• by April 5, 2006

MEDIA 101 -- A friend recently asked us to help his son with a college project about media. For those who aren't currently enrolled in Media 101, here are his questions and our answers to them.

Q: What made you want to become involved with the media?

A: We've been interested in media ever since we took a course on it in junior high school and read Marshall McLuhan's books on media. We became fascinated with the business of media as a teenagers reading the columns of two media critics: The Village Voice's Alexander Cockburn, and Soho Weekly News' Lewis Grossberger.

Q: What media outlet (newspapers, Internet, television, etc.) do you use most often to get your information?

A: Our media consumption habits have changed dramatically over the past decade. We used to get most of our business-related information from newspapers, trade magazines and newsletters--and most of our personal information from newspapers, magazines and TV. For the past several years, we've been getting most of our information from the Internet--often from the Web sites of newspaper, magazine and newsletter publishers.

But most of the best information comes from speaking directly with people.

Q: What media outlet(s) do you think is most effective, and why?

A: That depends. We believe the Internet is the most effective medium for getting information out quickly and accessibly. It's instantaneous and ubiquitous. You can access anytime and anywhere, which is pretty cool. But we still think other media can do a more effective job of delivering certain kinds of information and content. We believe some stories are still meant to be consumed in magazine and printed newspaper formats, where the photography, artwork, design and typographic treatments are as much a part of the story as the information itself.

As for literature, we've tried reading some books online, but find it impossible to curl up with our PC in front of the fireplace, so to speak.

In general, we'd say time-sensitive information is better suited for the instantaneous nature of the Internet, while thoughtful, relaxed, and laid-back information is better in print, TV or cinema.

Q: What direction do you think media is headed in the future, and why?

A: We think media will become even more accessible as mobile technologies proliferate and become more standardized and less expensive. We believe people will be able to access anything, anytime, anywhere. The big issues will be developing business models to pay for media content on a myriad of different media platforms. Some will be one-time or subscription fees. Others will be ad-supported. Others will be somewhere in between. The bigger question has to do with media content. What happens to content when it goes completely digital and can be accessed or adapted to a number of media platforms simultaneously? As we've said previously, consuming information on different platforms has different effects and produces a different experience. A Harry Potter novel may use the same words in printed book, audio book, and feature film versions, but they are completely different experiences. The issues of "versioning" and "platforming" will be big deals in the future.

Q: What advantages do you think the Internet has over other media outlets? What are some disadvantages?

A: The Internet's big advantages are that it is always on and always available, that you can find much of what you need through it, and that it has the ability to create new social communities. The Internet has become our "media concierge." It's the place we go to first when we want to find information about just about anything. The social community part is not something we personally participate in, but we are fascinated with it. The ability of new bands to be launched via MySpace.com, or businesses to be built via Linkedin.com is amazing.

Another big advantage, and one that is potentially disruptive to traditional media companies, is the emergence of consumer-generated media online. Consumers always generated media, but it was one-to-one, or one-to-few. We wrote letters, gathered around watercoolers, had bull sessions. Now it's one-to-many, and potentially one-to-masses. Blogs, vlogs and social network pages have the ability to reach the same scale of audiences as the biggest media companies in the world. That's a game-changer.

The Internet's big disadvantages are that it's still not the mainstream. Online and broadband penetration are rising rapidly, but we shouldn't forget that most people still don't use the Internet the way its early adopters do. Eventually that will change, and the Internet will be the primary backbone for exchanges of all media data. Another big disadvantage is that cyberspace isn't always the real world. It's often more of a virtual reality, and that raises big questions about the validity and veracity of the content people consume online. Understanding those differences is really important.

The other big disadvantage is that you still need to be able to get online. As ubiquitous as it is, it's still often hard to find access, especially wi-fi. It's not like picking up the telephone or a cell phone--yet.

Q: What are the biggest differences in getting the news from television, radio, Internet, and newspaper?

 A: They are each different. McLuhan described interactive and participatory media as "hot" and laid-back, passive media as "cool." TV is a cool medium, while radio, and we would say the Internet, are hot media. We bring different mindsets to content we consume on those media, which affects the way we think about them. In general, we think we pay more attention to information, including news, that we consume in print. The physical act of reading vs. looking at or hearing news means you have to be more focused on that content. When people get news via TV, radio or the Internet, there are lots of distractions and they may not be processing the information as intently. A big difference with the Internet is that when you consume news online, you can immediately link to related stories or information, or search for more.