There’s been a lot of debate recently about the way in which news will be authored and delivered in future. Traditional newspapers are increasingly struggling to make ends meet as their readers go online for news and seem unwilling to pay for it there. Of course, once online, newspapers are competing for eyeballs on a global stage and also arguably on an uneven playing field. BBC news is one of the world’s most popular news sites and yet it automatically gets its funding from British TV license payers, without the need to generate any revenue or profit. Similarly, Google news aggregates news headlines and drives traffic off to the source of the story, but no money changes hands here either. So what does news look like in a future Web 2.0 or 3.0 world, dominated by a small number of powerful Search and Social Media providers ? This article posted on the UK Register offers two opposing viewpoints, one from Google’s VP of Products suggesting that newspapers should become more collaborative like Wikipedia, and another from the founder of The Wire, advocating a paid, online subscriber base. On top of this, there’s the growing popularity of http://search.twitter.com for getting to breaking news even quicker than it can be posted to a news website. Tim O’Reilly, author of a new Twitter book is convinced that Social Media has a big role to play in news. Lastly, there’s talk of Twitter releasing a reputation ranking system that will push the most credible tweets to the top of the listings. That sounds like a complex algorithm to me, and one that might end up killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If you’re new to Social Media, then I recommend taking a look at this site detailing the 100 most popular people on Twitter http://100twt.com/

Bookmark and Share