Media after the site

Tweet: What does the post-page, post-site, post-media media world look like? @stephenfry, that’s what.

The next phase of media, I’ve been thinking, will be after the page and after the site. Media can’t expect us to go to it all the time. Media has to come to us. Media must insinuate itself into our streams.

I’ve been trying to imagine what that would be and then I was Skype-chatting with Nick Denton (an inspirational pastime I’ve had too little of lately) and he knew exactly what it looks like:


Spot on. Fry insinuated himself into my stream. He comes to us. We distribute him. He has been introduced to and acquired new fans. He now has a million followers, surely more than for any old web site of his. He did it by his wit(s) alone. His product is his ad, his readers his agency. How will he benefit? I have full faith that he of all people will find the way to turn this into a show and a book. He is media with no need for media. I was trying to avoid using Aston Kutcher as my example, but he’s on the cover of Fast Company making the same point: “He intends to become the first next-generation media mogul, using his own brand as a springboard…. ‘The algorithm is awesome,’ Kutcher says…”

That’s media post-media.

This view of the future makes it all the more silly and retrograde for publishers like Murdoch to complain about the value of the readers Google sends to them. Who says readers will or should come to us at all? We were warned of this future by that now-legendary college student who said in Brian Stelter’s New York Times story (which foretold the end of the medium in which it appeared): “If the news is that important, it will find me.”

If a page (and a site) become anything, it will be a repository, an archive, a collecting pool in which to gather permalinks and Googlejuice: an article plus links plus streams of comments and updates and tweets and collaboration via tools like Wave. Content will insinuate itself into streams and streams will insinuate themselves back into content. The great Mandala.

The notion of the stream takes on more importance when you think about your always-connected and always-on device, whatever the hell you call it (phone, tablet, netbook, eyeglasses, connector….). I recently saw a telecommunications technology exec show off a prototype of a screen he says will be here in a year or so that not only has color and full-motion video and can be seen in ambient light but that takes so little power that it can and will be on all the time. So rather than hitting that button on the iPhone to see what’s new, your post-phone post-PC device is always on and always connected. You don’t sneak it under the table to turn it on now and again. You leave it on the table and it constantly streams.

Is that stream news? Only a small portion of your stream – whatever you want, whatever you allow in – will be. Just as publishers’ news is only a small portion of the value of what Google returns in search, we mustn’t be so hubristic to think that the streams flowing by readers’ eyes will be owned, controlled, and filled by media with what they declare to be news. They will be filled with life.

The real value waiting to be created in the stream-based web is prioritization. That’s part of what Clay Shirky is driving at when he talks about algorithmic authority and what Marissa Mayer talks about when she says news streams will be hyperpersonal. The opportunity in news is not to try to mass-prioritize it for everyone at once – impossible! – but to help each of us do it. To make that work, it will have to be personal and personal will scale only if it’s algorithmic and the algorithm will work only if we trust and value what it delivers. So how do you learn enough about me, who I am, what I do, and what I need so you can solve my personal filter failure and show me the emails and tweet and updates and, yes, news I’ll most want to read? What tricks can you bring to bear, as Google did and Facebook did: the wisdom of a crowd – perhaps my crowd? the value of editors still?

So imagine this future without pages and sites, this future that’s all built on process over product. If you’re what used to be a content-creation – if you’re Stephen Fry, post-media – you’re all about insinuating yourself into that stream. If you’re about content curation – formerly known as editing – then you’re all about prioritizing streams for people; that’s how you add value now.

Getting people to come to you so you can tell them what you say they should know while showing them ads they didn’t want from advertisers who bear the cost and risk of the entire experience? That’s just so 2008. Now it’s time to go with the stream.

  • So celebrity is the new media then? We need to become famous before we can reach out?

    • Craig Roth

      More the other way around. You reach out, people start paying attention, and OMG you’re famous!

  • I would not agree with any part of this article.

    It’s fine if companies want to deliver their products to people, but to suggest that’s the only way to be successful on a platform is false.

    • Wout Bogaert

      I think it’s important to find the right balance. Go to the people and let them know what you have and what you can do ‘together with’ (not for) them. Give an offer but don’t convince. That way I believe we can meet halfway.

