You could argue that each of the last few years have been the tipping point for digital and social media in terms of its acceptance into mainstream culture, but I think you’d have a tough job proving that any was more important than 2009.

It was the year Twitter made it really, really big; the year Facebook made it even bigger; the year Rupert Murdoch said ‘no more’ to free content and the year Spotify proved everyone wrong and made music free and the labels happy.

Iran, Jan Moir, Darren Bent, Eurostar, Ashton Kutcher and the NHS are all words that have taken on a different meaning to many people after their popularity on Twitter catapulted both them and the short-messaging service to the lead items on TV news and above the fold on newspaper websites.

This was the year that celebrities, companies, politicians and the media smashed the ivory towers they had spent years building, coming down to speak to us lowly mortals wherever we may be. And en masse. This was the year that social media stopped just preaching to the converted and started to convert the non-believers.

I started the year as a huge believer in the power of social media, but 2009 was also the year I stopped believing it can foster actual tangible change. As the Telegraph’s Head of Technology, Shane Richmond, recently said about the power of internet campaigning, ‘all this revolution seems to have achieved is a change in the Christmas number one and the return of the Wispa bar.’ And given the amount of time we’ve been spending on social networking sites, this is a pretty poor return.

Ah, but this was the year of the Iranian revolution, where some Twitter users changed their avatars to green and switched their locations to Tehran to show solidarity with the protestors and frustrate the Iranian government forces. But as Evgeny Morozov points out, while the Iranian protestors used Twitter to organise mass-protests, their tool of choice was used by the government to track, arrest and question them. All Twitter did was highlight that a new weapon only gives you the advantage if the person you’re fighting can’t use it too. If not, it’s just a stalemate. This was slacktivism at its laziest: middle class westerners getting all the feelgood pleasure of intervention without actually doing anything. Given how limited internet access is in Iran – as few as a third of Iranians have internet access – Twitter played no more of a role in the revolution than people who listened to Band Aid on the radio did in eradicating third-world debt and famine in Africa. It just felt like we made a difference because we had our head in the same barrel as a lot of other people who were shouting the same slogans at the same time.

As with the Twitter mob outrage that frothed up over Jan Moir and her repulsively homophobic opinion piece on Stephen Gately’s death, it made little difference, with no one properly apologising and no heads rolling. In fact, the Daily Mail showcased a masterful tactic in the battle against social media anger: do nothing. And it worked. Twitter was shown up to be a toothless tiger whose bark was worse than its non-existent bite. Who cares if 12 angry bloggers hate the Mail? Not to mention the fact they got all those extra visits thanks to all the links.

Add to that the fact that social networks may actually make people feel more lonely, it does make it difficult to be the evangelist I once was.

This is not a call to apathy or to down tools and give up. But if we don’t face up to a tool’s limitations then we’ll never actually solve the problem.

2010 is going to be, as many have said, the year that early adopters are going to have to show that this social media stuff actually works. And that’s a good thing. We’ve been playing with the internet for 15 years since Craigslist and are only just starting to face up to the grim reality that, while it is a beautiful place to be, it isn’t an Eden that has room for all media organisations. Better we sort these issues out with social media now before we’ve got 15 years of bad habits to undo.

I’ve worked in a pretty decent range of media companies on a good selection of titles and I think the overarching philosophy at all but one of them can be summed up as this: fuck the reader, make them click.

From my first full-time staff position on a b2c mortgage magazine through to regional and national newspaper websites, it’s pretty fair to say that getting people to click around the site is the most important goal of any media company that operates online – I will defend the Guardian here, as in my experience I was never encouraged to send users down click mazes to appease advertisers. In fact, on the contrary, the only time senior editorial encouraged us to promote particular pieces of content, it was for journalistic reasons rather than commercial ones.

