Rant: Wall Street Journal on New Media
Caution. Explicit language abounds.
David Goodman pointed me to a big article in the Wall Street Journal about new media that made me feel like when Ze Frank says, “asshole!” really quickly.
The journal’s pretty bearish about the new media space, and they’ve got the numbers to prove it. They say it’s all hobbyist stuff, and that so few people are really making a living off it that it’s ridiculous. They mentioned the boys from Ask A Ninja, as well as lots of folks that Steve knows well. But man, they were sour.
You know what bugs me more than f*@&? Devil’s Advocates. I want to punch them in the face. Or worse. They’re never useful to dreamers, and implementers, and people out there trying to make something happen. Telling me why the idea is shit isn’t useful to me.
Helping me fix the idea, now that’s cool.
A friend is starting his own content network around blogging. He and I are are in the “underground blogosphere” right now, discussing what to do with a prick who responded to the offer with all kinds of sour “what’s in it for me” stuff. Not that you can’t ask about terms and the like, but don’t be sour. If you want to play, cool. If you don’t, say no thanks, and move along.
How many people are getting filthy rich blogging and podcasting on their own? Are you reading my site? No. Now, how many of you reading my site aren’t getting filthy rich either blogging or podcasting, and have at least a vague interest in trying a few new models out just for shits, and seeing if there’s a way to come up with something new, interesting, bigger-than-solo?
I thought so.
If I broke GNM back down to its basics, it’s the same speech I’ve been giving most of this year: one voice is okay, but a chorus commands notice. Do what you’re doing solo if you want, but there’s a better chance of being heard and starting a conversation when you voice yourself larger than life.
All the details, all the terms and conditions talk, all the talk of layers and intellectual property.
Shit, maybe I’ll just lean over into this beautiful microphone 
and record.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to receive future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Who reads the WSJ? The old media. This is like Ford or Chrysler assuring themselves that no one will ever buy foreign autos.
It’s actually good that they dismiss new media as unworthy of attention, amateurish, unprofessional. Keeps them distracted. Cable TV, FM, and television were likewise dismissed during their pioneering days. (”Who would ever want a 24-hour news channel?”)
It will be easier to build the new media world if old media stays out of the way (as opposed to actively opposing it).
It’s a good point, Will. And thanks for your feedback.
I must admit, however, while they were missing some points, there were also kind of saying, “Hey. No one’s making any money about this.”
Where’s Richard Florida? I have a question for him.
I came across this today:
iStockPhoto Looking for Indie Video Footage
http://www.podcastingnews.com/archives/2006/07/istockphoto_loo.html
From the article:
“Beginning in September, iStock will sell broadcast-quality footage, with a focus on digital formats, including HD video. Thirty-second clips will start at $5.”
I will be curious to see if this works out. iStockPhoto seems to be successful selling low-cost still photos. Maybe they can make video sell as well.
Hey, sweet microphone! Yea, reading that WSJ article was hard. I love how they use the word “amateur” so many times. It has such harsh connotations. Too bad these so called “amateurs” are often times much more entertaining then the “old media”.
By the way, I love it when people post when they’re pissed off. All the bullshit gets thrown out the window. No need to tip toe around anything. Good SHIT!