    • I didn’t say that. Read again, patricia

  • Slightly tangential, but I am now picking up news from Twitter streams which my husband, who works for the BBC news website, doesn’t know about. The news is coming to me here at home and it’s fresh, so do I need a big organisation to mediate my news for me ? Have I become my own newsgatherer ?
    It’s only a small example and there are plenty of things I would miss if I did not look at the BBC site, but it has echoes of what Jeff is saying.

  • wendy

    Fantastic read. I think you make some very valid points.

  • I agree it’s time for the stream to become the primary source of news. However there’s a whole other world out there that deals with *information*. Books, speeches, lectures, blog posts that add value to the overall information experience will remain viable. What the disconnect here is that we’re associating information with the delivery — what’s important in an element in a stream, is it the way it got to you or what was conveyed? Blurring this distinction by saying “the tweet” will win over “the page” ignores the value inherent in the information as it stands alone — whatever medium you put it in.

  • Jack Evanworth

    I think you almost have it right, but people like Fry who don’t follow back, must necessarily lose the cream of the crop (other interesting people) who have to unfollow them as they, themselves, approach following 2000 people – unless they are content to not be able to follow anyone new anymore.

    I just followed him because I am not yet approaching 2000 on one of my accounts. I will have to unfollow him next month as I approach 2000 on that account. There is not really much of a choice – it is called the “Box-in phenomenon” – please research that.

    Ashton’s account is notorious for losing anyone with self-respect who notices, after being on Twitter for a month, that this self-absorbed twitterer (who was on the Suggested User List) doesn’t care about what the rest of us are writing unless, of course, we mention him.

    You don’t have to actually read the stream from the account you tweet on. Wanting to be able to read the stream is not a good excuse not to follow back everyone who seems even half interesting.

    Even if you wanted to do that, it would take seconds to create an alternate account that can repost everything your “stuck-up account” does while following everyone back. You should try this yourself.

    Many newspaper Twitter accounts have a policy of following everyone back and this is HELPING them gain readers and keep the cream of the crop who are growing themselves.

    An example of a new and fast moving account would be:


    A sneaky way for newspapers to do this is to have 1 account that is stuck-up and doesn’t follow any plebes back while having another account that follows everyone back.

    So the best example for the future is @dailytelepgraph vs @dailytelegraph

    Please look for good examples among those who follow 100,000+ as well as have 100,000+ followers.

  • Dermitt

    Damn, I am a search engine that moves. People are becoming tools of their tools.

  • Pingback: Links for Monday 11/30/09 – The Rise and Fall of Media and After the Page, the Next Phase of Media | Michael Fioritto's Weblog()

  • Spot on, and here is a better example than @stephenfry (who was a well known figure before Twitter) – check out Zoe Keating @zoecello – who has over 1.2M followers on Twitter, makes solo Cello music and sells it via the iTunes music store (where she is one of the top sellers in her category), has no record company or agent, and yet her music is being picked up for TV shows etc.

  • ‘He is media with no need for media’. Yes, this all works beautifully until you come to how its all funded and then you’re back to the book and the show. Apparently, see above, Zoe Keating has 1.2m Twitter followers, but she still needs iTunes to bring in the cash. Although I’ll bet she’s a fine Cellist. As you admitted in your own book, Jeff, ‘the dog needs to eat’.

    Personally, I find the idea of everyone dictating their own news needs somewhat of a contradiction. Isn’t there something inherent in news that I *don’t* know it yet ? I worry about increased partizanship, Foxification and the demise of intelligent debate if we’re just fed what we think we want. Its the distillation of the self-absorbed ‘me’ generation.

  • Spot on Jeff!

    We’re getting caught up in a discussion about the horse & buggy vs the horseless carriage while the airplane is flying by! I wrote Repent, Repent, The End of the Personal Computer is Near back in February on this very topic.

    In an earlier comment, I made reference to the fact that I read posts in a feed reader, only visiting sites to comment. I read this entire article in the reader before coming over to leave this comment. Its an example of the post inserting itself into my stream. Now, speed that up by a factor of 100 and you get my Twitter stream.

