Sunday, December 13, 2009

"The sun will come out tomorrow," and 5 years hence

Image borrowed from:

Life in the news delivery world five years down the road will be: a narrative told by a genius, full of the sound and fury, signifying everything (to everybody). Or, a Hell of a lot of data/information from which a viewer can write their own narrative.

Like the previous decade, technology will continue to lead the way, opening doors-although not battering them down-- for innovative, cost effective ways to engage the citizenry and allow them to return engage .

Internet usage by average citizens worldwide will now be as ubiquitous and routine as running water.

Apple computer will dominate the (just now emerging) lightweight portable tablet market as they did with iPods and the iPhone, so consumers will have the best aspects of smart phones, MP3 player, netbook, video camera and e-reader all packaged in a sleek, sexy, easy to use gadget, with almost unlimited battery life.

Google will continue to dominate as an internet search engine and their Wave software allowing for live web streaming of information and real time interactions between providers and consumers of news and entertainment will be standard protocol.

Comcast will continue to dominate as an Internet /Broadcast service provider, but with government regulation will not become some rogue corporate superpower capable of taking over the world. High-speed wireless Internet will blanket the globe.

Newspapers will have survived, but most certainly not thrived. The gatekeeper role of the Fourth Estate is almost completely extinct. Big players-Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Times-will still be cranking out print editions, but more and more of their readers will be viewing them on their portable tablets via the Internet.

The war between Google/Yahoo/search engines and newspapers will have ended with a strategic alliance allowing readers worldwide a "fair use" of a newspaper's website, thus continuing to drive traffic to them--but readers wishing more than casual perusal will pay a reasonable amount for the content.

The clash between Citizen Journalists/Bloggers and Professional Journalist will FINALLY be over, as more and more of the crotchety, ink-in -their -veins editors/publishers die off a la Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' prediction.

Professional journalists will be far fewer but they will be cream of the crop, and legions of Citizen Journalists will fill in the gaps-especially with local news. Those Citizen Journalists will have rudimentary training and certification from a private non-profit (Knight Foundation?) giving them increased credibility with readers.

Almost every town or city boroughs with a population over 10,000 will have a local portal to provide news, weather, entertainment, and reams of data all packaged on an interactive platform based on Google Wave.

The word "breaking" in breaking news will take on new meaning as almost any event anywhere in the world will occur within eyeshot of somebody with a device to capture and transmit the event to a worldwide audience as it happens with "universal translator" software instantly translating words and text into their native language.

In other words: it will all be good.


Anonymous said...

Rouge means red. I think you mean rogue.

LarryK4 said...

Thanks. Corrected.

My Prof did tell me a few weeks back that I could use a Copy Editor.

Tom said...

A very good job of giving reasonable prognostications in a field that is notoriously hard to predict.

It is true that it's hard for citizen journalists to catch all the typos and errors when you are the only one editing. It's only natural to become blinded to your own copy since you become so familiar with it you see only what it should say, not what it actually does say. Fortunately such mistakes are usually very short lived because some helpful reader is bound to point them out.

However publications produced by a staff should not gloat too much about the advantage they have in this regard. Considering the fact that all their copy passes the eyes of several professional writers before it goes to press, it makes it remarkable that even the New York Times has a daily correction box.

Frankly, most bloggers do a damn good job of editing considering they do it all themselves. What's the New York Times excuse for errors even after their copy passes through multiple editors?

One of the many reasons why internet writing is superior to print is that if a mistake does sneak through online, it is easy to quickly correct it so that all future readers read it right. In print, your mistakes are forever stained on the paper.

Tell that professor the score is still Internet - 1 Mainstream - 0

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LarryK4 said...

Thanks Tommy.

Mr Prof is actually a BIG fan of all things Internet (after all, she teaches this course online).

I suspect she is also a big fan of Citizen Journalism.

Anonymous said...

Is she a big fan of using copyrighted photos without permission?

LarryK4 said...

Well I found it on Google images so I figured it was fair game ("fair use" and all that).

Even Mr. Murdoch does not mind a small sampling of his vast media empire available for free on the web.

Anonymous said...

The nostradamus of Amherst ... more delusions of grandeur.

LarryK4 said...

Actually it was a required academic assignment.

And my Prof would probably point out that Nostradamus is capitalized.

Spock said...

Sen-sors indicate that Larry Kelley's blog has become com-pletely ~irrelevant~.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

You really are a world-class bullsh*tter.

You swiped it just like a kid illegally downloading music. And, just like the kid, you laugh and say "What's the harm?"

That's called copyright infringement.

Because something is indexed on Google Images does not give you any right to use it. But you are lazy so you just swiped. Note that no copyright notice is displayed on your part.

Fair use is a completely different issue, and your use is not covered by it. If you are so sure that Mr. Murdoch would grant you use then you should ask him through his licensing department.

Of course, it wouldn't matter because this picture isn't owned by Murdoch. It's owned by Paramount Pictures which is a subsidiary of Viacom.

