Class 1/16 Reminders

For next week:


Tow Center Report on Post-Industrial Journalism:

Why Journalists Are Becoming Entrepreneurs

Do before next class: Watch Page One movie. This is a tale of disruption in one news organization (New York Times) but some of the lessons apply beyond journalism. You should write down at least one concrete observation you made about disruption from the film. It’s already getting  a little bit dated, but the major themes are still relevant. The film is available on Netflix and we have some copies you can check out from the journalism office in room 300. Try Googling it, too, as there may be other ways to watch it online.

Respond to questions about the readings and film here in a comment on this post. You do NOT have to be a contributor to the blog in order to do this, but I will be setting you all up as contributors eventually:

Start thinking. What is your best media business idea? Hint: Think about a problem you could solve or a pain you could cure.

Join class Facebook group:

If you did not have a Twitter handle on your card, set up an account and send it to me. Please do upload a photo/avatar of some kind so that we aren’t all staring at generic egg-like thingies, and fill out the bio section. Here is how to find me: This is a helpful guide to Twitter with some basics for those new to it, and I can also do a brief intro to it:

Use the hashtag #jpreneur on Twitter at least once to reflect on the film and/or share a link relevant to journalism entrepreneurship.

 Class blog set up – I will be sending you an invite to be a contributor to the class blog. Stay tuned.

Send me brief bio of yourself for the class blog. Just tell a little bit about yourself so we can make a little roster. Mine’s a bit too long, but e.g.

Tagged , ,

3 thoughts on “Class 1/16 Reminders

  1. Ketevan Dolidze says:

    1. The one thing that this article does, among many, is point out that the relationship between advertising and journalism is nonexistent. An excellent point is made here that an advertiser and a publisher are not in a partnership but are parts of a sales transaction. Businesses have to use publishers if they want to get noticed. In turn, publishers understand this idea and “use the proceeds to pay for journalism,” as the article states. As the examples from the past are pointed out in the article, the idea that somehow advertising can enable journalism becomes very slim, if nonexistent.
    2. Apple has been one of the major disruptors since 1984, when it shocked the world with its first computer that was user friendly. Since then, we went from a very large desktop to a very small high resolution screen we can carry with us everywhere. When the Ipod was introduced to the world in the 2000s, it completely disrupted not only the technological world but also the music industry. The first generation Ipod was much larger than the ones we have today, but it still held an enormous amount of music, which could be bought from Itunes with just one click. The need for hard copies, such as CDs, records, cassettes, slowly disappeared, hence hurting the music industry dramatically. Instead of going to the store and waiting in line to purchase the CD that just came out, you could do it from the comfort of your own home. And lets face it, how many of us purchased an entire CD when we only like a couple of songs, if not just one. What Apple did with Itunes is give the consumer a chance to decide what he/she wanted. It deviated from this thought of “they (the consumers) will like what we give them,” and, in turn, empowered the listeners. I honestly do not think that Apple is anywhere close to its end of innovation era. Apple will continue to shock the world with better, newer products.
    3. First of all, let me start out by saying that this was truly a wonderful documentary, even if it is a bit outdated. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that the effects of disruption were this grand. I realize that we have become a “one minute” society, expecting to get the news from around the world within seconds. All this is possible today with the help of technology and social media. However, I still prefer readings books over digital screens and newspapers over phone newspaper apps. This movie really put it all into perspective for me, as far as the future of newspapers goes. I was convinced that there will not be a day when newspapers will become obsolete and how could they? How could our society pick digital screens over paper. The effects of disruption, however, were clearly pointed out in this movie, Page One, as I learned that newspaper advertising was completely “flipped upside down.” The New York Times did not charge much for the publication of the newspaper, because that money was made up in advertising. But how could the New York Times predict such sites as Monster and Craiglist taking the Jobs and Classified portions away from the newspaper forever. Such entities as Ford and GM began to advertise their own vehicles, which also took away from the automotive advertising of the newspaper. This seems like something so obvious, yet I never pictured it that way. The struggles of the newspapers, even of The New York Times is very real and still remains real today. I really do hope that we will never reach a time when there will be no more newspapers and all we will have access to is the digital word.

    • Carrie Brown says:

      Glad you enjoyed the documentary. I would actually argue that New York Times and other papers COULD, at least potentially, have predicted the success of sites like Craigslist if their cultures were more entrepreneurial. That’s one thing we hope to help you guys do in this class – essentially to be better prepared to recognize future disruptions in media industries so you can take advantage of potential opportunities. I think your first point could also use a little more clarification. I think it’s true that going forward it seems unlikely that advertising alone can sustain news orgs, but I think saying there is no relationship of any kind is a little extreme.

      • Ketevan Dolidze says:

        I think what I was trying to say here is that they could predict that it could happen, but not forever. Though, now that I read the statement, it definitely does not read that way at all. Thank you for pointing that out.

        After reading the article, for some odd reason, I thought it was strongly suggesting that there is no relationship between the two entities. Maybe I read too much into it, or not enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: