Why the Web Mustn't Become the New TV

An anonymous reader writes "This article argues that Rupert Murdoch's bid to own complete control of BSkyB is only part of an ongoing process to make the internet a totally 'linear' experience. The increase in the use of paginated content and the proliferation of video over transcribed interviews are, the author argues, part of a tidal shift from a browsable internet experience to a linear one that will move the user's experience of media from genuine choice to a series of locked-down 'information rides,' in order to re-secure advertising exposure. The author also writes, 'Current worries among publishing houses that magazines and newspapers will succumb to the digital written word on the internet are perhaps analogous to Victorian fears about mechanical horses taking over from real horses in the drawing of carriages. The point is being missed, the wrong fear being indulged.'"

Comments

Good thing

[Dunbal]

Rupert Murdoch is 79. He can't live forever.

Re:Good thing

[jonbryce]

And nearly everyone stopped visiting his (London) Times Newspaper website after he started charging for it. Readership down from 10,000,000 to 10,000.

Re:Good thing

[PopeRatzo]

There's already an Internet that has a liberal bias. It's called "The Internet".

Conservatism has been often described as a political philosophy that denies or tries to prevent change. Remember Buckley's famous line about conservatism standing at the portal of history, yelling "Stop!".

Well, that pretty much means that the Internet, by definition, is a liberal institution. A politically liberal institution, just by its very existence. Sure, there's lots of conservative stuff on the Internet, but the medium itself is liberal. Ever notice that whenever you see a political website change it's always from conservative to liberal and never the other way around (Little Green Footballs comes to mind)? And if you find a political blog that does not allow comments (moderated or not) it's always a conservative site? It's because the Internet by itself, just by its egalitarian nature, tugs to the Left. Yet television, by its nature, tugs to the Right. Ted Turner gave an interview not long ago where he talks about a lot of discussion went on at CNN at the end of his tenure to make it more Right-Wing. And in fact, in the past year it has indeed moved to the Right. If you look at the Sunday morning network news shows over the past 30 years, the guests have trended conservative by a 5-3 ratio. Because that's the nature of a one-way medium.

This is why some of the biggest corporations are working so hard to transform the Internet into a "linear" experience, where information is helpfully provided through the corporate filter and non-complying voices are marginalized or negated.

The clock is ticking, too. Without Net Neutrality laws very soon, the Internet is going to become a dystopic mutation of what we thought it might become a decade or two ago. It will become the Bizarro-world, opposite of an open forum where anyone can reach a wide audience without having to pass through the gates of money and power. It will do for the free exchange of ideas and information what Fox News has done for news.

In other words, it will become television, except you'll have to pay for it and watch commercials.

Today, I read about how the networks are trying to force the manufacturers of DVRs to disable the fast forward button during commercials (again). Think about this approach applied to your Internet.

In ten years, there's a good chance that when two or more of us meet, the main topic of conversation will be how great the Internet used to be. When it comes, the change will have happened so fast we will barely believe it. And remember, the Internet as we know it today was the happy accident of a technology becoming available before the richest and most powerful could "prepare it" for our consumption. Once it's gone, it will be gone forever.

"Free" markets, my ass.

Re:Good thing

[commodore64_love]

>>>Conservatism has been often described as a political philosophy that denies or tries to prevent change.

Which is why I've never liked the word "conservative". I'm registered Republican and yet want to repeal the Patriot Act, shrink government to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, and legalize marijuana, cocaine, et cetera. I can hardly be called conservative, despite people's attempts to attach it to me

Meanwhile the so-called "liberals" seem intent to roll us back to Serfdom. It's as if they want to restore a 1500s-style political system in modern society, where the common man is treated like wards of the government. Rolling our individual liberty back 400 years, like serfs, is true conservativism.
.

>>>Yet television, by its nature, tugs to the Right.

Maybe in the UK but not in the US. The networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC all lean left and it's been that way since the 1950s. The only right-leaning channel is FOX News and that's a recent development (it didn't pass 50% coverage until 2002).
.

>>>Without Net Neutrality laws very soon.....

Or we could just break-up the Cable monopolies. If I were free to choose Comcast or Cox or Time or Cablevision or GoogleTV or Verizon or ATTT or..... it wouldn't matter if they chose to block websites. I could just change companies the same way I change grocery stores. Companies would quickly realize that censoring the net is a sure way to lose customers, and stop doing it.

Re:Good thing

[Yaa 101]

I think that it is a great loss for Murdoch, like Berlusconi he is more interested in using his opinion channels to influence every day live and politics than making a direct buck from it.
10.000 people reading his bias is generating way less influence than 10.000.000 people doing that, personally this makes me happy not sad.

Re:Good thing

[The_Wilschon]

It's actually pretty easy (philosophically, not necessarily practically) for libertarianism to handle the tragedy of the commons. Libertarianism is not the same thing as anarchism. Libertarianism's claim is that the only proper internal role of government is to arbitrate where there is a conflict of rights. "Your right to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose" and all that. The tragedy of the commons exists because there is a conflict among people's right to use a common resource. Not everyone can use it all up. Therefore, libertarianism would claim that it is the government's job to arbitrate among everyone who wants to use a common resource, and thereby prevent the tragedy of the commons. Rule of law (often strongly associated with libertarianism) would further claim that the government should so arbitrate not by having a bureaucracy of officials who, on their own judgement, say "yea" or "nay", but by having a written, almost algorithmic, process for arbitrating, to remove graft, favoritism, and other bad things.