    Without a doubt, this is going to spawn new tools. To argue over the applicability of reader vs Twitter vs FriendFeed is pointless… they may be contributors to the stream but the likelihood of them being THE stream is small.

    Maybe it will be something like Pandora, that learns who and what I’m interested in based on the stories I expand / click through to. An intelligent stream reader that learns the DNA markers of content I’m interested in can do a pretty good job of filtering and finding new sources as they come on line. Then there is the whole issue of catching up on what I missed while I was asleep, so hyper-personal curation is a necessity as well.

    As Jeff alluded to, we also have some Human Computer Interface (HCI) issues to work out. The keyboard and mouse are very inefficient methods to input data but there are some pretty smart folks working on those problems, they’ll get fleshed out soon enough.

    As those HCI issues get resolved, I believe we’ll see an explosion of new applications that take advantage of the new technology and make the real-time stream a more real possibility in our near future.


  • Dermitt

    Music on twitter or twoons could build a following fast. No walls and ad supported vs pay wall and no ads. Ads scale up as Google proves. A streaming music feed needs ads not walls.

  • Wow.

    Sorry, Jeff, you’re way off.

    I’d love to say otherwise, by the way; piecing together bits of significant data IS where it’s all going. But your conclusions vis a vis Mr. Fry, or the larger point that an earlier commenter called you on (“it’s all about celebrity”) are way off the mark.

    So, buzz, buzz, buzz . . . but at the end of the day content worth reading WILL remain king, and delivering it “meaningfully” is what will matter.

    Jeff Yablon
    President & CEO
    Answer Guy and Virtual VIP Computer Support, Business Change Coaching and Virtual Assistant Services

  • @stephenfry. “He is media with no need for media.”

    Well, he is a broadcaster and writer who has the media of TV, book, newspaper, website, others and now Twitter.

    The stream hasn’t *replaced* his accessibility through other media, it’s augmented it. It has opened a window in to what Stephen does between Big Media appearances, it has given him a direct line to followers. But, ultimately, he has such a large stream following because he was already popular outside of the realm of the stream.

    Also no coincidence, though, that Stephen is popular in that new arena – as a somewhat shameless geek who is also funny, he’s a high priest of certain technorati.

    I’m more interested by what happens when personalities, news, life data, everything becomes delivered by feed than I am by the personalities alone…

    The notion that I can just let news “come to *me*”, rather than the other way around, is new indeed (although not without precedent – paperboys deliver newspapers without being asked each day, I let evening news bulletins kick in when the scheduler says so)…

    No, I’m interested in how we *manage* the world of feeds. We need better tools for that new world.

    And if we merely sit back and let news somehow come to *us*, confident that it will be delivered either through our social graph or electing initially to subscribe to set sources, doesn’t successful delivery of breaking news depend on actually being tuned in to my feed centre at the appropriate moment? Seems there’s a big black spot here – even if I’m not already overwhelmed by feeds (and I am), I may very well have opted to turn off my feed stream at a particular moment. What are the implications for *missing* news in this way?

  • Steve

    So trusting editors is bad, because they’re elitist (booo!). But trusting celebrities is good, because they’re on Twitter (cheers!).

    Here’s the flaw in your argument, Jeff.

    A bad editor has no “prioritizing” ability except what their stomach is telling them. Agreed? Everyone has a talking stomach, so we don’t need bad editors. However a good editor has experience and many skills of nuance, foresight and anticipation for example. A bad editor is a bad editor, whether they’re on the Rustbelt News, or post-media Stephen Fry.

    By making editorial skills and experience irrelevant, you have short-circuited your argument – so Stephen Fry “wins” simply because he can use new media tools.

    And that’s just silly.

    • Andy Freeman

      > By making editorial skills and experience irrelevant, you have short-circuited your argument – so Stephen Fry “wins” simply because he can use new media tools.

      How about explaining how you came to the conclusion that Jarvis thinks that editorial skills and experience are irrelevant?

      I ask because Jarvis has said otherwise many times, that editorial is one place where journalists can make a difference and a living. (He often uses the “curate” when he’s making that argument.)

