[Jaspersharpe]

Wasn't sure where to put this but it's well worth a read. It's about sports journalism but could easily be applied to other areas of the profession and, as it touches on, all areas of media.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-03/news/bleacher-report-sports-journalism-internet-espn-news-technology/

I wrote Bleacher Report off a while ago having stumbled on it looking for information on a particular football story and soon realising that it was mainly moronic nonsense, but when you read about how it works it's easy to see why A: it's shit and B: it's incredibly popular.

So is this the future where the only successful publications/programmes/films etc are going to be "giving people what they want"? It's as if it's come full circle from the media completely controlling what people get to read to the lowest common denominator determining what gets written about. I'm not sure which is worse when taken to it's logical conclusion.

For balance there's an attempt at a rebuttal here which I didn't find particularly convincing....

http://blog.bleacherreport.com/2012/10/05/the-many-ways-sf-weekly-is-wrong-about-bleacher-report/

[tomtom]

Fuck knows. But heres a funny picture of SAF...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/gallery/2012/nov/20/sir-alex-ferguson-statue-gallery#/?picture=399644178&index=1

I think its not as bleacher as you might think.. things come in cycles..

[SA Chris]

So is this the future where the only successful publications/programmes/films etc are going to be "giving people what they want"? It's as if it's come full circle from the media completely controlling what people get to read to the lowest common denominator determining what gets written about.

Surely this is why tabloids and the gossip mags are so successful? Tits, gossip, outrage, scandal and football are what the masses want to hear about.

[Jaspersharpe]

Yes but it's a little different when the stories actually "write themselves" based on what people want to read. Also when advertising becomes the only revenue because people aren't prepared to pay for the content itself this becomes more of a concern.

[slackline]

Also when advertising becomes the only revenue because people aren't prepared to pay for the content itself this becomes more of a concern.

Aren't most tabloids already in that boat?  Certainly the red-tops selling at £0.20 must make the majority of their revenue from advertising.

[tomtom]

Not sure I completely get this.. but the key point seemed to be lowest common denominator content concept (rather than the army of free scribes).
Daily mail website is a prime example of this - complete drivel, but brings in people looking at the daft fat botox celeb stories..

[slackline]

Found the page I read the other day (I think Oldmanmatt retweeted a link to it)....Ten Things the Press Would Rather You Didn't Know