Now, of course, how you go about writing the laws to accomplish this is a very very difficult question, and the answer might well lead you to something that doesn't look much like what we think of as libertarianism. I don't know. But libertarianism, considered properly, at least desires to address the tragedy of the commons.

Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece.

[geek]

Move along, nothing to see. Seriously, don't like what Murdoch is doing? Click elsewhere. This isn't rocket science.

Hell you can even make a competitor to BSkyB if you like. The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational. No one is forcing you to watch/read. Get the fuck over it.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece.

[Calydor]

That would work if this was just being done by some out-in-the-sticks local newspaper.

Murdoch is rich and has influence. He has the political power to set a precedent for how to do things. Simply ignoring him is not going to change that one bit.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece.

[Microlith]

Until he streams lobbyists into Congress and starts burning cash on attack ads. Remember, in America men like Murdoch have more rights and influence with the government than you do. The Supreme Court said so.

Murdoch and the rest of the Media industry don't like the two-way, interactive nature of the web. They hate it, in fact, because it lets people ignore them.

Hell you can even make a competitor to BSkyB if you like.

I know, it's so easy to jump into the business of being a satellite media service company. Real easy.

The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational.

Nah, Murdoch deserves all the shit he catches. I'm sure he'd not blink at killing everything you like about the internet if it served him in some way.

No one is forcing you to watch/read.

Of course not, but it's a shit deal to have only the options of "Murdoch controlled media" and "nothing," which is really how he wants it.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece.

[jonbryce]

Who cares about satellite media? The future of tv is internet based video on demand.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece.

[interkin3tic]

The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational. No one is forcing you to watch/read. Get the fuck over it.

If an idiot is standing on the street corner spewing lies and no one listens to him, then you can just ignore it and it's not a problem. If a significant portion of your country and voters start believing in it, that's mainly a problem with your country, yes, but it's no longer in the realm of "just ignore it and it won't be a problem." Murdoch's lies are affecting US policy. He's having a substantial impact, increasing partisan politics, preventing Washington from doing -anything-, encouraging ignorance, pushing us towards more of a police state, and distracting people while our rights get sold to corporations.

I'll get the fuck over it when he's dead along with his whole propaganda machine, when most people who watch fox news and believe the BS voluntarily give up the right to vote, when Washington has fixed every problem they've created, and when large corporations stop trying to neuter the internet.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece.

[digitig]

You sound like Luddites. Like this quote from the article:

"To a certain extent this is all reminiscent of the furore in the sea-change from practical to digital newspaper production in London's Wapping in the early 1980s, engendering protracted but ultimately futile strikes from the pre-digital technicians who were made jobless by new, computerised automation of magazine and newspaper production."

You cannot stop progress simple because you don't like it. The horsewhip makers were laid-off when cars took over, and so too were these pre-digital technicians.

So lets get this straight. Reducing the internet to the type of linear media that existed before the web is "progress" that cannot be stopped. Continuing to take advantage of the non-linear nature of the web and building on it is "Luddite". Er, well, keep taking the dried frog pills.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece.

[voidstin]

Thank you for proving the parent's point.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece.

[commodore64_love]

Ya know - it helps if you read the actual bills your Democrat Congress passes.

For example the ability of the FBI to demand copies of your cellphone bills/locations without warrant? It's in the recently-passed Financial Reform bill. I've seen the language in the bill myself.

All Paths Are Taken

[SuperKendall]

The increase in the use of paginated content and the proliferation of video over transcribed interviews are, the author argues, part of a tidal shift from a browsable internet experience to a linear one

And the rise of features like Safari Reader (and Firefox equivalent from which it was born), along with video heavily annotated and searchable also mean the web is moving to a totally non-linear, take it as you please kind of mechanism.

Both things are true, the web can and will take all possible paths. If people do not like confinement than overly narrow paths will grow dusty with disuse over time, but even if they mostly like it the other paths will remain for those that want to take them.

I never did see the point in freaking out about any super-powerful titan "taking over the web" since there is no web to take over, there's just islands that people can build up as high as they like in order to entice people to visit.

Did I read a different article?

[Just_Say_Duhhh]

Where is the discussion about why the internet can't kill classic TV? The article started out worrying about Rupert Murdoch's increasing empire, and then devolved into a "everything I hate about the internet" speech. In particular, how video interviews are inferior to the printed word, because they're harder to search, you can't pick just the bit you want to read, and you can't "space out" while watching it.

The author seems to think all the "popular" sites will squeeze out the "old school" content, because if they don't join in the "linearized" content, they can't monetize their content. Hopefully, not everyone will feel a need to monetize what they provide, and we'll be able to share in people's passions, not just their livelihood. I may not like what you're selling me, but I'll be interested in what interests you, and Rupert Murdoch can't have that.