      Since much of your argument seems to depend on what Jarvis’ position actually is, a littel supporting evidence would be nice.

  • Ted

    I agree with most of what you blog about but not this point. There’s a well-known stream; it’s called press releases, and I’m not the least bit interested in jumping in.

  • Pingback: Passages : Media after the site « BuzzMachine at SÉRENDIPITÉ()

  • The stream does not replace the page, it complements the page. There will be no “post-page … world”, what there will be is more like the “Great Mandala.” The page and the stream complementing each other.

    There are a number of dichotomies that one must understand in order to grok the changes to media technology that we’re observing…

    Retrospective vs. Prospective: There are two major “modes” to information retrieval and discovery. The first, and most common, is retrospective search (implemented by “search engines”, etc.). The questions answered are those of the form “What was written in the past on this subject?” The second mode is prospective. The questions asked are of the form: “Tell me whenever there is something of interest on this subject.”
    The page is the subject of retrospective search, the stream is the product of prospective search. The two modes compliment each other. When you hear of a new concept or event, you will often do a retrospective search to discover what has been written about it in the past. Once you come up to speed on the past, if you maintain an interest, you will wish to see new content as it is generated. As you say, it is like a Mandala — the two modes feed and compliment each other. Both are necessary. Neither is sufficient.

    Follow vs. Track: In selecting the news you read, you can choose to “follow” the content produced by particular writers or curated by particular editors, etc. Or, you can choose to “track” media that discusses particular concepts based on the content rather than who wrote it or where it was published. Twitter, microblogging systems, and most blog aggregators implement streams whose content is selected based on the the “follow” model (i.e. follow stephenfry). However, in the future, we’ll see more and more streams created as a result of content-based tracking.

    Retrieval vs. Scoring: The original search engines were primarily “retrieval” engines. Given a set of keywords or boolean expressions, they did retrospective search that retrieved all previously indexed items that satisfied the given search query. Google became the market leader by perfecting a method of “scoring” and ranking results. You can still get “everything” that matched your query, but the top results will be those considered most important for you to consider. Today, most “stream” and prospective search systems are still at the “pre-Google” level of technology. Automated stream-based scoring methods are still primitive and little deployed. (But, this will change soon…) A tremendous market opportunity exists for those who can produce prospective, tracking systems that incorporate effective scoring. Such systems will be required in order to implement automatically generated “hyperpersonal streams.”

    Request/Response vs. Publish/Subscribe: Traditional systems (including those based on HTTP) rely on active consumers and “passive” content providers. For anyone to receive information, they first needed to “request” that information (i.e. by issuing a search or by “going” to a web page.) The content source was unable to provide value unless the consumer polled it asking for content. One of the big changes that comes with “streams” is that we’re moving to a publish/subscribe model which incorporates “prospective search” into an asynchronous delivery model. The result is a system in which information flows to the user when it becomes available — not simply when the user requests it.

    Sender-controlled-routing vs. Recipient-controlled-routing: Email is a classic example of “sender controlled routing.” In an email system, those who receive messages is determined by the sender of the message. However, we’re now moving towards an environment in which “recipient-controlled-routing” is becoming more common. (If you’re thinking about Twitter, consider that “direct messages” are sender-controlled while “follow” implements “recipient-controlled-routing.”

    Note that in no case is one side of the dichotomy going to completely replace the other side. In all the cases above, the two sides compliment each other. The page will not be replaced by the stream, it will be complimented by it…

    bob wyman

    bob wyman

    • Bob, sage commentary. Your last sentence nutted it for the consumption side at least.

  • Lisa

    Having the news (or content) come to us is nothing new. Public radio does that all the time while we drive in our cars in our “commuting stream.”

    • Dermitt

      Good point. Google Alerts do it too
      A Google map and alert that said, alert 2 mile traffic backup ahead would cut down on congestion and speed the commuting stream. This could save fuel and time.

    • Hey Lisa,

      The only challenge with radio news, or TV for that matter, is that they are broadcasting… throwing a broad net in an attempt to capture the attention of the most audience members. It may or may not be anything I’m interested in. Even you would have to admit you’ve heard stories that you didn’t really have any interest in, right?

