Reading 1: “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 those 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 is posted on Blackboard. Post your thoughts here as a comment and aim to play off the ideas of those who post before you.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Would not have happened without the zipper newsticker that the New York Times debuted in Times Square in 1928.
Viewtron was priced terribly. Also, VHS came out in 1976, and by 1983 when Viewtron came out, people were likely salivating to watch Return of the Jedi from the comfort of their shag-carpeted home theaters.
Not to mention Atari and Commodore 64 - the first generations of video-game kids were getting busy on Pong.
Note: Video games need more credit for the interactive side of journalism
Per Videotex, has it contributed to France’s struggles in implementing Internet?
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I agree video games definitely played a great role in the development of interactive displays. Before reading this article, I did not realize how gradually computers and information sharing emerged on the scene. Carlson writes that the internet has been around since the 60s, and “E-Trib editors even figured out a way to let online users order pizza for home delivery by 1992.” (!) It makes me think that the 21st century will show no sudden and amazing breakthroughs (although it may appear that way due to a general lack of awareness of what is possible RIGHT NOW–great example, the electric car–actually that was possible a hundred years ago, if anyone’s seen Who Killed the Electric Car?– but that the progress we make will come through a steady build-up of effort. This is especially worrisome considering how many politicians are paying lip service to alternative energy sources that do not exist yet/ for which we have not yet perfected the technology to exploit.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
The keys to the success of the early online systems that have survived include; delivery via personal computer; relevant content that includes news, weather, banking, shopping, games and email; delivery over existing infrastructure (phone and cable lines); and interactivity.
On the negative side, complicated pricing structures continue to be a problem for internet service providers, cable companies and telephone companies all who compete to provide consumers access to the internet and world wide web.
Since 2003 the rise of search engines providing more than search, i.e. Google News, Yahoo Finance, other news aggregators and blogs have supplanted online news sites making it unnecessary for users to go directly to news sites to view content. The shift to mobile internet access via cell phones has also occurred since this article was written.
Online journalism will continue to evolve with more individual, professional journalists creating sites that will be sustainable and generate ad revenue to warrant the time invested. For this to happen the old separation of the business side of media and the editorial side of journalism must dissolve without journalistice integrity being sacrificed.
I could easily see the Huffington Post moving from blog status to become a site staffed with professional journalists. Thomas Edsall’s leaving the Washington Post and joining the Huffington Post may just be the beginning of this transition.
As the reach, metrics and availability of quality websites increase, the flow of online advertising dollars will follow making such online news sites profitable and sustainable.
April 5th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Since the article was published, advertising and marketing on the web have evolved dramatically. Also social networking, blogging, citizen journalism, RSS, customizable mini-sites, desktop publishing… it’s incredible how much has changed, and in so little time. People interact more with their media than ever before.
I agree about the Huffington Post. I could totally see it or other sites like it becoming professional journalistic sites, although I’m not so sure the format would be new. Slate, for example, already does an awesome job of mixing journalism and commentary.
Another thing I think will happen is that reporters will begin to retain more ownership of their work. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but personality seems to be such an essential part of our culture today, and TV anchors mastered the personality appeal long ago. I think print reporters are next. Audiences will trust certain individuals more than others, and maybe the publication these people work for will become less important. Individual reporters (or small groups of them) could market on this trust factor by creating their own little journalistic organizations. Or reporters could freelance for a bunch of different publications.
Keys to success of surviving technologies: user-friendliness, usefulness, customizability, price, relevance, ease and speed (and cost) of access. All these seem very important.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
What, no mention of Al Gore??! Quite shocking. My first internet access account was with Compuserve - perhaps since I was living in Columbus, OH - and to be honest, beyond email and downloading music illegally, I don’t even recall what else I was using the internet for most in the early days.
It is interesting to note that the earlier technologies (tele- and video-text) grew out of the desire to access the same kinds of information people were used to getting from newspapers, phonebooks, etc via their televisions sets. I’d say one of the more notable shifts has been towards users not just looking to use technologies to access useful info but to provide so much (often, but not always, inane!) info about themselves, particularly in the realm of social networking sites.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Like Joyce pointed out … we probably have the means to make great leaps in technology, but for some reason seem to hold back. No flying cars for our generation (like I once thought in the 80s). And while my family had a computer as early as the late 80s … we had no access to the internet until 1998. So I’m also kind of amazed at how far back the history of online journalism goes. In my head, it’s almost like more has happened in the history of online journalism between 2003-2008 then before with social networking, blogging, RSS feeds, etc.
I love how pricing for internet use is the same as use of a videotex system. Does that mean we’re getting a sweet deal?
A Texas Whoop(!) to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (that’s my ‘hood) for being smart with the Startext.
It had all the elements that we love about some of our favorite websites now — news and information, along with user-contributed content and an active online community.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:38 am
The history of online journalism as traced through this article is interesting. I found the mention of videotex fascinating as it would be the predecessor to what is now regarded as commonplace in terms of technology.
One item that I found interesting throughout the article was the notion of companies having problems profiting from the wares of the internet, first with British Telecom’s attempts in the late 1980s, and then with Gateway’s attempts around the same period.
Fast forwarding to the present, mainstream media is still struggling with profiting from internet success (one example is how mainstream television is slow to deal with the growing success of online television outlets such as Hulu.com).
I also found it very interesting that the first journalism site on the web was launched by the University of Florida College of Journalism & Communications, as that is located in my home state.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Wow. Call me uninformed, but I had no idea that this technology was around as early as it was. My first memory of the Internet was playing games via a Prodigy account sometime in the mid-1990s. One thing that has changed drastically since the article was written is the issue of profitability. News websites are now finding that their online content CAN be profitable. There are simply fewer costs involved in going online, and I think I read somewhere that about 10 percent of a newspaper’s total revenue comes from online ads.
