Tom Asacker: Jim Morrison on the media

Jim Morrison on the media

"Whoever controls the media, controls the mind."

Have you read John Battelle's new book "The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture?" It's a pretty good read. And it caused me to post this link . . . again: click here. It's awesome!

Oh . . . and sorry for the quiet period. I've been doing a lot of traveling, a lot of reading, a lot of thinking, and a lot of writing. I'll be doing some heavy posting on my redesigned blog (thanks Tom Peters for the inspiration) early next week.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef00d83428b03853ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jim Morrison on the media:

» The Fourth Estate's Fortunes Have Waned from Burnin' All Illusions
"Whoever controls the media, controls the mind." -Jim Morrison From the Museum of Media History (not a real place, as far as I can tell) comes EPIC 2014, or Evolving [Read More]

Comments

not gonna happen.

humans want "personal" information/products - not "personalized" ones.

especially not computer-personalized ones.

not gonna happen. never.

Posted by: jens | May 19, 2005 at 11:01 AM

While very improbable, the possibility that EPIC could evolve is frightening.

Posted by: John | May 19, 2005 at 11:27 AM

I saw this clip a while ago, and it gave me the willies. I'm as big a fan of blogging, social networking, and personalization as the next person, but somehow, I don't see the end result being what the video predicts. Or maybe, being a journalist, I'm just in denial?

Posted by: Sue Pelletier | May 19, 2005 at 11:41 AM

It certainly makes you think though; are our wants driven by our own unique desires, or the best of what's around? Certainly that leads into issues of scarcity and luxury, but still - how many times a day or a week do we simply settle?

Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2005 at 11:44 AM

I loved that clip...very thought provoking and ironic. Especially the part about the NYT becoming a small print-only rag again--the cycle starts anew.

I agree that, as a specific scenario, it's unlikely. But from a generalized point of view it seems like the wheels are in motion. Big fish are swallowing little fish and "independent" media become scarce or, at least, have reduced opportunities for exposure.

Posted by: Bren | May 19, 2005 at 11:49 AM

Yes, I did. This highlights one of the aspects of the internet and knowledge, who knew what when...

http://steves2cents.blogspot.com/2005/02/google-futuristic-view.html

Thanks for the reference, it is still important to realize what the future can be, we still have time to change it.

It is up to us.

Posted by: Steve S | May 19, 2005 at 11:58 AM

It's a terrific piece of entertainment and sci-fi, but it makes a number of errors and false assumptions.

The market for drivel is strong. Frighteningly so. But being a consumer of shallow crap does not by definition exclude one from high minded 'important' news. There are plenty of examples in the Times itself.

The market for intelligent news and discussion is growing, not shrinking. The move to an everyone-as-reporter model will result in a population that's MORE involved, not less.

Will the Times go out of business? Maybe. But so what? It will only disappear if a better alternative exists.

Will e-paper be cheaper than newsprint by 2014? Bloody unlikely. Even if we do manage to knock down every tree, there are many, many alternative sources of pulp.

The more I think about this, the more annoyed I get. The conclusions reached in that peice are based on some very iffy speculation. Take out the bit about e-paper being cheaper than newsprint, and the whole argument falls apart.

Posted by: Peter Flaschner | May 19, 2005 at 01:02 PM

Tom:

Thank you for sharing. I have also done so just now with several dozen people who will most appreciate it.

And I now share with you ten initial reactions:

1. Visionaries will continue to see what is not as yet but what can and should be.

2. The passionate, persistent, and talented will make those visions come true.

3. The survivors will be those who are most adaptable to new realities.

4. Then other visionaries will see what is not as yet but what can and should be.

5. The passionate, persistent, and talented will make those visions come true.

6. The survivors will be those who are most adaptable to new realities.

7. Then still other visionaries will see what is not as yet but what can and should be.

8. The passionate, persistent, and talented will make those visions come true.

9. The survivors will be those who are most adaptable to new realities.

10. Then what? See #1.

Posted by: Robert Morris | May 19, 2005 at 02:23 PM

While watching "2014" my spyware program popped up and said a spyware application had just been installed on my computer. Makes one wonder.

Posted by: Jim Thornbrugh | May 19, 2005 at 08:31 PM

Very interesting Tom

I don't feel qualified to talk from over here in England about your NYT but I would say ...I occassionally by the Sunday Times over here in England and frankly there is just to much paper. What with inserts, mags and supplements the paper bundle is often three inches high when laid down!!!

I want to know who the hell has time to read that from one Sunday to the next Sunday ... and by the way there are six more Times editions Monday to Saturday that are also an inch thick.

When I buy the Sunday Times ... sad to say ...most of it ends up in the bin unread.

My point?

There is too much paper stuff being printed - customers are selective and in my opinion one of the reasons people buy The Times over here is to do with self image and ego.

One can read just as interesting stuff in papers that are less than half an inch thick. One can search electronically for specific things ...glance through them on screen and then .. if you want .. print it.

I am not a futurist - not clever enough - but I can actually see all this happening ...

After all ...I can remember as a young man early in 1971 a mature typist saying to me with some disdain.

''These ELECTRIC (not electric not electronic) typewriters will never catch on. Give me a manual typeriter every time.'

This clip makes one think ... and my summary would be ....NEVER say NEVER

Posted by: Trevor Gay | May 20, 2005 at 03:47 AM

"The Times" is an excellent newspaper! It covers the floor perfectly when I am cleaning out the budgies.

Posted by: Annie | May 20, 2005 at 07:38 PM

Tom,

This is one scenario, a very possible scenario. I would add that this future would take avantage of the psychology of the learner to a greater extent than suggested. Their cultural and religious values, the way they learn (i.e. give me the bottom line then you can get into the details etc.).

However there are competing factors.

Coadaptive learning. As things change and the learner experiences new information, they reshape their understanding and with these new insights they move to a higher level of cognitive development. These changes are difficult to anticipate due the way learning and breakthrough thinking evolves in each of us.
Two, the studies I have participated in indicate that paper has unique attributes. It is fold-able and easy to carry does not easily break and requires no power source. In addition its easy to modify and anodate, easy to share and store. The experiences I have been exposed to with the adult learner (paper versus the computer) points to the fact that paper will be very difficult to replace. Remember the statement that with computers the use of paper will decline. Well just the opposite happened. It was this phenomena the launched our research. The wild card is the generational change due to personal use of technology.

Posted by: Carl Klempner | May 23, 2005 at 02:17 PM