      The alternative is a hyper-focused stream of news that ONLY contains stories I’m interested in. It is definitely a new way to think about it and will require some enabling technology development, but wouldn’t you rather have your news filtered to only those stories that you’re interested in?


      • Lisa

        Ah there is the rub. If I decide to only receive news I claim to be interested in, then there’s an awfully good chance I would miss out on other important news that doesn’t fit in with my preferences but might still matter to my day to day life. This is the “broccoli/chocolate” news supply-demand dilemma that E. Zuckerman talked about regarding the dearth of global journalism in the US, but it could be applied to what could be termed issue news. I may be more interested in celebrity gossip (the chocolate) but, really, what Geitner says about the mortgage industry (the broccoli) may be more relevant to my life. The question is, how do you encourage people to eat their broccoli, so to speak?

        If I may, let me turn the tables a bit on your question of hearing stories that didn’t interest me….how many news stories caught you by surprise…ones you might not have sought out, but nonetheless found compelling and wanting more?

        A key advantage of radio nowadays is simply that radio really works really well as a content delivery system while driving. In fact, radio and audio in general work really well with our increasingly multitasked lives…what someone termed continuous partial attention. The immediacy of radio news is harder to push into mobile or other new media devices. It’s not impossible (I have the NPR app for my iPod Touch), but it’s harder, especially with integrating both local and national/international news, even for stories that I might not have thought were interesting, but turned out to be.

        And honestly, radio is easy. Turn on, tune to station, listen. I love my iPod Touch, but it’s not nearly as easy as radio for immediate listening.

      • Andy Freeman

        > This is the “broccoli/chocolate” news supply-demand dilemma that E. Zuckerman talked about regarding the dearth of global journalism in the US, but it could be applied to what could be termed issue news. I may be more interested in celebrity gossip (the chocolate) but, really, what Geitner says about the mortgage industry (the broccoli) may be more relevant to my life.

        As I pointed out elsewhere, this cocooning is mainly seen in the left/elite. The masses are seeking out and consuming more diversity than every before. (Example: Limbaugh cites the NYT, WashPost, WSJ, etc regularly. The reverse almost never happens.)

        However, even if we assume that the cocooning is both real and widespread, who gets to decide what’s broccoli? Surely you’re not going to argue that the folks who lied about having their thumbs on the scale should be returned to that position?

        What? Your idea of broccoli is stuff that you think others should value? Why don’t they get to return the favor?

  • Pingback: Akma()

  • Pingback: Beta Alfa » Blog Archive » Noterat 2009-12-01()

  • Pingback: jardenberg kommenterar – 2009-12-01 — jardenberg unedited()

  • Pingback: Tag strømmen fra dit website | Digitale medier, håb & falliterklæringer()

  • Pingback: Media, meta-media « Clive Davis Blog()

  • I just want to know more about that magical screen that you talked about.

  • Good post, Jeff.

    I agree 100% with this –

    “If a page (and a site) become anything, it will be a repository, an archive, a collecting pool in which to gather permalinks and Googlejuice: an article plus links plus streams of comments and updates and tweets and collaboration via tools like Wave. Content will insinuate itself into streams and streams will insinuate themselves back into content..”

    Individuals, brands, organisations…everyone will need to have their latest content out there in the social stream. There will always be the need for a ‘homebase’ where the conversation can continue or more value can be given, but expecting people to come and find you will be a fast track to annonimity, imho.


  • Ken

    So are you saying that we will all have our own personal streams? Our devices and logins will know what information, entertainment, news etc. that we want all the time, and will automatically deliver it to you. That would be incredibly complicated. What would happen when paradigms change due to experimentation.

    While I think that the article is well written and very interesting, I think that it may be discounting changing interests and innovation. For example, I do not listen to the same music, even the same genre of music that I did 10 years ago, in fact some of the music that I listen to now was not even imagined 10 years ago.

    Thank you for giving me something to think about.

  • This post seems to have stirred up a controversy – by which I mean, people like @monkchips and @leebryant are calling it bonkers on Twitter.