It wasn’t long after launching the now-closed thelondonpaper website that we were told focussing on London-based news and issues wasn’t bringing in enough clicks and we had to think more internationally. One launch editor quitting later, and we were ripping off the obvious celebrity guff from US bloggers – luckily this was around the time of Britney Spears shaving her head so management were happy with the page impression bump. But at what obvious cost? A story that would only deserve a standalone pic in the paper, nestled next to the London-focussed splash, would be the website’s main focus. Obviously, web readers are more international. But that’s not exactly much use to advertisers who want them to click on links to buy stuff that may not be available in their country.

And thelondonpaper is obviously not alone, not just in my experience, but in the media industry as a whole. While this is happening in print too, online journalists and editors are under far more pressure to look away from a title’s unique selling point and look to more mass-appealing content. And it’s no surprise that readers/users/customers or clickers are getting even more cross with an industry that was already on a par with traffic wardens.

But I honestly hope that might be about to change. Like most people in the media I laughed when Rupert Murdoch said he’s going to introduce paywalls across all of his digital titles. But now, looking past the obvious flaws in much of his argument and the hypocrisy of accusing others of content stealing, I actually hope he makes paywalls work.

But why? Since advertising has failed to bankroll newspapers’ digital operations, companies have been forced to try to get as many eyeballs as possible looking at their content. If you need eyeballs in high numbers, you need mass-appeal.

As we now know, attempting to satisfy everybody creates a homogenised media that actually gives nobody what we want. But as soon as the payrolls go up, taking commercial pressure off editorial shoulders, numbers of eyeballs will cease to be the most important metric. Who knows, perhaps even something fluffy and warm like time-spent on a site or unique readers might be the most important thing to media management.

Another positive externality in my dream of the future would be the focussing of content on subject areas where people are seen as experts, like thousands of Wall Street Journals. Rather than quoting Jeff Jarvis’s famous ‘do what you do best and link to the rest’ while chasing clicking on TMZ to rip off their Tiger Woods story, perhaps journalists will actually become specialists again.

We know that people are more willing to pay for unique content that they can’t get elsewhere, so it isn’t a crazy thought that payrolls will force media companies to back away from spending time making content they won’t be able to charge for as it’s freely available everywhere else. Sure, it’s a crazy thought and it will result in a lot of closures, but it’s not a revolution if no blood gets spilled.

I’ve been reading through John T Cacioppo’s incredible book Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection, which apart from making me look like a weirdo on the train, has sparked off a few thoughts about the role of digital social networking tools in the facilitation of social connection. And, more specifically: are they actually a good idea or making things worse?

At the end of his recent RSA talk, Cacioppo was asked what he thought of tools like Twitter (which he’s on as @J_Cacioppo) and Facebook and whether they reduce or increase the risk of loneliness in individuals. His response was basically this: when used if there is no other way to get face-to-face contact, they can be a good thing. When used instead of face-to-face contact, they can be a bad thing. Which, when you put down your Twitter mob pitchfork and really think about it, makes total sense. If for some reason you are unable to meet with friends – say if you’re geographically separated, or housebound for some reason – then contacting them via Twitter and Facebook is better than nothing. But, if you’re using digital social networking tools rather than going out there and meeting with people, then while it may seem like social contact, it isn’t truly satisfying the need we have as a social animal.

Used properly then, they should be used like aperitifs: getting the body ready for more substantial sating. Not like a pre-dinner chocolate bar that fills you up so you don’t want your nutritious supper.

But like most tools, not all people use Twitter and Facebook in the best way. Personally, I definitely use it too much as a substitution for social contact. True, there are tweet-ups and industry events I could attend every so often, but I think everyone can agree that meaningful friendships that blossom from digital introductions are relatively rare for even the most sociable people (I’ve met up with just one of my 400-odd followers, for example).

And it’s the word meaningful that’s important. What’s important to our social fulfilment isn’t the number of connections we make (say having 400 Twitter followers), but the depth of them.

Twitter, Facebook, Bebo and Myspace all reflect our innate desire to create social bonds, but more importantly they make it easy for us to make the same mistakes we always make.

