Article Two: The History of Online Journalism
In his article, ‘ The History of Online Journalism,” David Carlson traces the roots of digital news from Britain’s “teletext” system of the 1970s through the dawn of Yahoo!, AOL and the rest. What were some of the keys to success for the technologies that survived? Did Carlson leave out any key developments? Much has happened in the field since 2003 when the article was first published. If you were to continue the history from 2003-2008, what would be the highlights? How do you see online journalism changing in the future?
This article was handed out in class Monday. Please check with a classmate if you need a copy. Post your thoughts here and aim to offer fresh comments playing off the ideas of those who post before you.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
If we check out some of the most popular information-accessing technologies of the day (laptops with wireless Internet access, Blackberries, etc.), the major keys to success are quite clear - speed, compactness, cost-effectiveness, and compatibility (and non-interference) with other technologies. Though Carlson was talking about earlier technologies than these, he pointed out similar “keys to success”: more advanced videotex systems were designed for personal computers and not TV sets; certain setups could be rented for a reasonable fee instead of purchased for an exorbitant amount; later, programs could be accessed from any kind of computer via a browser in the World Wide Web instead of through a specific type of machine.
I thought one of Carlson’s more interesting points was about the nature of accessing content via computer instead of via television:
“[Early newspaper-operated videotex services] tied up the family TV and the telephone… using an online service did not prove to be a family activity, such as gathering around the TV after dinner to watch the evening sitcoms. It is a solitary activity. Each family member is likely to have different interests and different favorite online applications… with the family TV tied up as the videotex display device–and the telephone in use to send information to the videotex system–the rest of the family had little to do for entertainment.” (pp. 41-42)
It’s always interesting to me how, in some ways, the Web allows people to come together, while in other ways, it sends people into voluntary solitary confinement.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I would agree that speed, size and price are keys to success. I would also point out that being able to interact with the technology is also important. Videotex was popular, (I guess it is still popular in Britain), because it is interactive. Carlson even says on page 42 ” electronic messaging has been the single most popular feature of every online system so far created.” He goes on to mention programs like Startext, which encouraged users to become part of a digital community. I think that that is what makes a successful technology: one that allows people to connect with other people.
I guess that is why people like to read newspapers online; they can interact with the news rather than just read it on paper.
If I were to add to this article I think I would talk about programs like Second Life, which allow users to actually live online. That takes the experience to a whole new level. You’re not just talking with other users about the news, or your interests– you’re interacting with them by way of avatars, spending real money on virtual goods and forging virtual relationships.
Sometimes I wonder if someday we’ll all be plugged into computers, living a fake life. Probably not. Hopefully not.
Like Anna says, the Web does seem to bring people together while at the same time dividing them. We’re able to talk to people around the world, but sometimes at the risk of losing ourselves. I mean, look at reading the paper. My parents sit at the kitchen table and share the paper– dividing up the sections. You can’t sit at a table and divide up a webpage.
Computers are solitary animals; you don’t operate them with others. Still, as Carlson says, e-mail is extremely popular. So, people look at technology as a way to connect. People use computers to do everything from talk to their grandmother to hook up with “sexy singles”… or something along those lines. So, I guess it’s a delicate balance. An asset and a detriment.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Carlson writes that the videotex technologies that survived were interactive and participatory. Unlike the teletex systems, people could use computers to communicate with one another.
I think that is key for survival. After all, lots of people probably bought their first PCs in the 1990s because all their friends were using e-mail, and today, older adults are bucking the stereotype and going online to keep up with their grandchildren.
One could argue that TV isn’t interactive, but the Internet has made it so, in a sense. After watching “Jeopardy!,” for instance, I can go online to Television Without Pity and read other people’s snarky comments about the contestants or write my own post challenging the wording of the answers.
Since 2003, I think there’s been a boon in people using cell phones for text messaging and taking photos and video, with some of that content becoming journalism. Blogs are another major development, changing the definition of who’s a journalist and what ethical standards, if any, should apply.
In the future, I see online journalism becoming even more fragmented, with fewer national voices giving “the news of the day” and more voices geared toward niche audiences. I’m not sure if that’ll be good for democracy.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
From Carlson’s article it’s clear that the ability of the user to interact with the media seems to be overwhelmingly what has driven the development of the Internet and the World Wide Web.