    I’m with Jeff on this one. Stephen Fry is a good case to look at, because of the way his online presence mixes up personality, brand, product, channel and genre. (If we were at a social science conference, somebody would say “transgressing” about now. )

    Jeff’s put his finger on how much my media/comms experience is becoming a single flow, which is made up out of other flows, and how some of the decisions aremade by the audience members, some by the publishers, and some by aggregators in the middle.

  • As always, you’re two steps ahead. Can we schedule a time to talk about this idea for on 12/10 anytime after 1PM ET? I would be grateful for the opportunity.

  • Benjamin Lukoff

    “Process over product” sounds too close to “style over substance” for me to be comfortable with the thought. Of course, the idea of being comfortable about the direction of media should really have been forgotten about 10 years ago. But still. Let’s just think about the implication of that. Change may be inexorable, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to manage it.

  • And the Twitter fuss over this post is NOT coming to me. Why isn’t it here on this blog? Why do we have to go search for it?

  • Pingback: The Shifted Librarian » December 1st Stream()

  • Pingback: Quick social media news round up | It's Open - Social Media Strategy Consultancy()

  • louise

    I think twitter is a terrible thing. It just takes one person to say something and everybody thinks its fact. Look at all the stuff with Johnny Depp buying I Conjure Candles. Because they’re Angelina’s favourite everyone’s linking them. It should be sanctioned atleast, because it can ruin lives.

  • Pingback: - Blog - SNODI di Federico Badaloni » Blog Archive()

  • jaq

    The concept of process over content is becoming increasingly important. Today there is more great content from a relatively infinite number of sources. The question of WHY we consume the content is becoming paramount. I’ve started to ask myself questions like; “What is the quality of my life satisfaction today versus people who lived 50, 100, 200, 1000 years before me?” There are the obvious benefits of technology in regards to health, safety, and certainly communication, but is the obsession with the KNOWLEDGE of the advancement in these areas providing a substantial return on investment of our time, focus, and finances that results in the exponential gain in life satisfaction over that of past generations?

    Do I benefit knowing the latest US soldier body count from Afghansistan updated by the second? Frankly no, but there are others who would benefit greatly from this information, and this is where priorities enter the picture. Right-sizing consumption of content/information/news that aligns with each of us individually is definitely the future. One day it will be possible to access the answers to almost any question. I believe to increase our life satisfaction the first question that needs to be asked is; “Should I ask the question.”

  • Pingback: the exhausting future « books in the works()

  • Pingback: Veckan som gick – Vecka 49 « Same Same But Different()

  • I wonder if some folks on the thread have misread Jeff’s point?

    @Craig McGill, it’s not that we need to be ‘famous’ – rather, our personal media clout is driven by our reputation. Reputation(trust) is all any media brand really has left when the means of gathering and distributing information are no longer differentiators.

    And so, @Jeff Yablon, our Reputation is indeed driven by the quality of our contribution (eg. ‘content worth reading’) to the stream. Which means, @Steve, the better an editor you are, the better your contribution, the better your Reputation, the bigger your clout.

    @dermitt makes an interesting point – ‘Damn, I am a search engine that moves’. True, and more. In the stream, we are all agents of micro-creation, micro-editing, micro-distribution. We all affect what information is streamed, and where, to greater or lesser extents. The stream itself is a complex adaptive system comprised of our myriad actions and reactions.

    And the stream does not preclude long-form content – @Dean Michael Berris – Jeff writes of ‘pools’ in the stream “in which to gather (articles) plus links plus streams of comments and updates and collaboration…Content will insinuate itself into streams and streams will insinuate themselves back into content. The great Mandala.”

    (please forgive the paraphrasing @Jeff)

    I have one question though – as we select our ‘algorithmic authorities’, both human and artificial, and as these self-reinforce, feeding us ever more homogenous information, how long until we collapse in on ourselves?

    Cheers. @grahamhumph

    • Well-said Graham. I’m traveling and so it’s wonderful to have a proxy. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

      I think surprise/serendipity is built in. Don’t you get surprises from your Twitter feed all the time? I do. And I’m still exposed to media that surprises me. I think that is a problem that has been dreaded but that has not reared its head yet.

