So what is happening to content -- the broad word we use to describe everything from data and articles to video and audio --be it songs or news or movies?
With the coming of broadband, social media and blogs in a big way, the future could be "atomised" for piecemeal consumption of what used to be sold in big packages -- such as newspapers, TV channels and magazines. Here is my take on this after meeting Google's Nikesh Arora last week.
12 October 2010
Plagiarism: Last Refuge of the Hack In A Hurry?
We have been talking of "cut-and-paste" journalism ever since word processing happened big time. But then, as they say in Hindi, "नक़ल में भी अकल चाहिए" --Nakal mein bhi akal chahiye (You need brains even to copy).
Apparently, the most respected India Today has witnessed a shameful case of two paragraphs being lifted straight out of another article. And the subject matter is Rajnikanth, India's own movie superstar, while the story from which it was lifted is a US-based online magazine, Slate.
Honestly, why could not the writer simply at least paraphrase the wretched insight he/she may have got from Slate? Beats me.
Also a gentle reminder for those who try to steal: You may not violate copyright in all cases, but on the Web, you can be caught out. In fact, I find that my tweets on Twitter are routinely stolen, but what is touching is that my followers come and tell me about what is going on while I am too busy/lazy to care.
I think there are solutions emerging on the Internet to catch violators, but it is sad that plagiarism is the last refuge of the hack with a deadline, with apologies to Samuel Johnson, who said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Apparently, the most respected India Today has witnessed a shameful case of two paragraphs being lifted straight out of another article. And the subject matter is Rajnikanth, India's own movie superstar, while the story from which it was lifted is a US-based online magazine, Slate.
Honestly, why could not the writer simply at least paraphrase the wretched insight he/she may have got from Slate? Beats me.
Also a gentle reminder for those who try to steal: You may not violate copyright in all cases, but on the Web, you can be caught out. In fact, I find that my tweets on Twitter are routinely stolen, but what is touching is that my followers come and tell me about what is going on while I am too busy/lazy to care.
I think there are solutions emerging on the Internet to catch violators, but it is sad that plagiarism is the last refuge of the hack with a deadline, with apologies to Samuel Johnson, who said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
4 October 2010
Exposing the expose - How media spin should be watched
So you think investigative journalism is cool? Or that a sting operation rocks?
The thing can be nasty and explode on your face - especially if you are not thorough. After Channel 7 -- the Australian TV channel -- "exposed" security flaws at the Commonwealth Games arrangements through a reporter's sting, its rival ABC exposed the expose by investigating the whole thing, and found it --in fact, proved it -- to be grossly dubious. Here is a brilliant video on the expose that exposed the expose.
The thing can be nasty and explode on your face - especially if you are not thorough. After Channel 7 -- the Australian TV channel -- "exposed" security flaws at the Commonwealth Games arrangements through a reporter's sting, its rival ABC exposed the expose by investigating the whole thing, and found it --in fact, proved it -- to be grossly dubious. Here is a brilliant video on the expose that exposed the expose.
2 August 2010
Does social media screw up breaking news?
Here is an interesting perspective. "Distributed verification" of breaking news is great, but nothing like well-verified, well-packaged news, right?
28 July 2010
27 July 2010
WikiLeaks: The Al Qaeda of the Free Press?
The phenomenon has just begun, but WikiLeaks --as the "stateless" organisation (why does this remind me of Al Qaeda ?)-- may well spread fear among the powerful (as opposed to terror among the innocent).
Here is a quick link to the controversially powerful phenomenon that is shaking the world media this week.
Here is a quick link to the controversially powerful phenomenon that is shaking the world media this week.
18 July 2010
"We need more opinions in news"
Here is an interesting perspective from respected technology blogger Michael Arrington on the importance of opinion in news. This is a tricky topic, but it is clear to me that feigned neutrality is not going to help readers get the real 'truth' as distinct from mere 'facts.' The purpose of good journalism is to serve readers/viewers/listeners/citizens. The pursuit of facts and truth must be related to this. Otherwise, journalism would be another bureaucracy.
13 July 2010
The Angry Old Man vs Jackass Journalist
Dear Mr. Amitabh Bachchan,
Chances are very low that you will read this blog because you are a superstar while I am not. But I was tempted to write this following your fascinating exchanges with my fellow journalist Rajeev Masand of CNN-IBN (whom I have never met) on Twitter. Since it concerns critical aspects of journalistic and media conduct (and this blog is on media issues), I decided to jump in.
I have once in the past talked about film critics and filmmakers clashing when I wrote about the conflict between Khalid Mohamed (who has been a colleague of sorts twice in my career) and Ram Gopal Varma.
Today, I write about your taking offence to Mr. Masand calling Akshay Kumar a “jackass” I would have expected Mr. Kumar to defend himself, given his strength and propensity to jump from tall buildings for something as minor as a Thums Up bottle, but it was nice of you to marshal your formidable intellectual resources to defend Akki.
