September 28, 2004
Media Watch: Top Libertarian think tank thinker debunks media myths before a senate committee—with no mention of bloggers
....and kicks off preliminary book tour
Like St George slaying a seven-headed dragon, Adam Thierer, a leading thinker for the Cato Institute in Washington, delivered a very well argued testimony entitled “Overcoming mythology in the debate over media ownership,” delivered September 28, 2004 before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
It’s a good read, and it’s easy to see why Mr Thierer has earned his standing as a leading think tank thinker. (I would kill for a business card that said Tom Foremski, Think Tank Thinker)...
However, his business card reads Director of Telecommunications Studies, Cato Institute, and from that vantage point Mr. Thierer has demonstrated an impressive analysis of the media sector.
But I wonder how the senators reacted to his opening statements, which launched into a full-on pitch for his forthcoming book.
No sooner had he said good morning and introduced himself, Mr. Thierer plunged straight into plugging his book, like a guest on Charlie Rose or Letterman.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your invitation to testify here this morning on the important issue of media ownership regulation. This hearing is especially timely for me since I have a new book on this issue due out early next year entitled, “Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership." I chose that title because I have come to the conclusion that the debate over media ownership is being driven more by myth than reality,” Mr Thierer said.
The testimony is a good read, and Mr Thierer’s lance of reason quickly slays the seven-headed Hydra of media mythology. These myths include ideas such as: that there is not enough diversity in the media; there is less localization of media; that a greater concentration of media ownership is bad; and that a healthy democracy requires a regulated media sector to ensure high quality.
Mr. Theirer’s testimony goes on to describe a media sector that is not in trouble, or troublesome to society, but is in fact throwing up an abundance of news and other types of information, producing an increase in dialogue and debate. All good things in a healthy society, and I certainly agree with some of his points.
However, in his testimony, he did not mention bloggers, blogging, or blogs, yet the blogosphere must easily be the largest, and most diverse media entity in the world. (He seems unaware that this kind of disrespect is not tolerated well within the blogosphere.)
But he did allude to bloggers when he told the committee that anyone who thinks that the Internet hasn’t radically changed the nature of modern media “might want to ask Dan Rather what he thinks about the impact of new technologies on traditional media.”
His testimony described a switched on, wired US population, with a thirst for information and “ . . . with 72% of Americans now online and spending an average of nine hours weekly on the internet surfing through the 170 terabytes of information available online—which is seventeen times the size of the Library of Congress print collections.”
He should have gone further on this point, I believe, and said something along the lines of “and that includes surfing through about fifteen Library of Congress amounts of adult content, per week.” And in less than nine hours--isn't broadband wonderful.
It is a good read and I intend to keep it on file, as it has some very good statistical information in it. And I’m sure well meaning friends have already advised Mr. Thierer to rush out a chapter on blogging for his forth coming book.
Here is his testimony, “Overcoming Mythology in the Debate over Media Ownership.”
| Posted toMedia Watch: I have something to say to Om Malik, Business 2.0’s star reporter: stick to writing about broadband, dude!
Om is a dear friend, but his cover story in the latest Business 2.0 is giving away way too much good information.
His article, "The New Road to Riches," partly describes an approach that is a key part of my plans...
And it goes to the root of precisely why I left the Financial Times--because I see excellent opportunities to create small, very profitable ventures that can be developed relatively quickly, sold, and the money used to finance more ventures.
That’s why I chose the name atomicVentures for this business project:
It is a play on my name. It refers to something small but with an explosive nature.
Plus, I can have fun with the logo (thank you Chris Dichtel):
In my case, media ventures are my interest, since that’s what I know something about, and what my team knows a lot about. But, I’m certain the same type of approach can be applied to many things in the “web services” world.
And because there are virtually no capital costs, or long development cycles, there is much less need for venture capitalists and their money.
It’s a new type of world that is better suited to being bootstrapped, or financed by savvy Angel investor groups.
Silicon Valley Angel investor groups such as TIE, and Silicom Ventures have been growing tremendously, and are doing very well, as I mentioned in a recent Financial Times column. Granted, those groups are still mostly investing in traditional type startups, because they have taken over the seed investment part of the financing cycle as the VCs have become more risk averse and moved into later stage financing. But, in what I like to call an increasingly “atomic world,” it is the angel investment groups that will really come into their own, because:
1) They can bring financing into a venture far faster than a VC firm.
2) The combined personal networks of Angel investors can help assemble a management team faster, and with way more experience than Vinod can load up his minivan outside Stanford's Business school.
3) Many small ventures have revenue prospects that are way below the $1bn threshold most VC firms target with their investments.
4) Angel investors know how to flip a company. There are many people at TIE, and at Silicom Ventures that have founded and sold two or more companies in their time.
September 20, 2004
Media Watch: Mike Magee--successful “stand alone journalist”
Mike Magee was in town recently, and it was good to catch up with this veteran British journalist. Mike runs the tech news site The Inquirer, and is also a co-founder and former editor of the pithy The Register, a very similar news site in look and feel.
But while The Register has a large staff, The Inquirer is put together by one person, Mike...
There is a gaggle of freelancers that he uses now and again when his budget allows, but most of the news stories are written by Mike, and he also does all the other jobs that publishing an online news site requires.
And The Inquirer is doing very well. But is Mike a blogger? He fits many of the criteria that are often used to describe a blogger. Chris Nolan, another veteran journalist (ChrisNolan.com), has been trying to establish the term “stand alone journalism” as a more accurate description of blogging. I like the term, and I would bet that Mike Magee is very likely one of the most successful “stand-alone journalists” in the world.
If The Inquirer were to be acquired, that would be a strong validation of the “stand alone journalist” concept. And the valuation of The Inquirer, in such a deal, would be very interesting. It would certainly help determine a market value for other “stand alone journalism” (and blogging) web sites.
| Posted toSeptember 19, 2004
Media Watch: Can bloggers make money?
....yes, but not very much
That seems to be a fairly typical summary of recent articles by AP and others in the mainstream press. The news stories did find some bloggers making a few hundred dollars per month, but not enough to give up a day job, a situation unlikely to change. The subtext in a lot of the coverage was that blogging can't, and will not be able provide a living for bloggers. (Whew, the amateur hordes will never be able to scale the ramparts of professional journalism.)
In my opinion, the question should be turned around. Are the mainstream media companies making money? Last time I looked, there was a tremendous amount of red ink pouring from newspaper and magazine publishing companies, and layoffs continue...
...Newspaper publishers are waiting for advertising to come back, but it's clear that it won't, at least not in the same way. I think the prospects for online media are better than they have been in nearly five years, and there is a strong upward trend.
At least the bloggers are making a living, most have day jobs and they make some pocket money on their web sites. The journalists interviewing the bloggers are probably not making money for their media organizations.
In fact, if they were turned lose, as Chris Nolan (ChrisNolan.com) likes to put it, as "stand alone journalists," many mainstream journalists would probably find it hard to capture the sizable readership that many bloggers have built up.
The problem is that media business models in general, are broken or poor performing.
| Posted to
