Digidave's Quickies

I had this conversation with Andrew Golis on Twitter the other day…

---

agolis You either get to 1. complain about intrusive advertising on the internet, or 2. complain about the dying funding for journalism. Not both. 21 Dec 2009  from Twitterrific

randomdeanna @agolis disagree. information is being released from market forces (no longer scarce, etc), and complainers need to be making new models 21 Dec 2009  from UberTwitter in reply to agolis

agolis @randomdeanna it’s easy for someone to say they’re “making” a new model. I’d make an exception for someone had *MADE* a new model 21 Dec 2009  from Twitterrific

randomdeanna @agolis true. Can’t help but hold up @digidave for that, but still. Relying on profit-based systems is what’4 failing us 21 Dec 2009  from UberTwitter in reply to agolis

agolis @randomdeanna Yes, @digidave can complain. But few others have made as much progress. Profit/non-profit is beside the pt, both need REVENUE. 21 Dec 2009  from Twitterrific

randomdeanna @agolis didn’t mean profit in the for-/non- sense, meant it in the capitalist sense. (Cont’d) 21 Dec 2009  from UberTwitter in reply to agolis

randomdeanna @agolis Meaning, we have to not just be thinking of funding models but production as well. Analogies to art production might be more useful 21 Dec 2009  from UberTwitter in reply to agolis

agolis @randomdeanna ah, totally interesting. Would love to read your full thoughts on that. Have a post I can read/link to? 21 Dec 2009  from Twitterrific

randomdeanna @agolis Can write something up later tonight— just been having that convo recently. Thinking news + art producers are in similar spot 21 Dec 2009  from UberTwitter in reply to agolis

agolis @randomdeanna scary thought. The art world isn’t exactly the land of stable incomes… 21 Dec 2009  from Twitterrific

— this quote was brought to you by quoteurl

----------------------

Hey!

I saw this conversation (a bit of it) on Twitter yesterday and figure I'll chime in here.

It's funny Deanna: I've had this same train of thought before. My spiel goes something like this.

Right now everyone is looking for how journalism will be sustainable but a hard cold truth might be that it isn't sustainable. Again, I feel for folks in tight spots - but it's a cold hard reality (I'm not saying it IS the reality - just that it is a possibility).

But you know what - even if journalism isn't sustainable in that classic sense it doesn't mean it will disappear. There are plenty of endeavors that have NEVER been sustainable in the true sense of the word.

I use poetry as an example. Poetry in and of itself has never been sustainable in the way we might think of other goods and services.

Are we afraid poetry will die? No. Has it ever even been scarce?

I think we could extend this to almost all of the high arts (as opposed to pop arts).

Art has never really been sustainable - but it has been subsidized and you pointed out some of the ways in which it is done.

commercial (Hallmark cards, pop music, etc), government-funded (NEA grants, NYSCA grants, etc), foundation funded (Yaddo retreats, what have you), family funded, collective supported, street selling (a form of commercial, for sure)… and any blend of those above is becoming more and more prominent.

Perhaps journalism is going in that direction.

I think Andrew has some excellent points as well - especially in his response-tweet: http://twitter.com/agolis/status/6957605550

"Where I disagree w/ @randomdeanna in comparison btwn art & journalism is that journo needs power & $ (distribution, lawyers, cred) to work."

I'd say that is true.... right now.

For the journalism industry to work it needs that power and $. But that is the industry. For journalism the process to work - it just needs somebody to report and somebody to be informed. A good poem might only be read and move just one person (bad 6th grade poetry) but it is still a poem.

Ugh..... I should get away from the poem analogy before it swallows me whole.

I also kinda agree with Andrew's original tweet: Either complain about adverts or complain about lack of funding not both. But that's just because I think the INDUSTRY (note the emphasis) needs to get off its butt and figure out what it stands for and believes in: Selling adverts or doing a process. Perhaps it can't be both anymore and decision has to be made.

This Times piece put it pretty well for me. Perhaps there is an unspoken conversation going on right now and complaining will actually stop as we come to a consensus on what we can and can't live without: http://bit.ly/7HQt7A

This is where Andrew and other folks working for non-traditional outlets (myself included as a non-profit entrepreneur ie: a sucker ;) are in really interesting positions. With no legacy behind us there is no quota on what a "good year" looks like. I put that in quotes because Spot.Us is finishing up our first year in existence and people ask me how it is going and I have no idea. I've got nothing to compare it to. I often joke "considering all the things that could go wrong - we are doing great!"

But in all seriousness (and now I KNOW I'm rambling) I think these questions of production vs. money vs. value of journalism as seen by an industry, an individual and general society are going to plague is for a few years if not another decade before we get a strong sense of where things stand. It can go in one of many directions which range from going back to a professionalized white collar industry to the starving artist model of reporters who are waiters at night.

Onward!!!!

And thanks for indulging my late night "Jew during Christmas time with nothing better to do" rant.