The Fact That Anyone Can Publish Means More Of The Good Stuff... And Yes, More Of The Bad Stuff
from the but-which-is-more-important dept
We've tried to articulate this before when various (often self-proclaimed) elitists like Nicholas Carr, Andrew Keen or Mark Helprin bash the rise of social media or the fact that "anyone" can publish. They love to highlight all of the bad and ridiculous stuff that people decide to publish. And, no doubt, plenty more bad stuff gets published. But... at the same time, a lot more good stuff gets published as well. Umair Haque lays this out perfectly in talking about the new media landscape in terms of "soda" and "wine."Now consider an open mediascape. Here, there are a million blogs -- or more -- that are predictable, partisan, and pedestrian: soda. But the quality of information has already hit rock-bottom, and at the bottom, soda offered via blogs is just a substitute for a slightly different flavor of soda offered on shock radio. The soda anyone can now offer in an open mediaconomy isn't that much worse than the soda that big producers already offer.<I'd argue that even if the worst stuff is worse (and, at times, it is), that doesn't really matter, since the good stuff is still way, way better.
Here's what's different: the wine is of a higher quality. In an open mediascape, what is truly different is not the quality of soda, but the quality of wine. Sure, there are ten thousand rabid bloggers who have Glenn Beck on eternal robo-repeat. But I also have access to Alex Tabarrok and Tyler Cowen, Robert Reich, and Paul Romer. I can hang out with Barry Ritholtz, Fred Wilson, and Rick Bookstaber.
In an open mediaconomy, yes, there's plenty lethally unhealthy soda on offer -- but I also have access to a new world of fine wine. In a closed mediaconomy, I'm out of luck: I'm stuck mostly with soda.
The net effect is this. The worse stuff is not that much worse. But the good stuff is way, way better.
Separately, this argument applies in many other fields beyond just media as well. For example, we've seen claims that because societies that didn't have strong patent laws exhibit lots of copying, it means that there's no innovation that happens there. And, yet, that's not really true at all. Yes, there's a lot more copying, but that doesn't preclude more innovation -- and often that greater level of copying helps incentivize more innovation by giving those who can innovate more reason to try to stand out from the crowd. A perfect example of this is in the fashion space, where a lack of a fashion copyright has led to lots of competition -- and, yes, lots of copying -- but also a lot more innovation.
This can be difficult for some to understand, because they only look at the percentages, rather than the absolutes. They look at the percentage of those in the market producing "good content" or "innovating" and assume that's the best way to measure. But if they looked at it from an absolute standpoint, concerning how much good content is being produced (while ignoring the bad content) or how much new innovation is being produced (ignoring the copying), they'd realize the actual, absolute, outcome is much better than before.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: user generated content
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There isn't significantly more quality anything out there... but there sure is a whole lot more out there. Ratio wise, easy publishing is stinking the place up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hence the business opportunity in finding the good stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
More and more, I think that much of the hatred directed towards the media industry has more to do with people trying to worm their way into the middleman seat, rather than truly hating middlemen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's the key when it comes to the communication avenues that have been created in the last decade, that suddenly everyone has the ability to become a gate keeper with practically no start-up costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some of the anger against middlemen is actually just anger that the speaker isn't the middleman, some of it is that the middlemen abused their position and now that it is untenable are trying to legislate their survival rather than adapt, and some of it is the prior pretending to be the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you're walking down the soda aisle; you know the good stuff when you see it. ;P
Also, your neighbors/friends/family will say things like "Have you tried this one? It's great!" or "Stay away from that brand, it's crap."
Plus, soda that doesn't sell is the soda that stops being stocked in the aisle.
Shall we continue the comparisons, Mr. Coward?
More means more to be better. More opportunity for everybody involved, whether producer or purveyor or consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if that were true it wouldn't amount to a reason to ban easy publishing. Only a fascist or feudal state could do it - is that what you want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read the blog of the source of a news story instead of getting it through the left/right filter that main stream media represents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right now, there are 1,000,000 professional artists and only 100,000 are any good.
Right now, there are 100,000,000 amateur artists and only 10,000,000 are any good.
These numbers are made up but you cannot deny that there are vastly more amateurs in the world than professionals.
I'll be happy to butcher and paraphrase Man Ray:
"A bad judge, a bad doctor, a bad cook, these people can kill you. But a bad artist?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not like the gatekeepers have done much to shield us from the crap. We're better off without them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just look a flickr or semi-pro athletics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect the statement "But the good stuff is way, way better." is a load of crap though.
Unless we have recently managed to concoct a race of super talented people that I have not heard about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they're more worried about the good stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they're more worried about the good stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with this article
For example, I hate twilight, but to someone else it might be the best thing ever. So statements on the ratio of good-to-bad are meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with this article
Indeed beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Example:
If person A thinks Glen Beck is the best thing to have happened since sliced bread, then he/she will find many sites to suit their needs. And to them those are the best places to find news.
But person B can't stand Glen Beck, then for him/her there are a whole host of other sites that suits their needs.
It doesn't matter that good and bad are relative to the beholder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina, your cartoon is not a threat to the professional film industry. If it was, they would have bought it from you when you tried to sell it to them.
You can film a Bluray-ready, fully HD movie these days with a $300 camcorder and edit the footage with a $150 dollar editing program on a $600 computer -- so where are all the good amateur films?
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of everything is junk
-Sturgeon's Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]