One of the main things people take pride in when they use digital networking tools is the number of followers they have. Yet everyone knows that, in the real world at least, it’s the quality of a friendship that matters, not the number of acquaintances we have. Everyone has felt lonelier in a room full of strangers than they have when they are at home alone. And, in fact, research has shown that perceived subjective loneliness (feeling alone) is far more dangerous than objective loneliness (being alone).

When social anthropologists talk of social groups they talk about bridging (making new connections) and bonding (deepening existing relationships). What’s odd, is that while we know that having numerous meaningless relationships does nothing to alleviate loneliness, most digital networks serve to create new shallow connections more than develop existing ones. And our brains need both.

I’ve started to think of digital social networks like bars. When, as single people, we go to a bar in search of meaningful connection, we tend to get anxious. So we drink to numb any potential feelings of social rejection. But then because everyone is drunk it’s very difficult to create a meaningful connection with someone. So we get frustrated and sometimes aggressive over our feelings of perceived rejection. When you take a step back and consider how counterproductive our actions are when we try to make social connections on a night out, it’s no surprise they often end in tears and violence.

But whereas in bars we drink to help us make initial connections to reduce the pain of any rejection, digital social networks have the same social effect of letting us distance ourselves from the pain of social rejection.

A digital, virtual rejection doesn’t feel as real as one in person. On Twitter I can @ reply a celebrity and if they don’t respond then I can console myself with the likelihood that the other person didn’t see tweet. That way it’s not my fault and doesn’t count as a rejection in the same way a face-to-face rebuffing would.

But likewise, any successful social connection doesn’t feel as satisfying in the digital realm as it does on the street or a party. If I was upset, the last place I’d mention it would be Twitter, as I’d need a friendly shoulder to cry on and physical contact from some I care for and who cares about me.

I love Twitter and Facebook. I’m not blaming the tools for the problems I see, but it’s important to recognise what they can and can’t achieve when used by people. A hammer isn’t inherently evil, but to ignore the damage it can do in the wrong hands is not to diminish the good it can do in responsible hands.

Thanks to the people I follow on Twitter I have found and read more books this year than I had in the previous five years – including the book that encouraged me to write this post. I’ve been introduced to topics I never knew existed, let alone understood. I have expanded the people I have conversations with by hundreds, but I have not found one more person who would answer the phone to me if I was upset. Not met one person who would help me out if I needed money. And that just feels wrong for a tool that is considered as social.

As an information sharing tool, Twitter is unbeatable. But as a tool to stop people feeling lonely, it stinks.

Just watched/read/flipped through a really interesting Slideshare presentation by Lee Rainie and Tom Rosenstiel from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that I wanted to share as it seems to ask the real question about where newspaper readers have gone.

Everyone knows that newspaper audiences have fragmented, but listen to any talking head with an interest in the media and they’ll tell you that they’ve all gone to blogs (for content) Craigslist (for classified adverts) and social networks for the rest.

Of course that’s true of some people, and you can understand why bloggers who are surrounded by like-minded people would think it’s true for most, but what about  groups of readers who have never read a blog? My mum didn’t stop buying the newspaper because she started reading Guido Fawkes and Perez Hilton. My mum has never seen a blog and didn’t even know what Gmail was until I told her yesterday, and this is a woman who is educated, has run her own business and worked with computers as a sales rep.

While skewed to an American audience, it’s interesting that the percentage of Americans getting no news on an average day has gone up from 14% in 1998 to 19% in 2008. Given how many more news sources there are today and how many new ways there are to consume it, this is almost like comparing apples and pears, which just goes to show what an important drop in news consumption this really is.

Papers being in trouble because they’re losing readers to other media is one problem, but if it’s because people care less about the core product then it’s not papers that are in trouble: it’s the news industry.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 19% of Internet users use Twitter or update status site : Up nearly 100% since April (kevin.lexblog.com)
• CNN Paradox: Organization Thriving While Primetime Ratings Fall (huffingtonpost.com)
• Study: Internet use won’t cause social isolation (news.cnet.com)
• Newspaper Advocates Press Congress For Help (But Don’t Call It A Bailout) (paidcontent.org)
• Typepad Goes After Tumblr (stoweboyd.com)

Something happened today that sparked minor alarm, and major conversation.

