Is there enough good content to go around?

The LA Times’ Michael Hiltzik suggests today that the recently announced merger of the UPN and WB broadcast television networks shows “there simply isn’t enough compelling entertainment material to go around.”

(Hiltzik’s column appeared in today’s LA Times, and in another sign that Hiltzik is one of the more Web-savvy journalists in the newspaper world, he’s also posted it to his blog, where you don’t need to register with latimes.com to read it.)

He continues:

“As for the Internet, as a breeding ground of new entertainment talent, so far it’s largely barren. Companies from iFilm to Amazon.com have tried to make a commercial mark with Web-only film clips, but it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that the most popular downloaded moving pictures on the Web (outside of pornography) are snippets from ‘The Daily Show’ or ‘Saturday Night Live.'”

Harsh words, but I’d suggest taking a step or two to the side and looking from a different angle. No, there’s not enough *mass market* entertainment to support a sixth broadcast network, or even to densely populate another mass-market Web video portal.

But services like iTunes, and iFilm, can operate as both mass marketplaces and niche delivery systems. Look beneath the “top downloads” lists on such services and one can find compelling entertainment that appeals only to limited audiences. Music fans can find podcasts of genres rarely heard in most broadcast radio markets. Film fans can find intriguing student and independent work that would never find its way on screens in the average American city. But the limited appeal of such work, even when of top quality, assures that it rarely will show up on “top download” lists.

The Internet’s never going to generate enough mass market entertainment talent to support new mass market networks and studios because the Internet’s greatest strength is as an *alternative* to the mass market. This is where artists can go to distribute works that won’t generate enough money or buzz to get a major studio or network deal.

I’m awaiting the day that a “Freeks and Geeks” — any top-quality, quirky, low-rated broadcast TV show — gets the ax, but instead of shutting production, its producers start selling new episodes for a buck each on the Web.

Most TV shows fail miserably. But the lure of hitting it big keeps thousands of artists working on pilots every year. Perhaps, with the demise of one more network raising those odds, a few more professional artists might instead try to bypass the networks and reach out to their potential audience directly, via the Internet.

One more time: It is not the readers' fault

Perhaps my previous post on the subject was too gentle. So let me try again, more clearly this time.

The blow-up on the Washington Post website was not the fault of its readers. It was the fault of the Washington Post.

It was the Post’s fault for publishing an erroneous report. It was the Post’s fault for not moving immediately to correct it, once readers pointed it out. It was the Post’s fault for disrespecting its readers but shutting down all the blog’s comments, instead of pruning ones containing obscenities and threats. And if the Post couldn’t handle the volume of pruning that needed to be done, it was the Post’s fault for not having a better comment management system in place.

So let’s quit blaming the readers. (And let’s especially quit looking at these sorts of incidents as right vs. left. In journalism, we ought to deal with correct vs. incorrect. If that means we consistently offend some political group if it is consistently wrong, then tough.)

The proper thing for any news publisher to do in this sort of case is *not* to get defensive. Own up to the mistakes and work to do better next time, instead. Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote some encouraging words to that effect in her latest column. Watch OJR tomorrow for an article with additional suggestions on how news websites ought to better manage readers comments, too.

Google News out of beta — finally

After almost three and a half years, Google News officially has emerged from beta-testing mode.

Krishna Bharat announced the move on Google’s Blog.

The latest enhancement is a personalized news recommendation engine, which uses Google’s personalized search technology to suggest news stories based, in part, on other stories that a reader has clicked on.

Bharat writes:

“All of this is done automatically using algorithms. For example, we might recommend news stories to you that many other users have read, especially when you and they have read similar stories in the past. We’ve also added a section to show you the most popular stories in the Google News edition you are viewing (e.g., U.S.). Now you can see the top stories being published by editors across the web, as well as other stories popular with readers, plus topics that you track or are interested in — all on one page.”