I LOL’d. This post is as good a place as any to note that the media response to Chat Roulette echos the response to Twitter around this time last year. Basically, they had been so burned by ignoring Myspace, and took too long to understand Facebook, they weren’t going to get fooled by Twitter and so they jumped in both feet first. Chat Roulette went from internet sensation to all over the media in record time. I imagine that the next platform to take off will get covered in the traditional media BEFORE it becomes popular online, thus creating an interesting paradox.
A couple weeks ago, Jeff Jarvis picked up on a bit of the Howard Stern show where Stern mused about what could come next for him:
Tomorrow I could go on the internet and start my own channel with my own subscribers. Youâ€™d be able to click and watch us on TV, watch us in the studio live, streaming. Youâ€™d be able to listen to us streaming. Youâ€™d be able to get us on your iPhone. Youâ€™d be able to do everything right at the click of the internet. I wouldnâ€™t even need to work for a company. Iâ€™d be my own companyâ€¦ So true itâ€™s ridiculous
Jarvis then went on to say:
Entertainers (radio, music, comedy, books, columnists, even filmmakers) will have direct relationships with their audiences. Like Stern, they wonâ€™t have to work for companies or go through them for distribution. Thatâ€™s already happening, of course, on the web for creation, distribution, and monetization…It returns to the age of patronage, only now the kings donâ€™t fund the artists, the public does and less money is wasted on middlemen.
I think he’s exactly right about this and I think I’ve talked about this before. Another entertainer I figured might be heading towards this model is Bill Simmons, and 10 minutes after I read the Jarvis piece on Stern, I read this Huffington Post interview of the Sports Guy. Simmons and ESPN had a dust up a couple years ago when he had the opportunity to interview Obama during the primaries, only to have it nixed by ESPN. This lead to less frequent posting and a general ‘work to rule’ feel to his columns for a bit. Just last week, Simmons was told to stay off Twitter for two weeks after an impolitic comment about one of ESPN’s partners. These wrist slaps, combined with his enthusiasm for and embrace of new media in the form of podcasts and (after some initial derision) Twitter, combined with the release and success of his new book combined with the below quotation lead me to think Bill Simmons is done with ESPN.
Part of me can’t shake the temptation of being the underdog again — like, launching my own sports site, hiring some talented writers and designers and trying to compete with the big guns. Like what Frank Deford did with the National. All right, the National lost $100 million. Bad example.
But I could see doing something crazy like that. I like taking chances, I am not afraid to fail, and beyond that, I am not afraid to fail violently and miserably. So anything is possible. A really good prediction would be, “Simmons is going to fail violently and miserably with a super-ambitious idea within the next five years.” Lock it down.
He’s either going to walk or make ESPN bend pretty hard to keep him. With the podcasts he’s created another platform for himself, and Twitter allows a channel of communication to his fans independent of ESPN. He’ll continue to grow his brand with or without ESPN.
Earlier this year, Adam Carolla’s insanely popular morning show ended when the station he was changed formats. He decided to start a daily podcast, and because his contract ran until the end of this year, there were no ads or sponsors. It quickly became one of the top podcasts on iTunes, and he continued to attract guests that had appeared on his radio program.
Aside from Bill Simmons and Adam Carolla bringing podcasts mainstream, which is another post, they’ve also presented a pretty clear model for their future. Couldn’t Stern, Simmons, and Carolla start an entertainment website next year with streaming shows, podcasts, sports columns, etc and charge users $2 a month for access? They couldn’t get 500K – 1 million subscribers? New media, baby!
Matt has been looking for a crossword puzzle and thinks he might have found a winner after stumbling upon Leonard Gravis’ latest in the Globe. This is chicanery and tomfoolery of the highest order and I, for one, salute you, Mr. Gravis.
And so it was with great joy today that I stumbled across the work of Leonard Gravis in the Boston Globe. It only took one clue for Mr. Gravis to reel me in. â€œThe ___ mightier than the sword.â€
Think about that one for a moment and then consider that this clue fell on space number 69 across.
Yes, the answer to 69 across in todayâ€™s Boston Globe is â€œPenis.â€
Rupert Murdoch is going to start charging for the Sunday Times in the fall. I wonder what would happen if he tried to do that with his US media interests? Would there be a right wing noise machine if Fox News was subscriber only like HBO? I can only dream. I just went down the rabbit hole of some things that could happen and 15 minutes later it’s not much clearer… What do you think?
In a previous Unlikely Words post, we inadvertently implied that the Times publishes articles in which “All the dates and facts are wrong.” In actuality, some articles only have mostly incorrect facts and dates. Unlikely Words regrets this error.
Proof from the New York Times that you too can be a journalist even if you don’t want to use the correct dates or facts in an article. In fact you can use any date or fact you want as long as it’s sort of close to the actual date or fact. This is OK even if ALL the dates and facts are wrong. This proof comes in the form of a correction of an Alessandra Stanley piece.
An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkiteâ€™s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkiteâ€™s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. â€œThe CBS Evening Newsâ€ overtook â€œThe Huntley-Brinkley Reportâ€ on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondentsâ€™ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of â€œThe CBS Evening Newsâ€ in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor.
Via Balloon Juice.
I’m not super concerned about Jon Stewart being considered the most trusted man in journalism. What concerns me is traditional media being so stupid that when they try to replicate his success (and you know they will) they only try to copy the humor. Remember Fox’s attempt a couple years ago (Half Hour News Hour or something), not only did it fail because it wasn’t funny, but it failed because it didn’t do what Stewart does: Report on important stories and mock media that goes round and round talking about stupid stories.