The New Media Conundrum

Looks like Apple's done it again – satisfied a need consumers didn't even know existed. The successful international launch of the iPad means that Apple has now sold over 2 million iPads in as many months, which is perhaps more than in the entire decade of the tablet's existence.

The hullaballoo surrounding Apple’s magic tablet is deafening. The last time the tech world went into such a tizzy over a new gizmo was when Apple released the iPhone, and we all know how that turned out (hint: well). The iPhone was called the Jesus Phone – as much for the hype surrounding it as for its capabilities – and the iPad might as well be the Jesus Tablet. On its 10-odd-inch screen rests the weight of expectations of just about everyone in the (Western) traditional media industry. So many bastions of the industry, from the New York Times to Wired to book publishers, are looking at the iPad as a saviour, their last chance at survival. But can it really live up to its almost-mythic status as the rescuer of all it purveys? Jury's still out on that one, numbers notwithstanding.

The question is why a miracle device like the iPad is necessary at all. The Pulitzer prizes announced this year are significant in this context. For the first time, a non-profit, online only product won an award for investigative reporting. Another newspaper that won in the breaking news category used new media tools like Twitter and Google Wave to produce its award-winning coverage. It’s no secret that the Internet has changed the way people consume media forever and that it has challenged existing business models, in some cases driving them to the point of extinction. Big media is not exempt from this sea change. The music, movie and publishing industries were hit hard by the advent of peer-to-peer file sharing networks, and every attempt to stem the flow of ‘piracy’ has been unsuccessful. Ridiculous digital rights management strategies have not helped disincentivise the illegal distribution of copyrighted content, either. Newspapers and magazines have seen advertising revenues go into freefall, thus striking at the very heart of their business. This has prompted speculation that content creators are on an inexorable downturn; that, with a shrinking audience and little revenue, they will simply cease to exist.

But media consumption is not declining. The Internet has not killed the movie or music industries (though the fee-paying audience for them might’ve got smaller); even the publishing industry, where revenues and readership had been declining long before the Internet came along, actually recorded an increase in adult readership in recent times.

According to a recent survey conducted jointly by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project and Project for Excellence in Journalism, an overwhelming majority of Americans - 92 per cent - use multiple platforms to get their daily news, and the internet is now the third most-popular news platform. Almost 60 per cent Americans get news from a combination of online and offline sources on a typical day, indicating that in today’s multi-platform media environment, news is becoming portable, personalized, and participatory. We may be years from this situation in India, but the sooner we come to terms with new technology, the better it'll be.

It helps not to think of the Net as a medium. Jeff Jarvis, a professor of journalism at an American university, calls the Internet a place, much like a pavement corner, where people meet and interact. Thinking of the Internet as a medium encourages the media industry to regard it through the same prism as, say, television or print. That leads to a kind of thinking that is boxed in by traditional parameters that no longer apply, thus discouraging ideas that could actually lead to an effective form of monetisation. This is the information age, let’s not forget, and people consume more media than ever before. There has to be a way to make money off that, but it might entail giving up control—whether it is to fans who appropriate a work and put their own spin on it, or to bloggers or any of the myriad content recreators one finds on the Net. But how to undo the damage that was done in the beginning when media outlets started giving content away for free? (Some would argue that it wasn’t a mistake to give content away and that it is moves like that led to the growth of the Web).  Is it possible to get people to pay for something they’ve got used to getting for free? At this point, it seems unlikely. The only way to do that would to a) build a firewall to rival China’s and b) get all outlets to agree to put up paywalls. Both of these are mammoth tasks.

The media industry needs to come to terms with the fact that they’re trying to lock the stables long after the horses have bolted. It’s futile to wish that they could charge for content by way of a paywall. The Wall Street Journal example doesn’t quite hold since it is a specialised product aimed at individuals who don’t mind handing over money for the information they’ll get from the paper. All publications do not have that luxury. Media houses thus have to move past the old idea of a paywall and explore other ways of making money, because that, really, is the only option left to them. The World Wide Web is providing a new system for content delivery. It is up to the traditional media industry to recognise and harness the potential of the Net — not only as a platform for delivery but also as a repository of information that has not yet been mined properly, and as a collaborative tool that encourages broadbased participation in the newsroom.

A version of this article appeared in the Times of India - Crest, on Saturday, June 5th here.

Addendum

To this post.

The whole Celebrity Big Brother fracas has resulted in loads of editorials being written about the racism, discrimination et al. Most of these op-eds, from what I've read, have chosen to berate the Indian government and society for an over the top reaction. Many have drawn parallels between the intrinsic caste-ist behaviour of Indian society and racism of the kind that was drawn attention to by Jane Goody's conduct. The implication has been that as a society, India is ill-equipped to cast stones, given its own propensity for discrimination based on caste. I think that this is rather missing the point.