The technology from the days of teletext and videotex has developed in such a way to allow more user control, and that’s where things continue to be headed through the ability of users to be able to comment and contribute.
User input is valuable to media organizations, and a lot of major news Web sites, such as MSNBC.com, feature stories that are generated by user content. I’ve seen a story, for example, that asked readers to write in with stories and photos of their worst travel experiences. This gets posted up on MSNBC.com (a respected media behemoth), and, voila, it becomes news.
One of the funny twists since this article was written was the introduction and fast expansion of YouTube where people can watch TV online. Why would they watch TV online when they can watch it on TV? Because they have more control. They don’t have to see commercials. They can pick and choose exactly what and when they want to see whatever they want.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Ease of accessibility to information is one of the largest keys to success when it comes to getting your information online these days. If a Web site is easy to navigate and is designed in a logical way for readers to pick out what they want to view, then the site will have a better shot at being successful. Speed and affordability of the medium are also keys to success, as mentioned by Anna and Brenna.
Back in the day of videotex, the technologies that did survive did so because they were interactive, including message boards or menu-driven systems navigated by the user. The same lesson goes for today’s world, when more viewers are flocking to interactive Web sites.
More and more online publications are inviting viewers to respond to the content posted online. Many sites now include discussion boards and polls and some are even asking for reader-provided content – especially photos. For example, CBS2Chicago.com uses viewer photographs and videos if the materials supplement a reporter’s story. In most cases, witnesses on the scene will be able to capture images as they are happening and before news vans get there. Many online news outlets are doing everything they can to draw in readers by inviting them to interact in the news.
Interactivity has also been key to the wide world of online communities. These special interest communities are bringing together people from all over the world and allowing them to interact with each other. Geographical distance is no longer deterrent to communication. Whether it is knitting, sci-fi flicks or Scrabble, there’s a virtual community of people waiting to communicate with you.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I agree with Christina and others that interactivity and the encouragement of collective creativity has characterized the evolution of online journalism in the last five years. To assign the phenomenon with a buzzword, we’re talking about “Web 2.0.” I’ve heard the term tossed around but I just searched for a concise definition, and Tim O’Reilly sums it up well here (http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web_20_compact.html): “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.”
(Quick sidenote: before reading this article, I was unaware that there’s a distinction between the Internet and the World Wide Web. How interesting that our perception that email, downloads and other such applications exist on the Web is false!)
It’s noteworthy to me that Videotex was considered revolutionarily interactive, whereas now we not only want but expect to interact with our news sources. When I’ve finished a story on www.nytimes.com, I darn well better be able to learn more via related searches or past coverage. I feel like a more informed citizen after clicking my way around the website. Its the classic classroom theory: students learn by doing, not by sitting and listening politely. We don’t want to bear silent witness to the news, but rather we want to have control over how we hear about it.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
One thing that stands out in Carlson’s account of the Web’s history is the power of profitability, a factor virtually ignored in Bush’s imagination of the future. Bush conceived of the Web as a digital library, with a focus on research rather than on dollars and cents. As it turned out, however, business enterprises (service providers, online merchants, and virtual banking outlets) brought about the rise of the global network.
The major exception to this trend occurred within the media industry – several newspapers, such as the Forth Worth Star-Telegram, operated at a loss in providing online content during the Web’s less profitable early stages. Only when the Web was able to attract a mainstream audience (and thus higher ad revenues) could the online news sites expect relative financial stability.
Mass communication was another pivotal element that Bush’s model overlooked – Carlson describes email and bulletin board systems as two of the biggest draws for consumers first buying into the Web.
Since Carlson’s article was published, the advent of wireless Internet access has made newsgathering a virtually instantaneous task. Journalists (and citizen bloggers) universally report live from events as they happen, offering audiences even more immediate access to the world around them. As such, the news has become extremely “hands-on” in recent years: News flows in from thousands of blogs from every corner of the world, offering a litany of narrowly-tailored viewpoints for mass consumption. On sites like Wikipedia, users can, for better or worse, weave their own “facts” into communal encyclopedias.