One of Stephen Fry’s followers, of which there are very nearly 1,000,0000, casually remarked that sometimes his tweets could be a bit boring.

Stephen Fry replied: “whereas yours are so fascinating I can barely contain my fluids.”

The follower, @brumplum, replied, rather sweetly: “@stephenfry I shall have to put more effort into fluid-extraction! *blushes at the thought of S.F. reading my wibbles*”

Shortly followed by: “My life is complete, @stephenfry has @ replied me, rapidly followed by blocking me. My previous comment clearly hit him hard. Sorry.”

Stephen Fry replied with: “@brumplum You’ve convinced me. I’m obviously not good enough. I retire from Twitter henceforward. Bye everyone.”

Followed by “Think I may have to give up on Twitter. Too much aggression and unkindness around. Pity. Well, it’s been fun.”

To those non-community managers following Stephen Fry, it may have been a fairly unique car crash to watch but for those in the online community field who regularly ‘manage’, ‘curate’, ‘nurture’ or whatever else you want to call it, it was really nothing new.

It was, I believe, something I have often called, ‘the flounce’.

The flounce is something that happens fairly regularly in traditional message board communities. To be considered a true flounce it tends to tick the following boxes:

• It is being carried out publicly (i.e. not through private messaging or offline communications)
• It is being carried out by an active community member, who tends to have a large following and a fairly lengthy history of membership – it carries no weight otherwise, no-one would notice
• It revolves around hurt, personal feelings, rather than big picture disagreements around, say, party politics
• It tends to start with a disagreement between a very small number of people, often just two
• The popular member (or sometimes a clique of members) declares they are leaving the community
• A far larger group than was originally involved wades in, pleads with the flouncer or flouncers to change their mind(s), lists the reasons why a) they shouldn’t go and b) they’re fantastic
• The flouncer decides to stay. Or at least says they’ll think about it:

Stephen Fry: “Well maybe I’ll see how I feel in a few days. Very low and depressed at the moment and any drop of meanness makes it so much worse. Sorry.”

When I worked on a large women’s community it was a near constant occurrence. It happened on boards based around all topics, not just the typical flashpoints of parenting, and very rarely did anyone leave. At least for long.

It’s easy to get used to rolling your eyes, using calming strategies, and flashing the red cards when it all gets too much.

It’s easy to see the flouncing as an act in itself. It’s easy to see the flouncer as, well, just that. A flouncer. It’s just a hissy fit, it’s just a flounce.

But an act is rarely independent, it is rarely caused by only one thing.

We don’t act in a simple, binary way. A to B therefore C isn’t really how humans behave. We don’t always act chronologically (I may do something right now, based on a conversation three days ago, in between I’ve done all sorts of other things).

In short, there is often a huge backstory behind every little piece of dialogue.

Seeing someone so intelligent, so well-educated, so nuanced (you could hardly call Fry a one-trick pony), at the age of 52, execute a perfect flounce reminds us that, actually, there can be very serious reasons behind it.

Stephen Fry, as swathes of followers rushed to point out to poor @brumplum, is bipolar. In 1995, while performing in the West End with Rik Mayall, he suffered an infamous nervous breakdown. He disappeared for days leaving a comedy community bracing itself for news of suicide.

It’s fair to say that we can assume nobody within Stephen’s community at the time, would have rolled their eyes. It’s fair to say that we can guess no-one would have termed it something as flippant as a ‘flounce’.

Fast forward to 2009, and yes, as a community manager, I recognise that the events of today had all the hallmarks of a very common community occurrence. Because of Fry’s notoriety, for once, witnesses to it knew of the backstory. They knew that this could be the actions of a deeply unhappy person, with a history of mental illness.

It’s important that all of us in a position of trust and responsibility within any community, but especially one of words, remembers that flounces are very rarely flippant.

