For the next 30 days I am going to be relying completely on non-traditional news sources. I am going to stop reading traditional newspapers, watch any news on TV, or listen to the radio.
The point is that I keep getting told by members of the traditional press that social news cannot possibly replace traditional news. And I think it already has.
Despite that I am still reading 3-4 traditional newspapers (online) every day. It's the first thing I do every morning, just after checking my social feeds. And every morning a feel frustrated by the time I have wasted reading them.
Here is an example of news headlines on CNN:
None of these have any relevance to me as a person. None of them is useful for what I have to do. How can news about a local ferry accident in a very remote region of the planet be relevant to me living in Europe?
The only story that is even remotely interesting is the one about the lab burgers', but that is only because I like future trends.
Traditional news is a huge waste of everyone's time. And I am going to stop using them. At first for 30 days, but if it goes well... forever.
Instead of turning to traditional sources (newspapers, TV and radio) I will be relying on 3 different sources:
If someone post a really good article from the New York Times on Twitter, then I am still going to read it. But I will not go the their site to see if there is anything new.
You should do the same. Try it. Join me!
And if you do, tell me how it went, or post an article about it on your blog (and send me the link).
What do you think? Could you live without traditional news for 30 days?
Every year, Oriella PR is doing a study among journalists on how they see the future of media, and what they focus on.
As much as I like the views of Jeff Jarvis, I do not like his views on monetization. He basically says that content has to operated at a loss.
There was a great comment in my article "How to really stop piracy" from Paulius, who commented on another commenters suggestions that movies should only cost $1.
Admit all the changes faced by news organizations, like the lack of monopoly, real-time reporting, creating original content, and the disappearance of print, there seems to be one element that most news people still do not understand. There is no distribution market on the internet - it's a link economy.
Yesterday, I updated to iOS 4 on my iPhone (like everyone else), and downloaded iBooks. The iOS 4 is nice, pretty fast, and a welcome upgrade. But iBook was a disaster.
I have been playing around with my iPad for a few days, and I noticed the Reuters App. It is a very well-made news app, which gives you a quick look at the latest headlines. And it extends to be a kind of mini Bloomberg market and stock watch.
The iPad has arrived, and the media industry is saved. Of course, when I say it has arrived, what I really mean is that it is now available in the US. And when I say that the media industry is saved, I really mean they think they are saved.
The social web is starting to sound more and more like the dot.com days. We are in the middle of a transition. The ways we do things are radically different. What works and doesn't work seems new. And many people are getting very excited about numbers, but not the right ones.
Several blogs and media outlets reports that the NY Times will start to charge money for reading their newspaper online.
There is much talk these days about tablets and ereaders. Not only do we have the constant rumor that Apple is making one, but it seems like every newspaper on the planet see them as the "prophet" that will save them from their doom.
Subscribe