The development of the Web as Carlson describes it – a process driven by a society craving immediacy – has essentially diverged from Bush’s notion of an instrument aimed at examining the past as a means of informing the present. On today’s Web, the present is informed only by links to other versions of the present, pieced together by hundreds of millions of worldwide users.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:50 am
What caught my eye most often in this article chapter was the continual failure of new media technologies due to financial woes.
David Carlson writes, “There was no good means to charge users for access to Web-based newspapers – something all previous online services had done – and there were few advertisers interested in such a small audience. This made revenues scarce.”
I get it, money makes the world go round – and the news goes forth, but I am frustrated that these same problems continue to plague the industry today. How is it that newspapers have faced financial problems when it came to Web-based technologies and still have failed to innovate? How has almost no media company found a way to sustain itself online?
Newspapers were unable to fully sustain the Videotex systems primarily due to a lack of funding, caused principally because advertisers were not interested in broadcasting their messages on this new technology. Most newspaper’s Web sites have this same problem today – they simply cannot make as much money off of online advertisements as they can print ads. I wonder how the media can move fully into the online, digital age if advertisers are not willing to make the move with them. How is it that a print advertisement is still more effective (i.e. worth more money) than an online advertisement?
Also, until consumers are ready to pay for their news online like they do to receive their news in print or on television can media companies become fully sustainable? Advertising would be less of a concern if the public was more willing to financially support the media. The systems Carlson writes about failed because the cost was just too high for consumers. Now, granted I can hardly blame the consumers – I wouldn’t be willing to pay $900 for a terminal that wouldn’t work if I moved from Illinois to Florida. But what cost is low enough? I fear for my generation anything above $0 is too much. I know I skirt my way out of fees any way I can. Today, I blame my cheapness on being a poor graduate student but I am not sure my learned behaviors will change much when I am a *hopefully* employed person. Is there any price consumers would be willing to pay? But why bother when you can always find a way to get it for free, right?
On a more positive note, I liked Carlson’s reference to the Star-Telegram’s use of user-generated content on their online service. Startext featured “user-contributed movie reviews, commentary, columns, short-stories and more, all of which helped to build an active online community and an interesting and useful set of information.”
The world’s first Web blog? The precursor to You Tube? Myspace?
January 14th, 2008 at 11:25 am
At first I was surprised to learn that teletext — which I’d never heard of before — is still “very popular in Europe.” It seems like an out-of-date technology considering its limitations and lack of audience interaction. I would assume that the technology is still popular enough to exist solely because it is free and easily accessible – two of the main characteristics necessary for a new technology to prosper.
Carlson doesn’t tell us how frequently the videotex information was updated. When people were using videotext to receive their news, were they receiving updates more or less frequently than if they subscribed to a daily paper? Was there such a thing as breaking news?
I agree with Kayla that it seems bizarre how little profit the media industry has made off of these new technologies. But I think that if we reexamine the numbers in five to ten years, we will see that companies have developed online advertising in a way that makes the sites significantly more prosperous.
If I was writing an update for Carlson’s essay, I would discuss the proliferation of user-generated content. The success of YouTube, Wikipedia and social networking sites shows how much people are drawn to interactivity. Because of this, I wouldn’t be surprised if we continue to see a rise in citizen journalism Web sites in the near future. I think citizen journalism will also become a more integral part of the mainstream media as the media companies attempt to involve their audiences.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I agree with Heather and others that the popularity of social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace and the popularity of user-generated content sites such as YouTube are definitely important to include in an update.
I would take it one step further and say that now citizen journalism is an integral part of mainstream media. Some of these websites and blogs often scoop mainstream publications. The collaborative mode of journalism, people pointing each other in the right direction to uncover information about a shared topic is influencing the way we view journalism. It is also making traditional news publications reevaluate how they present information to consumers.
Interactivity is what makes these technologies more appealing. We do not have to be spoon fed news portioned out by decision makers on the media circuit. We can take it in whatever portion we like and have innumerous options. That sense of control is worth being tethered to a computer, and in a few years I think we will see mainstream media profitably capitalize on this new interest.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I also was interested in the continual failure of new media projects due to money. The $100 million newspaper companies had blown on television-based videotex by 1986 particularly shocked me.