I know you are not in love with the media.
In the 1970s, you and Stardust were estranged for a long time, before they decided to say you won. Nice of them. But Stardust did survive for long without The Big B, because they believed that what they wrote was as important as the subjects they wrote on.
Things have changed, however. The simple fact is that film gossip sells. We in the media write reviews and carry gossip for the same reason why Bollywood stars dance around trees. It sells or appeals to our readers/audience, the same way your wriggles and strange outfits impress the people we call fans. Occasionally, the fans and readers turn out to be the same folks.
Was it not you who said in a rare and famous interview to Madhu Jain of Indian Express that you get paid a lot for dancing around trees because the difficult thing is to make “something stupid look convincing.?”
You work for your producers, directors and fans.
Mediapersons work for their publishers, editors and readers/viewers/listeners – as the case maybe. That includes critics.
We often are in different industries and address different audiences.
In case you think film journalists are part of the film fraternity, I urge you to think differently. It is true that some journalists become close to filmstars to get stories, but that is an occupational hazard. Unfortunately, some in the process end up with more groupism than journalism in their track records.
Journalists compete with each other for stories, and are known more to fight within their fraternity than jump to each other’s defence. Sadly, we are not invested with the comradely loyalty of the kind you bestow upon Mr. Akshay Kumar.
Mr. Masand has defended himself in his own way, but I have to stand up for him today not to defend him but to make a point.
Just as film journalists carry filmstar gossip and delve into their private lives to please their audience, it turns out that Bollywood has also dubiously stepped into the media realm to please its own film promotions. There is a peculiar controversy or media story that is spun artificially around movies every time there is a release due. I call this the abuse of the media, and the media stupid to fall for this. But guess what? This sells, too.
In the latest incident, Mr.Masand is understandably offended by Mr. Akshay Kumar’s visit to the ailing R.K. Laxman. I will not stand up for him calling Mr. Kumar a “jackass” for doing so in promoting his forthcoming film (in which he ostensibly plays cartoonist Laxman’s “Common Man”). But I will instead stand up –like you have done for Akki – for Mr. Laxman.
Rasipuram Krishnaswamy Laxman is India’s most respected cartoonist. Undisputably. He is the Amitabh Bachchan and more for a generation of mediapersons – if not two or three. Do you think it is decent to use the illness of a venerated figure and build a publicity campaign around it for a movie?
Has Mr. Akshay Kumar ever before in his career crossed paths with the eminent cartoonist? Why is he behaving like a cartoon when the grand old man of Indian cartooning is lying ill?
Look hard, Mr. Bachchan. Mr. Masand is only doing for Mr. Laxman what you are doing for Mr. Akshay Kumar.
The media is an institution. It has a social responsibility. It has a dignity, too.
I should think Rajeev Masand is a jackass for tweeting in casual language. I would have preferred him to say, “Akshay Kumar’s cheap use of Laxman’s illness for film promo is insensitive and sad.”
Perhaps he used the word jackass for the same reason you did my favourite drunken scene in Amar, Akbar Anthony. It kind of makes people remember you.
Considering the consideration(your expression in Namak Halal), I would urge you to understand that it is best for the media and the film industry to have a healthy Chinese Wall between them. Or call it an arm’s length. My intention is not to hurt you. I do not expect you to be an Angry Old Man, anymore than I expect Rajeev Masand to be a Jackass Journo.
It so happens that journalists, in their dog-eat-dog keyboard-pushing deadline-driven careers, have their own dignity and professionalism, not visible to your famous eyes.
It is your job to defend your dignity. It is our job to speak up for ours.
If you are reading this by chance, having taken time off from your busy career as TV host, model, actor and celebrity father-in-law, I thank you for your valuable time and giving me an opportunity to liven up an otherwise dull media industry blog.
Have fun.
P.S. I hope Rajeev Masand can smile at my description of him as a jackass. Among our myriad shortcomings, we journalists can sometimes laugh at ourselves.
14 June 2010
Newspapers are out, online is not (yet) in. OECD ponders
The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has conducted a study on the business of newspapers and the future of news in an evident response to declining advertising revenues in the backdrop of a relative unwillingness of readers to pay for online content.
I found it interesting that governments are thinking about helping newspapers--because they help democracy. So, after rejecting government support for ad cash, will newspapers and news gathering machines accept government patronage again? Interesting question.
I do think the world of news is going to be more varietous, as the report itself is suggesting. In fact, it already is. But revenues and money? Ah, we are still wondering where this is all going.
I found it interesting that governments are thinking about helping newspapers--because they help democracy. So, after rejecting government support for ad cash, will newspapers and news gathering machines accept government patronage again? Interesting question.