Great Britain was really on top of the whole computer thing as well, which I never knew.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I think JTR makes a good point about the mainstream media.
I found it interesting that the French were the only ones who could make the early videotex systems work - by giving it away for free - and how the Americans couldn’t get anyone to buy their systems because they charged so much. and charged for every little thing. It resonates today in how all the newspaper sites have stopped charging for access because people rather not pay and how the television, music and movie industries are slowly, painfully learning the same lessons.
There’s definitely a few more chapters to be written about the other media companies have dealt with the rise of the Internet. And the difference between how the newspapers handled it.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:00 am
A fellow prodigy user myself, I found it refreshing to hear about these “advanced technologies” of the times - computers with 286 mhz processors, and file transfer rates being clocked in @ bps. In his article, Carlson focused mainly on the development of the online services, and really underscored the importance of delivery. Early internet entrepreneurs meant well, but they did not have the proper tools to deliver the services they wished.
Computers were large, clunky, expensive and unrealistic for the average homeowner. However, as technology and our infrastructure have improved, internet content has become of greater quality, and the internet is much more readily available throughout the world. With that said, journalism is growing exponentially with the services provided by major wireless phone companies now.
We can access the internet from our phones. Let’s face it: they’re not phones any more. That IPhone, Blackberry, Trio, or whatever you have in your pocket is the gateway to the future of online content. Check your email. Watch the highlights from the game. Get the news, maps, pictures, or anything you want on a regular computer all on a three inch by two inch device that fits comfortably in your pocket.
This is the future of journalism - another new technology. Your mobile computer that also makes phone calls.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:11 am
It looks like I have one more thing to thank the Brits for, besides the Beatles, Shakespeare and Kate Winslet. Carlson’s piece furthers the belief that it’s not a matter of the content itself but how that content will be delivered to its audience. We will find that the method of delivery stretches to many areas besides media. Look at shopping for instance. More than 100 years ago, mail order went from being the main source of revenue for many companies to just a small piece of the pie with the growth of retail stores and shopping malls and the suburban expansion. Now malls and retailers are having to adjust to the rise in e-commerce shopping, which can be called “e-mail order.” In my opinion, the debate over the future of journalism (hyperlocalism, consolidation, ethics, etc.) is a red herring that avoids the key question of how do we stay ahead of the curve in the delivery of our content.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:26 am
I like to agree with Erin’s idea of increased ownership of work for journalists, and the formation of independent groups of journalists and solo ones connecting with their own audiences without the necessity of a bigger organizational mediator. At the same time, when I think of my own consumption of media, there are several places I regularly go to, and some that others recommend to me, but in general I feel daunted and overwhelmed by the amount of choices out there. While I appreciate the fact that they ARE out there, one of the challenges now, I think, as James was getting it, is figuring out how to show audiences where to look to find new things. With such a wealth of information, and journalism, out there, how do you connect audiences with stories they really want to read? Sometimes if I watch tv at someone’s house that has hundreds and hundreds of cable channels, I almost wish there were just 50. Hundreds seems so unmanageable, and since I don’t know well enough where to look for what I want (I’m probably just a bad tv-watcher) it stresses me out– I figure there must be something that would be perfect to watch, but how will I ever find it?
April 7th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Great point about the the Issue of Quantity of Information. It seems that in this essay, Bush kind of assumes that all information is good information and while he does an amazing job of telling us about the computer and Interwebs 50 years early, he conveniently leaves out the part about spam.
I think this essay also makes a point about how people have (hopefully) learned their lesson when it comes to guessing what the future might be like. From Bush’s descriptions of how these future devices might work, its made plain how even the smartest scientists are bound by extent of their experience. He got the concepts and goals of our current technological revolutions, but I’m still waiting for the walnut on my forehead that takes pictures. Apple is probably working on it.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:49 am
That comment ended up in the wrong place for some reason
April 7th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Sol’s right that video games are not given enough attention by the author, and I’ll throw in two more that went completely without mention. In the early 90’s, there were only two reasons, besides games, for a 12 year-old boy to use a modem: pirated software and porn. Between game forums on Prodigy, dial-up “elite” BBSs, and Usenet (via Michnet dialup, Gopher to MSU, and Telnet out to NYX, a wonderful little machine at Denver University that was nice enough to give me a login, email, and access to all the illegal goodies I could hunt down) our family’s second phone line was all fuzz, squeaks, and squeals for many years.
Erin’s run-down of what’s new is pretty complete. I would also throw in mobile devices, which have yet to reach even a tiny fraction of their future potential. The iPhone is maaaaybe at the stage of the French videotex system. Maybe. We will, in our lifetimes, see a totally immersive, transparent, ubiquitous online experience. Full-on cybernetics. The man-machine barrier will very quickly fade, and we’ll be online all the time. The iPhone will be built in. On a heads up display. Always on. Paying for our purchases, messaging our friends, and optimizing bus travel. Nerds and sports nuts will have to come up with something new to do at bars, because arguing over trivia will no longer be fun. The future of online journalism is this. They will provide the content.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:30 am
This article got me thinking about the changing business model for online news. Failed projects like Times Select and Salon’s subscription service prove that it is more profitable to give your work to 20 million readers than to sell a subscription to 1 million. With the Wall Street Journal, the lone hold out when it comes to subscription services, about to drop its fee sometime soon, the US has seen a total transition to free news. The same cannot be said for my native Canada. Major papers like the Globe & Mail persist in insisting on a fee for certain parts of the site. People talk about the death of news, but once the online versions of papers learn to better monetize their product, I think we’ll see a lot of growth in the news business. People read more news now than ever, we’re just not willing to pay for it anymore.