What these people seem to be arguing is that somehow Jane Goody's crimes (such as they were) are mitigated because India is so deeply racist. While the episode is as good a time as any to draw attention to our own shortcomings, I don't understand what the purpose of contrasting the ills of our society to the wondrous (or not, depending on the editorial) qualities of Britain's are. We have a lot of work to do, yes, but the point of this whole episode is to showcase that so do others. It is ultimately irrelevant that India is racist; this story is about Britain's racism, about Britain's prejudices. Lets not cloud the issue, or give it a pass, simply because we as a society also have many many things to repair.

TV Nanny, par excellence

So, AXN has been banned from Indian airwaves for 2 months for daring to telecast some claptrap called Sexiest TV Advertisements. Let's ignore the fact that this show would've been on late at night. Lets also ignore the limited TRPs an English-language channel gets. Forget even that AXN is possibly one of the braver TV channels on here in India, which screens [heavily censored] versions of Nip/Tuck, and some other excellent dramas, including 24, House and Numbers. To avoid any potential conflict with the government, Star World has decided to cease broadcasting Baywatch and Baywatch Hawaii immediately. None of this is important. What is important is that once again, our government feels the need to protect its citizens from the evils of Western programming. Because, of course, watching semi-nude women prance around is tantamount to incitement and leads to the wholesale degradation of moral values.

I don't understand why its obscene to see sexy adverts. I don't understand why its offensive to our politicians. I don't understand why this is not OK, but its OK to show videos of someone being hanged, and killed all over the news channels, and show them 24/7. I'm not saying that the govt should've legislated against these channels, or banned the video. But they left it to the discretion of the management, and why can't they leave this stuff to programming heads as well?

What really annoys me is how all of this interventionism passes under the radar. There will be a report in the papers, but by and large this is ignored. A few months ago, movies had to be re-edited and censored to pass inspection from the CBFC, again, before being telecast. Any films rated 'A' (Adult) was banned from being shown. HBO routinely censors its award-winning shows, like Deadwood and Rome. Then, we have situations where someone makes a jokey video about Mahatma Gandhi. The point isn't whether the video was in bad taste or not. The fact that the Ministry felt the need to get involved is the issue here. A video which would've been largely overlooked by the general populace became the you-tube hit of the moment only because the Ministry created such a big ruckus around it. When is all of this going to stop? When will our govt realise that as adults, as a functioning democracy and as a people who choose their own government, we do not need supervision in what to watch on television? Sometimes, people really are capable of making these decisions themselves. I know, shocker.

And then there are instances where political incorrectness on prime time television has been creating such a massive furor in the US and UK. I'm referring to the backstage Grey's Anatomy drama, which dates back to October, where Isaiah Washington, who essays the part of Burke, referred to his co-star as a f*****. The whole thing blew up again at the Golden Globes, where Grey's won Best Drama. IW is on record as saying it "Never Happened" and then TR Knight, whose coming out was precipitated by the October fracas, goes on Ellen to say it did, and that "Everyone heard it".The sad part is the way the whole issue has been mis-handled to this degree. With a creator who goes on about diversity on her show, both Shonda Rhimes and ABC are very responsible for the mess that exists right now. In any case, the slur is unforgivable, definitely on par with calling someone an N-word, or a P***. Which leads me nicely into the second show creating waves of the wrong kind - Celebrity Big Brother with its on-set shenanigans involving actress Shilpa Shetty and other residents of the house. Having watched a few of the videos, I can say that racially motivated or not, Shilpa was attacked, and if all it takes is a few other issues to remove the veneer of multiculturalism and descend to name-calling that utilizes racist epithets, then these people (both IW and CBB "celebrities") are in their essences homophobic, and racist.

All that remains is for the networks in question (ABC and Channel 4) to wake up and do something. Such behaviour must be marked out as unacceptable. At this point, it doesn't matter what the intent or motivation of the people using these words were. Both the situations have exploded into a comment on their respective societies, and must be addressed. The networks need to get their heads out of their asses and realise that not all publicity is good publicity. It doesn't matter if IW's insults were more about Patrick Dempsey than TR Knight. It doesn't matter if Shilpa Shetty hasn't been "overtly abused" as the channel now seems to be saying.

Oh, and the very idea that TR and Shilpa have somehow brought this upon themselves by being, I don't know, gay and Indian respectively, is outrageous. I will never look at Germaine Greer the same way again - I didn't know Germaine, that there were some forms of equality more important than others. And USA Today should take a good, long look at themselves and how they choose to portray things.