By @hollyseddon

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fry’s Last Tweet? Actor ‘Retires’ From Twitter (news.sky.com)
• Stephen Fry is a Twitter quitter maybe (telegraph.co.uk)
• Fry ponders leaving Twitter site (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Stephen Fry, Twitter and the Fifth Estate (liveactivecultures.net)
• Stephen Fry to Quit Twitter? (thenextweb.com)

Anybody who follows me on Twitter, reads this blog or knows me in actual proper real life knows that I’m one of the first people to defend Twitter as a powerful networker of intelligent people and a loudspeaker for those often ignored.

When Carter Ruck and Trafigura tried to gag the Guardian, Twitter’s collective defiance made such moves pointless, arguably striking one of the biggest blows against press censorship in recent years.

When Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir used spurious conjecture to disagree with Stephen Gately’s official cause of death to theorise a new fatal syndrome called ‘death by questionable morality’, again Twitter’s voice was loud enough to create a record number of complaints to the PCC – more in one weekend than the previous five years.

And, when a TfL employee was videoed abusing a man on the Tube, Twitter’s ability to amplify moral outrage led to his suspension and eventual resignation.

So, when Professor David Nutt was fired from an independent body by the health secretary for voicing scientific facts that highlighted the absurdity of the government’s general drug policy and classification system, I expected Twitter users to vent their anger.

But there was no flooding of supportive hashtags or messages. There was no outrage. What, is this less important? We know that the way we deal with drugs, drug users and rehabilitation isn’t working. We know that scare tactics are largely counter-productive because they’re so easy to argue with. Finally, when an important expert had the guts to come out and say so there was silence on Twitter. No ‘I’m Spartacus’ moment. Nothing.

I don’t mean to be flippant, but perhaps if he’d have done it on X Factor people would care more?

Twitter is obviously only a microphone and speaker for its users and can only amplify the sentiment that is input. But I’m really beginning to question the importance of a system that angrily refutes accusations of banality, yet buzzes with reality TV gossip and ignores serious issues like this.

And more worryingly, as Andrew Brown points out in the Telegraph today, what right thinking, independent expert would volunteer to advise the government now?

By @jamesseddon

Related articles by Zemanta

• Stephen Fry is a Twitter quitter maybe (telegraph.co.uk)
• Stephen Fry, Twitter and the Fifth Estate (liveactivecultures.net)
• Gately Article Breaks Complaints Record (news.sky.com)

Like most self-important members of the media I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of journalism and the role of the journalist. Now, let’s imagine that Apple’s iFixeveryindustry slate doesn’t cure all the media’s ills and realise that some thinking needs to be done.

After a recent meeting with news aggregator Daylife I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about how being a good curator of experts is possibly the best weapon a journalist has to use. As more information becomes publicly available we don’t need Woodwards and Bernsteins to unearth smoking guns, we need more people to process and explain the relevance of all that data.

As Malcolm Gladwell points out, the delay in exposing Enron’s financial mess wasn’t due to malpractice, deceit or lack of information. The important numbers were all out there for public consumption, but nobody had connected the dots. You don’t need to be a wood expert to complete a jigsaw any more than Jonathan Weil needed to be an accounting whizz to break the Enron story in the Wall Street Journal – you just need to know who to speak to.

And as Nick Davies says in Flat Earth News, the reason journalists miss out on so many interesting stories isn’t always because the government witholds information. On the contrary, it’s often because governments release too much information to be properly processed.

But with a motivated and mobilized group of experts, the information can be crunched. And for once, I won’t use Wikipedia as an example of crowdsourcing done good. Just look at the Guardian’s work in outsourcing the processing of the MPs’ expenses data to its readers to consume and hunt out irregularities. This task would have taken their journalists months to sort through and find the story, but not any more.

Imagine next time a mass of data becomes available and it is put in a Google Wave. What if Weil could have done that with Enron’s accounts, inviting tax experts and students to help sort through it, editing, highlighting and adding any useful information? Or, to use a more banal example, what if a motoring correspondent covering a motor show shared his article with expert bloggers from all the relevant subject areas before it was put in the page?