I do think the world of news is going to be more varietous, as the report itself is suggesting. In fact, it already is. But revenues and money? Ah, we are still wondering where this is all going.
12 May 2010
A Reality Check on Content: whose quality is it anyway?
Frankly, I don't like some of the things being said in this article.
But it is highly relevant. The fact is that content -- good content -- is no longer an objective thing.
Nor is it confined to one Website.
Not is it necessarily "objective."
I do believe that "curation" and "editing" are critical in the journalistic sense (my favourite example being mineral water being a guaranteed version of the free liquid)
However, as this guy argues, point of view, virality and relevance in a narrow, defined sense are critical. Accept it.
But it is highly relevant. The fact is that content -- good content -- is no longer an objective thing.
Nor is it confined to one Website.
Not is it necessarily "objective."
I do believe that "curation" and "editing" are critical in the journalistic sense (my favourite example being mineral water being a guaranteed version of the free liquid)
However, as this guy argues, point of view, virality and relevance in a narrow, defined sense are critical. Accept it.
5 May 2010
Is traditional journalism "useless"?
Here is a piece that actually systematically lists the virtues of old journalism, and describing it as "useless".
I find it interesting, because it is written by an entrepreneur, not a journalist. His clear elaboration is welcome, but after going through it, I suddenly realised that something that is "useless" need not be "irrelevant".
Don't tell me people don't want credible, fair and lucid content.
My simple take is that journalism has moved one step back in order to be more relevant than ever before. In other words, the relevance has shifted to proving the same virtues all over again, but in an "open universe" that the Web and convergence enable.
You can't control the press or the editor, but over a period of time, by word of mouth and for sheer clarity, people will-- and in fact - do seek journalistic skills.
I experience that myself on both Facebook and Twitter, where I am like anyone, but get appreciated for journalistic skills. Some things don't change, though the circle might widen.
I find it interesting, because it is written by an entrepreneur, not a journalist. His clear elaboration is welcome, but after going through it, I suddenly realised that something that is "useless" need not be "irrelevant".
Don't tell me people don't want credible, fair and lucid content.
My simple take is that journalism has moved one step back in order to be more relevant than ever before. In other words, the relevance has shifted to proving the same virtues all over again, but in an "open universe" that the Web and convergence enable.
You can't control the press or the editor, but over a period of time, by word of mouth and for sheer clarity, people will-- and in fact - do seek journalistic skills.
I experience that myself on both Facebook and Twitter, where I am like anyone, but get appreciated for journalistic skills. Some things don't change, though the circle might widen.
12 April 2010
Awesome--you have to read this!
I don't usually gush, but this piece from Harvard Business Review's blog is a must-read for anyone interested in the Internet from the point of view of business, marketing, social media or strategy. Also offers brilliant insights for media people. I am not going to elaborate. Great food for thought.
10 March 2010
Content is King and Access is Emperor?
Content is King, but Access is Emperor. A thought provoking piece by Forrester analyst raises interesting questions on pricing of digital content.
4 March 2010
They will pay for content online -- if it is good enough!
70 per cent of Indians are willing to pay for online content, although 90 per cent of Indians believe content should remain free on the Net in the future.
Quality is the key issue.
So says a survey by The Nielsen Company.
But what I find fascinating is that as much as 63 per cent of those surveyed said they will pay if the payment system is easy to use.
Eggzactkly, as a Bollywood line goes!
I feel it is absurd that people are willing to pay Rs. 30 a month for a caller tune, while a month-long supply of a leading newspaper costs only around Rs. 50 to 70. Obviously, plenty of work can be done if content-wallahs (and wallis) get out of the Advertisment Fix
What I say is that it is a very 20th Century way of looking at things if we keep ads to be the main source of revenue. Payment methods are changing and electronic transmission alters the distribution dramatically for the better.
Plenty of implications there for business model changes.
Quality is the key issue.
So says a survey by The Nielsen Company.
But what I find fascinating is that as much as 63 per cent of those surveyed said they will pay if the payment system is easy to use.
Eggzactkly, as a Bollywood line goes!
I feel it is absurd that people are willing to pay Rs. 30 a month for a caller tune, while a month-long supply of a leading newspaper costs only around Rs. 50 to 70. Obviously, plenty of work can be done if content-wallahs (and wallis) get out of the Advertisment Fix
What I say is that it is a very 20th Century way of looking at things if we keep ads to be the main source of revenue. Payment methods are changing and electronic transmission alters the distribution dramatically for the better.
Plenty of implications there for business model changes.
22 February 2010
The Journo Trap: Who reads your stories?
Imagine a world where there are no television rating points (TRPs) for news channels.
Imagine a world where there is no broad circulation or readership metric for newspapers or magazine.
Imagine a world where journalists cannot quite claim their stories drive the business -- or one in which they can do EXACTLY that!