There’s a part of me that wants to think of this as spilled milk. The companies paid that money to stay on the cutting edge, although they bet on the wrong horse. They probably have Beta tapes too. They gambled and lost, but the cause was good: Innovation, technology, embracing the future, rah rah sis boom bah.
But still there’s a knee-jerk reaction. Newspapers, particularly newspapers today, cannot afford to blow that much money. Unlike Kayla, my concerns are not about the advertising money following newspapers online. That’s the future. I’m worried about keeping existing operations going while management hopes and prays that adding online video brings the readers back.
I’m worried about making payroll, buying the paper for the presses, keeping raises, avoiding layoffs, avoiding pay cuts and so on. Every newspaper editor I’ve met chatters about the need to go online and invest more in online. The Web hasn’t failed, but Carlson’s article shows how online journalism has, time and time again.
The difference, of course, is that the Web already exists and Videotex basically had to be invented with proprietary hardware each time. It won’t cost $100 million to put up Web sites. Most can be done with an intern and the paper’s existing copy. But most small newspapers, already pressured by the Web, can barely keep up now. It’s a Catch-22: Not being on the Web is hurting newspapers, the process of getting on the Web can hurt newspapers.
As to the discussion on interactivity, I would have to respectfully disagree with Andrea. Students do learn by doing but with guidance. To continue the analogy a bit, students don’t get to select the textbook or even what chapter to read.
In a more literal vein, when I’m clicking through a paper’s Web site after reading an article, I almost always end up on something inane. I see an ad and click on that. A story with nothing to do with the topic at hand catches my eye. I go to an external link and start clicking around there. I see a word I don’t know, look it up in an online dictionary and then get intrigued by the word of the day and before I know it, it’s an hour later and I’m on Wikipedia looking up where 1990s pop stars live now.
Maybe I’m easily distracted, but I’m not the only one. Yes, it would be nice if people used interactivity to learn as much as possible on one topic, but many people are more likely to end up finding out where the Spin Doctors live now than to continue in-depth research on relations with Singapore.
To me, interactivity is cool and fun. It’s also distracting and uninformative. I’m not even really knocking it. It’s just the nature of the beast. But let’s not pretend it’s the best way for people to get truly informed on a topic.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I found the description of Prestel’s system intriguing. It is often the case that the average consumer will not buy something that is three times the price of existing technology, especially when a consumer has so far lived without such a device. Another limiting factor seemed to be that the information was available from other sources. As I understood it, one reason France’s system succeeded was because their version replaced conventional home phone books – therefore, that money that would have been spent on delivering phone books went instead to making this technology better and more affordable.
In today’s world, as technology is so rapidly evolving, it seems that consumers wait to get a new technology until it is not so expensive and until they are comfortable that it won’t be immediately phased out by the next new technology.
The article stated that, “electronic messaging has been the single most popular feature of every online system so far created, including the internet.” I am not surprised by this assertion, but I would like to know how he arrives so conclusively at such a statement.
I agree with the other posters on user-generated content as a highlight since the publication of this article. Wikipedia, WebMD, Yelp, etc – are popular examples. I support the idea of free dissemination of information and opinions, but I am worried that these sites are perceived as authoritative sources on complicated subjects. Certainly in the areas of health and nutrition, there are many good resources for information, but there are also many websites that offer un-proven and perhaps dangerous information that people believe is legitimate because of the appearance of the website, or affirming posts by users. I am not sure how to address this issue, but I think it is important to consider
January 14th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
After reading all of the post, I must say it is hard to think of something of substance to add to the dialogue. I must admit that I thought briefly about highlighting the dangers on interactivity by writing a pornographic tale about a young man and his videotext. And while I thought that would make our conversation much more interactive, I wasn’t sure whether this was the time or the place.
Interactivity seems to be the word of the day. Miss Daniels smartly adds to this conversation that “Interactivity is what makes these technologies more appealing.” And while I think that is true, I would like to add (because I am embracing the interactive) it can also make them redundant. Not to diss on user-generated sites (I sneak onto my myspace account like 5 times daily) but for the sake of discussion, I’d like to bring up the innate possibility that not everyone has something to say that is new, original or fact.