Meaningless peice

[Sycraft-fu]

While I agree that maybe big media companies would like to make the web a linear experience, they can't. Reason is the web is too large to control. The barrier or entry is extremely low. As such there are sites all over the damn place, that do whatever they please. There is just no way for a media company to control all this. They can take everything they control and make it suck, but all that'll do is make people go elsewhere.

Because of the distributed, low cost nature of the web it is just not really possible for one group to control it. With TV, sure they can do that to a large degree. Not only are TV programs inherently linear, but running a TV station is expensive. It isn't like someone can say "Ya I think I'll set one up." Even if you had a TV station, you have to deal with contracts to get on the distributors, and then of course produce content people want.

None of that is a problem with the web, other than content. You can get a website for $10/month or less with a reasonable host, and probably free if you sniff around a bit. That's all it takes and your site is now on the same level with every other, there is no barriers for people to get to it. The only question then is producing things people want to see. Also people like some extremely cheap things on the web. Look at Maddox's page. It is nothing but his writings and drawing. No big budget productions, nothing fancy, but people like it.

That is just an environment big media can't control. This goes double since the closest things to gate keepers there are is search engines, and they are run by companies way bigger than big media. Fox isn't going to scare Google or Microsoft. They'll keep running their search how they want.

I'm not at all concerned. The web will continue to be a massive collection of any and everything. Different people/groups/companies can make parts of the web that are however they like, and as many people are as interested can go and enjoy it. Maybe some people want a real locked down, linear web experience and if Fox provides one they may enjoy it. But don't worry about them forcing it on everyone, they just don't have the ability.

Sorry, Murdoch hater, you've been outvoted.

[tepples]

Seriously, don't like what Murdoch is doing? Click elsewhere.

Even if you don't like it, there are enough other people who like it that Mr. Murdoch has gained influence over countries. I don't like what Mr. Murdoch is doing to U.S. politics by having built the Tea Party protests into a nationwide movement, but FOX News Channel has attracted enough people to this reactionary movement that it has a significant chance of setting policy that can cause me to be imprisoned or die despite my vote against it.

Re:Sorry, Murdoch hater, you've been outvoted.

[tepples]

The REAL purpose of everything that happens is to cause you to be imprisoned.

Changes to the law cause people who follow the old law to go to jail for not following the new law.

Videos on websites...

[Bert64]

I hate it when i go to read a news story, or a howto or something else online and it's only available in video form...

Especially technical guides, where a howto would let me cut and paste but a video won't...

Videos vs Text

[Thyamine]

I can agree with the complaints about some of this at least. I hate when I go to read an article and instead its a video piece/interview/etc about the topic. I can't just open it and read at my discretion, not to mention how almost every video link seems to start with some commercial. Sure, you need to make money, but you just lost any interest I have. I do fear that this will become what the web is. I also can't be doing much else, I have to stop and engage directly with the video instead of opening interesting sounding articles that I can peruse anytime I want. I suppose I could re-watch the video or pause/rewind/play but that's not what I'm after.

Re:lol

[poetmatt]

bingo. this will never happen, nobody wants TV to be equal to internet, and the demand is nonexistent. It's not too different than 3d tv, which has also been underwhelming.

14 years too late

[hessian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

Sorry, internet: this is your new audience.

Their purchasing determines what is profitable on the internet.

Their attention span determines the type of information that will be profitable.

You, the old school user, are maybe 1% of the net. You are irrelevant except as a niche market.

They are comfortable with TV, "rides" and planned, advertising-funded adventures in alternate realities to distract from their depressing existences as corporate serfs.

They (or rather, what they will buy) will determine the content of the internet. Not you.

What do they like?

* Television
* Fast food
* Coca-Cola
* Movies like X-Men
* Disco
* Corn dogs

That is your future, internet. You are only ruled by the nerds at night.

Re:lol

[NoMaster]

No, you're missing the point. They don't want TV to be equal to the internet; they want the internet to be the equivalent of TV . Demand - at least, what the existing inhabitants demand - also has very little to do with it; they're experts at steering the wants and demands of the incoming population by supply-side manipulation. They've also got the temperament to wait until the tide turns their way, the experience to know that it almost inevitably will, and the deep pockets to stumble around making expensive mistakes until it does.

What, you think /. or other similar crowsourced-ish news/blog sites are the future? No, if you want a glimpse at the future, it's more Fox and Gawker Media than anything else.

Re:The Web as TV?

[ScrewMaster]

I'll believe that when I see Slashdot lose vertical hold.

You kids who don't understand that, stay off my lawn!

Murdoch: We control the vertical. We control the horizontal.

Re:lol

[gronofer]

You are suggesting that sites like Slashdot will disappear because its readers will prefer to watch streaming video from big media conglomerates? I can't see why this would happen. The Internet has been competing with TV since it became widely available in people's homes. Using the Internet to deliver the TV streams won't change anything.

Re:Interesting moderation

[whoop]

Or, perhaps, it was moderated like that because it contains nothing substantive. A generic, "you Glenn Beck lover" jab should be considered insightful? He starts off asking a question, a good start, but doesn't back it up with examples or something to further discussion. That comment is no more useful than "You are poo."