Monday, January 7, 2008

Near Future Stories about the Web

Can we really predict how much the Web will change five years from now? New Yorker Staff Writer Ken Auletta asked a few notable icons of Internet culture wrestled this question at The New Yorker Conference/2012: Stories From The Near Future in May of 2007.




  • Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post claims that the rise of citizen Journalists will make the profession more accountable, spelling an end to the use of anonymous sources. When the future is divided between the mainstream media and citizen journalists, transparency will become commonplace. Citizen journalists aren't as willing to sell their independence to gain access to a story. This will make fact-checking even more important. Is Huffington tacitly approving Robin Miller's prescription for saving the newspaper trade? You may recall his USC Annenberg article that we read earlier. According to Hufington, the hybrid future is already here.


  • Craig Newmark, the founder of Craigslist, imagines that many of the world's social problems may be improved through the advance of online social communities. Like Huffington, he agrees that truth has no hiding place on the Web. He even muses that we may see the Web allowing us a restoration of constitutional democracy


  • Barry Diller, creator of Fox Broadcasting Company, tells us that we will all be much more comfortable doing business online. The Web's bandwidth will increase and e-commerce applications will improve, improving the usability of online transaction services.


In general, the interviewer canvasses his panel's views thouroughly. I found this episode the New Yorker Conference Podcast a bit difficult to sit through, however. The interviewees spend a lot of time cross-checking eachother's analysis of what may or may not happen five years from now.


New Yorker writer Larissa MacFarquhar uses a much simpler interviewing style than Auletta, one that is friendly to small-screen Podcast devices. Conducting the Solutions: 2012 episode for the same conference, MacFarquhar allows her panelists to express their views from start-to-finish. She asks a few leading questions during the interview and leaves out the panel discussions at the end. Her interviewing style is still deeply informative, but the narrative is simpler. This is well-suited to an audience that may be watching this podcast in transit, on a small video I-Pod screen.


We are beginning to see Apple TV drives available in stores. This may be a more appropriate venue for Auletta's more complex approach to interviewing. Perhaps Apple TV will take off, perhaps not. Until then, as the T sways and screeches along the curved tracks, I'll gravitate to the simpler interviews with more linear narratives.



Powered by ScribeFire.

2 comments:

Iseut said...

The format of these New Yorker videos made me think about audience and market as well as web video vs. television.
There was a presumption on the part of Auletta that his attending audience knew all the people on the panel – and I’m sure they did. Whether the web audience did or not was addressed smoothly by incorporating names into the text introduction above the video.
I found it supremely annoying that there was no running time posted in the play bar. Total running times (TRT’s) are extremely helpful, as I’m sure Neilsen would agree, because they enhance usability. If I know a video is 20 minutes long but I’ve only got 3 minutes to kill before my next meeting, I can bookmark it until later when I have the time to watch it. The New Yorker videos didn’t give me that information so I was grateful for your superb synopsis, Charles.

esouza said...

I think Huffington brought up a good point in the panel discussion (though I agree, Michelle, that it would've been nice to know how long a video-watching process I was getting myself into before proceeding). While I agree that the increase in number of citizen journalists might bring more transparency to the field, I have to wonder how the citizen journalists' lack of an editor affects them. Being your own editor means you have no one making sure you've done your homework, so to speak. When you have no one holding you accountable for your work, might journalistic principles go out the window? Just something I'm thinking about...