Monday, August 29, 2005
Finally!
Hugh Hewitt addresses some media issues I have been wanting to hear him discuss. His discussion is based on a recent article in the LAT and his recent profile in New Yorker. As I said last week, I am not sure the LAT if really worth the effort unless they find a new way to be stupid, but then I think the article Hugh addresses qualifies.
What I was happiest about was that in the middle of Hugh's lengthy post he adresses an issue I have been genuinely anxious to hear from him on -- the recent reported decline in talk radio ratings.
To me, the bigger question is what future blogging? With it's low cost on entry, for every really good blog there are hundreds or even thousands of not good blogs. Will the not good crowd out the good, or simply camoflague them. Hugh thinks not
What I was happiest about was that in the middle of Hugh's lengthy post he adresses an issue I have been genuinely anxious to hear from him on -- the recent reported decline in talk radio ratings.
Of our 45 minutes, Rutten and I spent at least 30 on the failings and decline of his newspaper, which are far more pronounced and urgent than the alleged mild drop in ratings for political talk shows overall between August 2004 and August 2005. (The one thing Tim might have described more completely in the interest of full reporting on the actual subject of his column is my assertion that the talk radio "cycle" is four years long, and that the audience for center-right talk in August, 2005 is much bigger than it was in August 2001. Political talk is the middle of a long and, I believe, sustainable growth period as hosts who practice the craft as Bennett, Prager, Medved and I do --and as Rush, Sean, and Laura Ingraham do-- attract the audience that wants reliable, up-to-the-minute information delivered with timing and wit, not screaming rants.)I have no data upon which to make any assessment of the four year cycle claim, but I have felt that the "long and sustainable growth" period was real, figuring the drop was due extraneous causes. I honestly think it's Hugh's "not screaming rants" note explains most, the format is still finding itself, there are bound to be some failures in such a period.
To me, the bigger question is what future blogging? With it's low cost on entry, for every really good blog there are hundreds or even thousands of not good blogs. Will the not good crowd out the good, or simply camoflague them. Hugh thinks not
I don't have, as Tim puts it, "messianic confidence that new media - mainly talk radio and the Internet - inevitably will undermine and destroy the economic health of mainstream media - especially newspapers."I understand his point, but consumers, with the advent of the strength of martketing we see these days, have become remarkably lazy. It's not easy to find the good blogs from scratch -- will they put in the effort? Will the blogosphere find some sort of self-stratification system? (linking patterns do that, but how to decide where to put your first finger in?) The future will be fun, that I know for sure.
I do have confidence in free markets. Which is why the Times' circulation is at 900,000, down more than 50,000 subscribers in one year. Indeed, the Times has been stagnant or moving backwards for a decade, even though the population growth in the region has been enormous.