We seem to be getting there. But on the Web
AOL has started a new experiment in which stories on the Web are measured for popularity and the traffic shared. It is the closest journo stories got to post-paid billing a la telecoms.
Is that good for journalists?
Yes, if you are really good, and cribbing that your organisation does not take note of you. Or for you to fine-tune your work.
No, if your stories are meaningful in a larger social sense or giving you some personal fulfillment, but held accountable to some scoreboard.
Transparency is a two-way sword, I tell you.
Imagine a world where there is no broad circulation or readership metric for newspapers or magazine.
Imagine a world where journalists cannot quite claim their stories drive the business -- or one in which they can do EXACTLY that!
We seem to be getting there. But on the Web
AOL has started a new experiment in which stories on the Web are measured for popularity and the traffic shared. It is the closest journo stories got to post-paid billing a la telecoms.
Is that good for journalists?
Yes, if you are really good, and cribbing that your organisation does not take note of you. Or for you to fine-tune your work.
No, if your stories are meaningful in a larger social sense or giving you some personal fulfillment, but held accountable to some scoreboard.
Transparency is a two-way sword, I tell you.
18 February 2010
ABC of Indian Media-Advertising, Bollywood, Corporate Power
P. Sainath is a firebrand activist, and incidentally a journalist.
But he is understandably a spokesman for journalism and journalist issues these days, for good reasons
1) He is at The Hindu, which likes to discuss media-related issues on its pages, especially those that relate to ethics
2) As a methodical prodder passionate about rural and social issues, Sainath comes from the "development/activist" school of journalism, and is thoroughly disturbed by the trivialisation of many serious issues
3) He writes well, with a strong tendency to marshall facts and use telling phrases which can match any lawyer or public orator.
Here he is, arguing about how the Indian media is almost systematically being held to ransom by the superficial troika of advertising, movie glamour and corporate agenda. Good, essential reading for media watchers.
But he is understandably a spokesman for journalism and journalist issues these days, for good reasons
1) He is at The Hindu, which likes to discuss media-related issues on its pages, especially those that relate to ethics
2) As a methodical prodder passionate about rural and social issues, Sainath comes from the "development/activist" school of journalism, and is thoroughly disturbed by the trivialisation of many serious issues
3) He writes well, with a strong tendency to marshall facts and use telling phrases which can match any lawyer or public orator.
Here he is, arguing about how the Indian media is almost systematically being held to ransom by the superficial troika of advertising, movie glamour and corporate agenda. Good, essential reading for media watchers.
8 February 2010
Content goes the service way
Content is King, yes.
Murdoch says it is the emperor. Yes.
But there is an interesting insight. Just as a still is not a moving picture, content is not about static stuff on the Net. Increasingly, it is a service.
Here is a fine piece on that.
Murdoch says it is the emperor. Yes.
But there is an interesting insight. Just as a still is not a moving picture, content is not about static stuff on the Net. Increasingly, it is a service.
Here is a fine piece on that.
2 January 2010
An Idiot, An African --And the story of story ideas treated like "Kaminey"
Have you heard of Cajetan Boy?
Today was only the second time I came across the name, and that too, after an Internet search.
Strangely, symbolically and significantly, he shares the same initials as Chetan Bhagat.
And thereby hangs a tale on intellectual property.
Now, Cajetan Boy is the man whose idea gave rise to the story of "Kaminey" for which no less than four other writers took credit. But it goes to the credit of director Vishal Bhardwaj that the movie's starting credits clearly identify Mr. Boy.
Boys must be separated from Men. Vidhu Vinod Chopra, who asked reporters to "Shut Up" on New Year day when asked about writer Bhagat's wail that his story was not given proper credit in the making of "3 Idiots" could do well to learn a lesson from Vishal B, whose earlier two films Maqbool and Omkara were based on Shakespeare's Macbeth and Othello. Given Vishal's treatment, he could have easily called the stories his own, but he did not.
That is the business of respecting intellectual property, even if it involves only an idea.
Check out the Internet Movie Data Base where Cajetan Boy gets due credit for his idea that gave rise to Kaminey
Or then, read here about the fascinating story of how an African stands at the heart of a story that talked about Guddu and Charlie lost in Mumbai's bylanes.
I agree with my friend Shubho. Smirking at Chetan Bhagat is one thing, but giving IP the recognition that is due is quite another.
3 Idiots may be a big hit, and Chopra the Man with the Midas Touch, but perhaps he should not assume that giving ideas away is a matter of Gandhigiri.
We shall await director Rajkumar Hirani's take on this.
P.S. --There is a conspiracy theory that Bhagat and Chopra are in league because the novel (Five Point Someone) and the movie (3 Idiots) can be cross-promoted by the controversy over intellectual property. In which case, we would be the idiots to play into their hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)