Opinion / Raymond Zhou
Bloggers' revolution is largely overrated
By Raymond Zhou (China Daily)
Updated: 2006-12-23 14:05
Now that Time magazine has named "You" its Person of the Year, those
addicted to the Internet have one more reason to tell their parents to
beat it and leave them alone with their "revolution."
You see, "you control the Information Age." It's "your world."
I really pity those who are computer illiterate but still want to exert
some influence over their kids kids who spend days and nights at Internet
cafes, subsisting on instant noodles and dozing off in makeshift beds
provided by the proprietor. Even though they have the gaze of zombies,
their parents and teachers are on the receiving end of a mass campaign
that marks them irrelevant you might say a kinder and gentler version of
the "cultural revolution" (1966-76).
Don't get me wrong. I'm not denying the significance of Web 2.0 in
particular or the Internet in general. There are many facets to the
technology that are truly revolutionary. But the prediction that Web 2.0
will wipe out old media is overblown, and even sounds like the pomposity
of the Red Guards.
Take YouTube for example. Much of the interesting stuff posted there is
snippets from television shows, arguably part of the decaying old media.
If you mention this content is copyrighted, you will be treated as if you
are so old-fashioned you do not belong in this world. Revolutionaries do
not need to worry about such trivialities as intellectual property
rights, do they? IPR is for people with no imagination.
The technology essentially makes everyone a publisher, a broadcaster, a
disseminator of news, views and entertainment. It will create new
business models and reshape industries. But the old empires will simply
crumble as the Red Guards said of the "capitalist roaders"? Give me a
break!
In the US, the top 10 podcasts are all from media outlets like NPR and
the New York Times. Why? Because they have been in the content business
so long that they can consistently produce programmes of the highest
quality.
Likewise, most of the decent blogs in this country are kept by
professionals, especially those with experience in journalism. True, Wang
Xiaofeng, cited by Time in its "You" cover story, cannot possibly publish
his blogs in the magazine where he is a senior writer, but the quality of
his writing is not something every blogger could attain just by getting a
piece of online real estate and filling it with words.
To continue the metaphor, everyone can get a virtual plot, but very few
have the expertise to grow something of value on it. If you cared to wade
through the millions of non-celebrity blogs, you would find that most
read like a high-school student's diary and would not get more than a few
dozen hits.
Imagine a newspaper where newsprint, printing costs and delivery are all
free and every contribution from every reader is printed. It would
probably come to 50,000 pages a day. Do you think this tome would be more
valuable than Time magazine or the New York Times? Not to me. I would
rather pay for a thinner version written and edited with the ethics,
style and experience of a pro.
Of course, when an editor comes into play, some raw gems may slip
through. That is the price we pay for subjective selection, in the same
way that people in a democracy have representation in government rather
than participate in every decision. It also leaves room for people whose
talent may not fit traditional mass media but could flourish on the Web
with its free-moving communities.
In a revolution, millions act out of zealotry and do not ask for anything
in return, while one person or small group reaps huge benefit from it,
all in the name of serving the public. The same applies to Web 2.0. Some
websites used to pay a paltry fee for professional writers, now Sina
"invites" you to be a blogger, meaning you can contribute to their
advertising revenue by doing pro bono work. That does not bode well for
people who write for a living.
It could be fun to roll around in the carnival of this revolution for a
while. But ultimately one cannot survive on the ego boost of a few
million non-paying clicks. The line might blur, but there will still be
professionals and amateurs. Wikipedia may work because it functions as a
non-profit organization. But if the whole sector is like this, it will
largely fail as a "massive social experiment" because it disregards the
law of economics and creates much more unfairness in the name of
egalitarianism.
Hot Talks
� Does the future belong to China?
� Ah all i know is that i know so little..
� How to be ready for a foreign boss
� Koizumi visits Yasukuni shrine for the 5th time
� Leave a space for ur solitude
Most Commented/Read Stories in 48 Hours
Chinese language