  • Pingback: The Next Evolution of the Web – On Immediacy & Authority « emergent by design()

  • Pingback: December 1st Stream | dv8-designs()

  • Pingback: No Man’s Blog - Notes on Streams + 2 weeks experiment()

  • Pingback: ViNT // Vision - Inspiration - Navigation - Trends » Media after the site()

  • Pingback: Content farms v. curating farmers « BuzzMachine()

  • Pingback: No Man’s Blog - Few comments on stream(s)()

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010()

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 | Wordpress Marketing()

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 | #! Jack Script()

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 | Brian Swichkow’s Blog()

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 |

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 | Online Internet SEO()

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 « Web Witches()

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 | SEO Invisible()

  • Pingback: Journalism Today - Tracking Media Changes » Home()

  • Calguydude

    The article says “repository” and I say NEW MEDIA! I’m a graphic designer. It might not seem really obvious yet, in 2009, but with all of some forms of data in an available holographic format, a screen that projects from the floor, and then assimilates data from a slightly artificially intelligent robot keeper is probably Next Gen (7, 8, 9 or something like that), from a tech viewpoint. Websites won’t die, as a screen mounted “touch-based” and keyboard-based and microphone with hard disk communications technology, but representations of information, put into a holographic projector and voice activated can be used and implemented to enhance up any process server, in order to get to another plateau within the information “event horizon”.

    After that, it is more likely that a really well-designed and affordable human-like synthetic type of robot or a small easy to transport device (self-propelled) with large information capacity and storage (and non-lethal) and advanced communication abilities will be developed as a sort of human assistant. (like today’s cell phones and laptops). But I have a fear that a temporarily “disabled” human population, resulting from uncontrolled and badly legislated robot tech, compared to previously existing “normal” human strengths and weaknesses of 100 years past (from the early 21st century) will be a large factor for medical practitioners in the resulting tech revolution of the 22nd century.

    And, in the 22nd century, more programmable and safe and reliable forms of transportation will enable users to enjoy life and travel more, but probably will limit itself to safe “civilized” nations such as those that now operate diplomatically (West and some Asian) with regard to what is affordable and sells in terms of a tech advanced society. What can be found, as one extrapolates (time travel) involving this level of future thought are new biomass fuels and even safe nuke energy formats that are small enough to be considered “safe” with fail-safe features.

    Our human adventures and exploits in the later years of the 21st century as oil runs out will be to somehow include guaranteed health protections and certain, lethal disease eradications and medical advances. Also, many well-educated people could contribute to the education of the next and former generations of humans, animals, whatever. Honest and forthright concerns for our elderly people, and elderly benefits and life-prolonging and enhancing tech can be realizd in this century.

    Concerns about the creation of jobs for (and maintenance of jobs for) everyone who asks for one, job and career advancement, and certain sorts of research, development and “management of” the facts surrounding the truths about large, numerous, longer life, human populations, changing demographics and geographical life-choices, global human tech-inspired forms of depression and “meaning of life” problems, religion and tolerance of differences, large output energy creation and storage for use, highly developed defense weapons and accelerated Earth weather damage caused by global warming and abrupt climate change will also become tangible and quite real, in this century. We as Earth people have to deal with all of that and more, throughout today and on into the future.

    The human colonizations of orbital space, including Earth, and the Moon and Mars habitation experiments starting in 2072 will take decades to produce any sort of space-based self-sufficiency and safety, but tech-wise, advanced space travel, food storage and recycling, water accumulation and gathering technologies, communications, using lasers and satellites and differing forms of screen and radio and beam communications and new space engine formats and flight tech will probably become the “norm” in the next century.

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 | Channel321()

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 | Afif Fattouh - Web Specialist()

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 « Mike Dickman()

  • Pingback: 5 viktiga trender att tänka på i nätstrategiarbetet — Per-Åke Olsson()

  • Pingback: links for 2009-12-07 « Glenna DeRoy()

  • Pingback: 10 News Media Content Trends to Watch in 2010 | AskCharly()

  • Pingback: clockfour()

  • Pingback: De democratisering van content: de eindgebruiker wordt curator. – carrièremagazine Spotlight Effect « Spotlight Effect()