountable to provide for the public dialogue as a condition of being granted the ability to profit from the publicly held commodity, the spectrum they are allowed to use to transmit messages. It remains as a vestige of broadcast licensing and most people are oblivious to the principle of fairness in broadcasting.

Writing in In These Times, Jessica Clarke and Tracey Van Slyke present an historical summary of this battle for fairness and suggest how a wider range of viewpoints could be injected into the public discourse. Writing as progressives, they advocate for the inclusion of progressive voices.

Whether you agree with their politics or not, the point they make about creating a media environment that is more inclusive and diverse is a good thing to consider. Critics from nearly every point of view are concerned about the quality of the public discourse and of news coverage today. That concern alone should motivate consideration of a more inclusive and civil discourse on the the issues that shape our lives together as a society.

Young Adults Abandon Newspapers

…the future of
the U.S. news
industry is
seriously
threatened
by the seemingly
irrevocable
move by young
people away
from traditional
sources of news
–Merrill Brown

I am struck by the stark contrast between two readership surveys I’ve seen recently. Editor and Publisher reports on a study commissioned by The Carnegie Corporation of readership patterns of young adults 18 to 34 years-of-age. It found that young readers are abandoning newspapers at a rate that threatens the future of the publications and, in fact, the rush to the web puts all traditional media in question.

A second study is not yet published but it was completed internally for one of our denominational publications. It reveals a readership pattern that nearly reverses the data. The typical reader of the main program journal of the church is older than 50, female and resides in a small town. This reader does not use the web.

…young people
don’t want
to rely on
the morning
paper on
their doorstep
or the
dinnertime
newscast
for up-to-date
information;
in fact,
they?as
well as
others?want
their news
on demand,
when it
works for
them.
–Merrill Brown

None of this comes as a surprise, but it does point out a challenge that’s widespread in the publishing industry. Publishers face a balancing act to preserve their existing audiences while attempting to attract new audiences attuned to new media. They have their own preferences and needs for information, so it isn’t merely a transition in technology. It’s also a change in culture–in packaging, content and format.

Denominational publishers also face stagnating revenue from book sales and many have reduced staff and taken other steps to reduce costs. Digital content does not, at this stage, produce revenue to replace losses from traditional publications. However, overhead in the form of staff and equipment must be paid. It’s a double bind.

Current profitable operations must be maintained while new media are developed. Some major newspapers have begun to charge for online content, but analysts say this may not be viable in the long term. It is more likely that free content results in a relationship with readers that leads to paid subscriptions in print.

If the economic bottom line is unclear, the bottom line for readership is very clear. Young people are already using digital media and these media are the channels through which they get their information. As the Carnegie study notes, the way we are accessing news today raises fundamental questions about the news as we have known it. The bottom line for traditional media, both religious and for-profit, is clear. It’s change or die.