No one journalist can know everything about their beat or subject, they need – and should seek – help. And this goes beyond gathering quotes. A hatchback loving blogger could chip in and correct any mistakes about his subject area. Likewise, a motorbike expert could speak up, making the piece more rounded, accurate and appealing to readers.

There is a big difference between a puzzle and a mystery and how they’re solved. Puzzles have bits of information missing that need to be found. Mysteries are usually more complex, needing an improvement in the exchange  and understanding of existing information rather than more facts and figures that could actually cloud matters. If Wave’s technology can help the flow of information and let journalists focus on the puzzles, then we can focus on what journalism is actually good at. Have I missed anything out of this blog post? Of course I have.

By @jamesseddon

Related articles by Zemanta

• It’s Official. Google Wave to Get Its Own App Store (with potentially more than just apps) (thenextweb.com)
• Is World Journalism in Crisis? Speaker update: Nick Davies confirmed (blogs.journalism.co.uk)
• The Future Of News Is Scarcity (paidcontent.org)
• Do some Newsbrands want to charge for the right to lie to you? (smlxtralarge.com)
• Just a Touch Away, the Elusive Tablet PC (nytimes.com)
• £2m boost for independent investigative journalism bureau (guardian.co.uk)

A few weeks ago my boss asked me to start sending out an email with links to the week’s biggest tech stories to encourage those who aren’t so geeky to keep up-to-date with industry news. Thought I may as well post in here too. It’s pretty mainstream tech stuff, but as a journalist I’ve got pretty handy at cutting and pasting so thought I may as well share here too…

Here’s the five tech stories no nerd should be without from the last week.

Sun launches multiplayer quizzes
So what? Well firstly, it’s making quizzes social (1pt in buzzword bingo) and secondly it’s another trial of paid-for-content. This is using micropayments, although that term traditionally meant fractions of a pound (0.14p) and this is actually small payments (15p).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/05/sun-web-multiplayer-quiz

Times launches Times +
So what? So this is Murdoch playing with subscription models and paywalls. This isn’t a world first and isn’t around content. It’s more like an members’ club where people can get exclusive deals and tickets. Leveraging Times’ reputation as a premium content provider it’s more wine deals and theatre tickets than gig tickets. And all for £50 a year.
http://www.timesplus.co.uk/

Amazon to launch Kindle in UK
So what? They’ve finally managed to sort out a way around Europe’s arcane copyright laws, so you’ll be able to buy digital books here and read them on the beach in Spain. Also touted as the 169th way to save newspapers this year. Number 170 is printing them on things people actually want, like sandwiches.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/07/amazon-ebooks

Foursquare hits the UK
So what? If you use Twitter and follow Americans you’ll have seen people declaring themselves as ‘Mayor of XXXXX’. The location-based, social, real-time app not only uses a huge four buzzwords when being described, but is actually quite addictive. Come and add me if you decide to play. I’m currently Mayor of Virgin Media – no joke.
http://foursquare.com/user/jamesseddon

Google defending book deal
So what? So Google has agreed a £125m deal with American publishers so it can digitise millions of out-of-print books and offer them for free online. More data = better targeted ads = more money for Google.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/09/google-books-brin

Related articles by Zemanta

• Why You Haven’t Got You Google Wave Invite Yet (jessenewhart.com)
• Google Wave Hits Wider Beta (java.sys-con.com)
• All the Google Wave Tricks I Know (So Far) (smarterware.org)
• The First Google Wave Search You Must Know (smarterware.org)

As one of the lucky few to work on the launch of thelondonpaper a few years ago I have to admit I’m gutted, and probably more shocked by today’s announcement of its closure than I should be.

I say more shocked, because like so many seemingly Black Swan events (low predictability, high impact) it turns out in reality to be nothing but a boring old White Swan that was obvious to all around, and not just in retrospect.

Even before News Corp announced record debts and a plan to paywall certain types of online content – a move that clearly put its free London paper at odds with the rest of the company’s portfolio – it was likely the paper wouldn’t last too long.