But then again, you're lazy or you would know that.

LarryK4 said...

Well I also noted their was no copywrite notice on Google's part. And they have a tad more money than me.

So if Paramount Pictures gets in a tizzy they will go after them first.

Anonymous said...

Do you shoplift on the same basis? It's only a candy bar?

Now you are making excuses.

Google is a search engine. This photo wasn't on Google. This photo was on a website that google linked to. It has nothing to do with Google. And you are making excuses for stealing it that they will prosecute someone else first.

So much for integrity.

LarryK4 said...

Since it is sooooo important to you, and you can't find anything else to bitch about...

Anonymous said...

It's obvious that stealing is not important to you, unless someone else is doing it.

LarryK4 said...

And a picture is worth a 1,000 words.

capt kirk said...

The first thing that needs to be understood is that every photograph is the intellectual property of the person who took the photograph. Copyright protection attaches even where the person has not put a copyright notice and even if the copyright is not registered with the Copyright Office. (You do, however, need to register with the Copyright Office in order to sue on your rights.)

Every copyright holder has certain exclusive rights that attach to their work. These include the right to reproduce, distribute, display and create derivative works from the work (there are others that don’t apply to photography). Without permission, even if you were to give credit to the copyright holder, you would still be infringing their work.

As far as my liability for you loading the copyrighted of the work onto my computer and uploading it from there, I could be subjected to vicarious liability for my part (or, more accurately, my computer’s part) in the copyright infringement.

If you were to contact the photographer and ask for permission to use the photo, you then would not be violating the rights of the photographer provided you abide by whatever terms the two of you agree to.

LarryK4 said...

About 95% of the photos I use on this blog are ones I take. And many of them end up in Google images as well. And my sitemeter tells me they get used all the time.

So while I on very rare occasion borrow from the Well of Knowledge, at least I also contribute more than I receive.

Ed said...

Larry, you are neglecting the consequences of (a) the worsening fiscal emergency and (b) the related social uprising.

My guess - newspapers will come back as the political advocacy organs that they once were.

LarryK4 said...

I honestly hope they do. I love newspapers.

Anonymous said...


If Larry cared, he'd be covering it.

Anonymous said...

Larry, your argument that you "steal" less than is "stolen" from you is faulty.

Journalists are trained to have the intergrity to know that one of their functions is to educate. Thus the importance that was placed on grammar, spelling, plagarism....

Your response appears to indicate that you think a different interpretation of copyright law applies to your blog or maybe all blogs and/or internet writing.

Could you clarify?

Harry T.

Tom said...

Larry why are you bothering to argue with these people? They really don't give a shit about copyrights, it's just a distraction so they don't have to argue about the real points you raise. I suggest you respond to such people like I do:


Anonymous said...


It seems to me that your whole point has been that Citizen Journalism is legitimate and should be taken seriously. Well, then Citizen Journalists have to take it seriously too. They have to respect copyright law and not plagiarize material or illegally use copyrighted photos, videos or text. This places a burden on them, because they don’t the have dollars to pay to access copyrighted material legally. However, they also don’t have the expenses that major media have either. The newspapers and magazines, whether online or on paper, pay to use copyrighted photos. Something to think about for your next class.

LarryK4 said...

Yeah, good point Tommy.

I'm sure IF "Harry T." has a blog it is perfect (perhaps he can afford to hire a Copy Editor.)

But then, if he had a blog he probably would not be bothering me.

Tom said...

Seriously, if someone doesn't want their photos copied it is easy to prevent it, either by asking Google to remove it (they will gladly do so) or encoding the photo itself so it cannot be copied and a message appears to the effect "You are not authorized to copy this photo."

But very few photographs have those restrictions on them because their owners WANT them to be copied. What they gain in publicity and exposure far surpasses in value the few pennies they would get in payment for charging someone to use it. Instead they are delighted to have their image (their brand) endlessly copied and reproduced as a wonderful form of advertising they could never afford to pay for.

As for copying words, the rules are identical to those of the print world. So-called "fair use" allows you to use a reasonable sampling - usually not more than two or three paragraphs - to illustrate how it relates to what you are writing about and why someone should read the whole thing. You are then expected to follow it with a link and a phrase to the effect "To read the rest click here."

But even these rules get fuzzy online. Many people, especially those who are advocating a particular opinion, will welcome you copying as much as you want. When the New York Times tried to put its columnists behind a paywall they rebelled, demanding that they be available for free, and the Times backed down. The columnists didn't want to miss out on the media invitations, book deals and increase in their own fame that comes from being copied and distributed all over the internet.

The phrase used on the internet to describe this phenomenon is "Content wants to be free." At least by those who intend to make money, giving it away is the best way to rake it in.

Anonymous said...

I loved your giving more than taking argument. I'd love to see that one in court.

"Sure I stole the car your honor, but look at how many cars I've bought in the past."

It doesn't wash.

I hope you aren't teaching your children that just a little bit of stealing is alright?

Tom said...