James Young, is an historian that writes about memory and the compartimentalization of memory through the creation of monuments and memorials. He postulates that the more we displace memory outside of us, giving innate objects the “memory duty”, the less we actually know or remember. I may be an elitist but it would seem to me that we have placed the memorial duty directly into the membrane’s of computers so that the more we rely on these objects, the less understanding we have of our own historical context. So much crap is created, that wading through it to get to those diamonds in the rough can be a very filthy job.
Ok, enough of my old man complaints!
As for the article itself I was most interested in the difference between America’s development of Videotex and Europe’s (like Heather I was shocked the people still use this technology in any form or is that a dated fact by the author because this article is a bit old?). But I have always been interested way governmental control of development can either spur advances or hinder growth because there is not enough capital for exploration.
In this case it may seem that governmental control (not funding because those are not one in the same) did aid the growth of Videotex. This on the surface seems to be a success, but that is only if you believe in Videotex. American consumers obviously didn’t but they created a demand for a more efficient product—The Internet and the World Wide Web. If the US government had pushed Videtex on its populace this might have been different, we might have remained in the semi-static world of digital news absorption and the focus may not have been on blessed interactivity after all. (Make no mistake, despite being a Luddite I can see the positives.)
Oh, one last thing. From the article I still don’t understand what the World Wide Web is? I know what it is not, but still have no clear definition in my mind.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The most interesting feature of the story as I saw it was something a lot of people have already noticed: the consumer’s demand for an interactive, community-type environment. Take for instance the interactivity of the BBS system at the Albuquerque Tribune where users offered to pay for the originally free service after being allowed to chat with newsmakers and exchange e-mail. Or look at the unexpected demand for electronic messaging that led to “clogging early videotext systems, which had not been designed to handle the massive volume of messages.” The limited proprietary systems of Compuserve and AOL and their ilk were crushed by the freedom of interaction offered by the Web. Journalism learned quickly to abandon allegiance to any one service provider, instead making its information available to any person on the Web.
This is in many ways a lesson that media outlets are still learning. But even today the struggle is on to bring traffic to the websites amid all the other options in cyberspace. Almost every news source online now allows readers to comment directly on articles and thereby to feel like the site is something with which they can engage. This fosters a sense of community around the site as opposed to the content of the site and brings people back on a consistent basis. Loyalty is something media companies need now more than ever since subscriptions and the revenue they generate are on the decline.
It also goes toward explaining the outrageous valuation habits now rampant in new media businesses that involve social networking. Still it’s hard to justify spending $240 million for only a 1.6 percent stake in Facebook. But as the history of online media has shown us, sometimes you have to invest for the future without the expectation of making profits in the present.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:13 am
For the record, they do still use the Minitel in France. While teaching there, I stumbled upon one hooked up in a middle school office. There was a regular PC sitting at every desk in the office, but they did still have this videotex device on hand. Sadly, I never got a chance to use it.
I’m pretty sure any function it has is replicated on the internet, but I can understand why the French would be so nostalgic about the device. For a people so attached to their language that not a single word is added to its officially recognized vocabulary without a fight, using a device made especially for French speakers is a matter of national pride.
I found Carlson’s comment about the solo nature of internet use versus the communal nature of the television particularly interesting, considering how YouTube has in a way brought things full circle. Whenever I see a group of people gathered around a computer, I can be close to 100 percent sure they are watching a video on YouTube. If not, they are probably watching video or animation from another site.
The other concept I found interesting was the idea that people wanted news sites to complement the newspaper, not replace it. When people began to present news on the radio and later the television, some worried that the ability to report news as it happened would kill the newspaper. But the newspaper adapted to complement live news broadcasting. It gave more in-depth information and analysis.
However, Web sites are now able to give users that same depth of information through hyperlinks while also offering constantly-updated news, videos, photos galleries and sound bites.
Now it seems that what newspapers have to offer is simplicity, the ability to sit down and have a finite amount of text to read rather than being faced with an endless stream of information. Do enough people crave this for print journalism to continue to succeed?