In fact, even before the paper was launched, the signs that Murdoch didn’t truly buy into his first newspaper launch were worringly evident. Apparently when the dummy copy was presented to Murdoch by the paper’s editor, his response was that you could charge 10p for it – an anecdote that was repeated with an ‘oh Dad, what are you like, you silly old codger?’ tone. So if he didn’t get ‘free’ then, it’s no surprise he dropped the paper when times were tough.

True, thelondonpaper was losing Murdoch millions, but if every unprofitable newspaper was shut down we wouldn’t be left with many papers. And, as one member of staff apparently asked NI exec Clive Milner whether they’d also be closing the Times – which has lost far more money than the freesheet – it clearly isn’t believed as the only reason internally (thanks to @natts who replaced me at tlp for the story).

According to one headline about the paper’s demise, Murdoch has ‘lost faith’ in free. I’d suggest they should have used the word patience instead of one indicating a belief he’d have to have held in order to have lost it. The only upside is that the paper had a lot of very talented staff, who will hopefully spread their experience across more titles.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Murdoch aims to tear up the online rule book (telegraph.co.uk)
• Rupert Murdoch to charge to view News Corp’s online news (telegraph.co.uk)
• You Will Soon Pay to Access All of Rupert Murdoch’s Online Rubbish (gawker.com)

We’ve all been getting our knickers in a knot about Murdoch’s moaning and subsequent surge to Planet Paywall, but we (myself included) have been forgetting one vital point: This is the man that put TV behind a paywall. And then he sold it to everyone.

Back in 1990 when BSkyB (the combination of the 1986-launched BSB and 1989-launched Sky) brought us a brave new world of broadcasting, critics claimed that it would never take off/would wreck our cultural compass.

Why would anyone pay for TV – especially the early offerings of satellite TV – when we had four perfectly good channels already? AND we’d already paid a licence fee to access those.

Secondly, TV was a slightly murky, slightly ‘common’ medium. Not unlike the charges levelled at NOTW and The Sun. People who liked that kind of stuff would never pay…

Fast forward to 2009. Despite an extra terrestrial channel and the invention of freeview, Sky TV is as ubiquitous in the homes of British people as big chavolines. And it’s not just us proles, it’s the full gambit from rich landowners down.

Sun readers are Sky TV subscribers. So is everyone else. We’re a nation willing to pay extra for exclusive content bundles – so long as it’s the right stuff in those bundles, at the right prices, with technologically useful, easy ways to access.

Murdoch didn’t buy up existing channels and sell them back to us, once he purchased BSB to fold in to his Sky venture, he collected unique content, the best of the best, and flashy hardware that people wanted. Sky TV was a status symbol for the masses AND a utility to the upper classes.

Free isn’t a status symbol. And you can argue that BSkyB rode the wave of the ‘Loadsa Money’ era. But we’re currently wading through a recession and Sky subscriptions are riding high.

So is Murdoch going to deliver the Sky Plus of online content retrieval and aggregation?

Is Murdoch going to bring us the 24, Lost and The Simpsons of online news and features?

Will News Corp. plunge funds into developing the Next Big Thing in broadband or ‘cloud’ technology, an equivalent advancement to HDTV?

Will The Sun (or its parent bundle) snag the rights to first-play online Premiership football highlights that Virgin Media currently owns?

Does the new walled garden planned by The Sunday Times have the online content equivalent of The Wire up its sleeve? Ready to prove that, far from erode critical and creative integrity, internet platforms could bring in a new dawn of clever content.

God, I really hope so. Because whatever you may think of the man and his empire, the media world would be far less interesting if Murdoch bricked himself and the ambitions of mass paid-for content into an embarrassing tomb.

Holly Seddon

Related articles by Zemanta

• “All News Sites Will Charge for Content” (kylesmithonline.com)
• Charging for online news (bbc.co.uk)
• News Corporation Posts a Loss on MySpace Charge (nytimes.com)
• Financial Times mulls micropayments (telegraph.co.uk)
• HDTV helps boost BSkyB profits (telegraph.co.uk)
• Media doubts over Murdoch web charging (sluggerotoole.com)