See what I mean Larry? Just headfuckers. Ignore 'em.

Anonymous said...

This guy publishes his papers on online journalism and then laughs off his own copyright infringement. What a maroon.

LarryK4 said...

I believe it is spelled moron you Cowardly, Anon, Nitwit.

Anonymous said...

The comma goes inside the quotation marks in your title. Also, if you have quotes within a quote, you use ' not ".

"'The sun will come out tomorrow,' and 5 years hence"

LarryK4 said...

Thanks. You're hired.

Anonymous said...

Bugs Bunny

"What a maroon!"

LarryK4 said...

Gosh, I hope that did not violate copyright of Warner Bros Cartoon division.

Anonymous said...

That one's old enough that it's public domain. Know your copyright law.

LarryK4 said...

That's why I have you.

Anonymous said...

You do seem to bear a strong resemblance to Elmer Fudd.

LarryK4 said...

At least that's not a copyright infringement.

Beats resembling an Anon.

Anonymous said...

As long as Larry acknowledges his sources and isn't
using others' material for his own commercial purposes, his free-use shouldn't run afoul of copyright principles.

But if Larry and his fellow-travelers really want to make progress, consider adopting the "copyleft"
principles used by many programmers and other
technically-oriented "intellectuals" (see:


for example).

-Your Friend

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

...please where can I buy a unicorn?

Anonymous said...

(They don't care? Think again, they care.)

Paramount to Start Online Service to Sell Movie Clips

Published: December 14, 2009

LOS ANGELES — Paramount Pictures, looking for new ways to turn its old movies into cash, especially as DVD sales continue to decline, is creating an online video clip service that will allow users to search hundreds of feature films on a frame-by-frame basis.

The site, to be introduced on Tuesday, is powered by VideoSense, an automated indexing tool developed by the technology company Digitalsmiths. Using proprietary video interpretation systems, Digitalsmiths allows films to be quickly searched by specific actor, line of dialogue, location, genre or product, among other criteria.

LarryK4 said...

Then maybe I should charge them for the free advertising I gave Star Trek--or tried to anyway.

Anonymous said...

I stole something from you but you should be grateful because it's free advertising.

Anonymous said...

Kind of caught with your pants down on that one.

LarryK4 said...

That, too, would be advertising.

Anonymous said...

"Those Citizen Journalists will have rudimentary training and certification from a private non-profit (Knight Foundation?) giving them increased credibility with readers."

Where they will learn about the proper licensing of intellectual property.

LarryK4 said...

And not from an intellectually challenged Anon.

Anonymous said...


If you know about it already, great; but if you don't, then please look into the GNU Copyleft principles (despite what your detractors keep saying), since these provide some formal structure to the "wild worldwide web" (from open-source programs in the formal sense, to the social equivalent of such programs like Wikipedia and even blogs like yours).

Your Friend

Anonymous said...

"And not from an intellectually challenged Anon."

This is typical Larry. He's never wrong. Even when he makes a mistake he just calls other people names.

LarryK4 said...

Hmmm...So you are posting as "Anonymous" yet don't like be called an "Anon".

Anonymous said...

"intellectually challenged"



The childish list goes on and on.

LarryK4 said...

"Anon" of course, trumps them all. The rest I just add as window dressing.

Anonymous said...

Thank you.

Please do the same for tin-plated, thin-skinned, thick-headed, blow-hard.

LarryK4 said...

Who seems to have your undivided attention.

Anonymous said...

How did you know I was talking about you? Interesting? Have you always identified yourself as such?

S.P. Sullivan said...

Hey Larry, trolls aside, there's an easy way to make sure the photos you use are kosher.

If you're doing a Google Image Search, go to Advanced Search > Search for Images That Are and select "labeled for reuse" in the drop-down menu.

You can also get an account at a site like and search there.

I apologize if somebody already pointed this out. There's too much pointless bullshit on this comment thread to wade through.

LarryK4 said...

Hey Sean,
Thanks. Next time I use Google images (if there ever is one) I will do that.

Anonymous said...

Besagt, euro live poker st. gallen dass viele chips so schrille outfits hat
Beinhaltet kostenlose online-spiele euro live poker st. gallen und zeigen wie wsop, das recht, den mikro limit
Wetten sie muessen mal schauen sie ihren profilen euro live poker st. gallen
Kategorie, euro live poker st. gallen bei onlinespielen kann überprüft werden, da können amerikanische
Sitn go strategie holdem euro live poker st. gallen und titanpoker nahezu identisch mit abstand am langsamsten
Strategie, psychologie euro live poker st. gallen und schrieb es, durch in the graphic please install adobe
Frequent player-punkte gesammelt euro live poker st. gallen und von 200 dollar satte 400$ unser
Circa millionen verdammt gute turnierergebnisse auf punkte euro live poker st. gallen
Unterhalt euro live poker st. gallen mit eingebauter rfid technologie präsentieren lizenz commons
Verein, um euro live poker st. gallen zu lassen aber wie wird den tausch