Predicting the future

Predicting the future

Ten years from now, what would the media landscape look like? How would you consume media at that time?

Ten years from today, the media landscape may look like a variation of the media landscape today. Although I believe that social media is here to stay, I believe traditional mediums like television and print editorials will be in little use in the future. Television content may shift to online websites completely and print editorials like magazines and newspapers may be found only online. For both convenience and environmental reasons, I believe all existing media will be transferred online. In ten years, generation X will be in the workforce and implementing their native online mediums while baby boomers' traditional mediums will be faded out. Hosting content on online websites is more economical than printing considering the cost to design, buying space, printing thousands of copies for circulation, paying the vendors to host your print materials, etc. Also, technology will have advanced even more to be more compatible to host a variety of formerly traditional mediums online.  

Ten years from now

Ten years from now, what would the media landscape look like? How would you consume media at that time?

While the circulation and readership of print media are likely to decrease and some newspapers may be shut down, most newspapers will remain major players in the media landscape. In an attempt to attract young consumers, online newspapers may display more non-public affairs, such as entertainment, at the expense of political and social topics. Also, hand watches will be used to consume content, mainly entertainment, but news as well. Facebook will remain dominant and function as the networked public affairs. Attempts of other companies to compete with this social networking site are likely to fail.

The Future

I think the future media landscape will be more of the same, just bigger. Many channels for information coming from a few main sources with plenty of misinformation thrown in thanks to the social and interactive nature of the internet. I'm not as interested in how we will consume media at that time as much as what media we will be consuming. The fewer gatekeepers we have in media and the more voracious the "i want it NOW" news cycle, the easier it is to get the wrong information and especially to signal-boost it. But maybe, in 10 years, our need to avoid anything that offends us will have created even smaller online communities where selective exposure becomes our own personal gatekeeper and the accuracy of the media is no longer as important as to whether we agree with it or not. Or whether it entertains us.

We'll still have newspapers, though. We'll still have TV news and the radio and all the things people think are going away. Maybe we've added something else. Maybe we all have google glass or cochlear implants that whisper the news directly into our brain. Maybe we have little screens on our shoes so we can send messages and still see where we are going.

2025: A Dystopic Media Landscape

Predictions are only as good at the data you have to work with, and even then they are only predictions. There are so many factors that will impact the media landscape in the next 10 years: mergers and acquisitions, audience preferences, political regime changes and new laws, the innovation of new technologies, and the list goes on.

The fact of the matter is, the way things are going right now, all media are increasingly and blatantly becoming marketplaces for consumers to meet advertisers. By 2025, I think there will be two very different Internet experiences. A completely free version of the web which comes with free hardware, but that constantly harasses people with advertisements. This will probably be marketed to low income people.

There will also be a highly premium version of the Internet that allows the elite to pay for content and not have to deal with advertisements (as much). 

Newspapers and even digital native news media outlets will be less relevant for news and information, as in the next 10 years people will grow increasingly tired of their hawking of advertisements. 

Instead, we'll go back to a model of advocacy journalism organizations producing important investigative stories. We're seeing this already happening with the rise of ProPublica, Marshall Project, and the Texas Tribune. Non-profits will begin commissioning their own investigative units as social issues become more intense. 

News media's incessant need for advertising profits will be its downfall, and will give rise to media outlets that educate people through well-thought out stories rather than an incompetent barrage of content that is great for profit but horrible for educating the public. 

future media landscape

Ten years from now, what would the media landscape look like? How would you consume media at that time?

People will have really pointy, sharp fingers. I'd feel much more comfortable reading digital books than now. 

Predicting the future

Ten years from now, what would the media landscape look like? How would you consume media at that time?

Amazon Mechanical Turk for Online Survey/Experiment

Margaret sharing tips on M Turk

2015 Google Online Marketing Challenge (GOMC)

We should have participated in this contest! 
http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2015/11/12-31767_Jindal-School-Teams-Google-Marketing-Campaigns-Rea_story-wide.html?WT.mc_id=NewsFacebook

Algorithmic

 I thought the reading this week was interesting especially in how it contrasted the author's idea of "professional journalism" where the audience is rarely thought of to "algorithmic journalism" where the opposite is true. I also liked how the author made sure to recognize that the relationship can too easily be oversimplified, which i think is often very tempting to do. It's good to recognize the advantages and new abilities that big data and technology gives us, but i think the author is saying we need to continue to put a critical eye to it and not get swept away in the wave of newness.

News: Hearts on Twitter

https://blog.twitter.com/2015/hearts-on-twitter

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/08/twitter-heart-wrong-beat

Implications for journalism

It surprises me every time I read a journalism article how little attention has been paid to the audience. Anderson (2011) writes that this is primarily because of a disconnect from the audiences, the "inability to intellectually imagine an audience of millions of people." However, that's what advertisers do all the time. No one can simply imagine what audiences may be like but advertisers have always sought audience response to reflect opinions and improve campaigns. I do not understand how news had evolved around superiors writing for themselves assuming "that what interested them would interest the audience" for so many years before finally coming to the realization that the the millions of audiences out there may have different thoughts and opinions. Despite the importance of audiences, I think they serve a different purpose for an industry like advertising that is a commercial business versus a news organization that needs to serve the public's best interest without monetary incentives. I feel that citizens have the right to be informed of public national matters regardless of what kind of articles other audiences want to read about. To me, public journalism movement seems like the best option. Indymedia's push where audiences are encouraged to be citizen journalists does not seem newsworthy to me and people can write their opinions on their private blogs. Demand media has an algorithm set up to pump out new articles and videos based on popular searches and online trends. This simply adds to what is already known and popular out there and does not contribute to actual news or new information.

algorithmic audiences

This week’s reading on Anderson talks about the relatively novel concept called, algorithmic audiences. By analyzing three different journalism-audience relationships—the public journalism, Indymedia, and demand media—the author tries to correlate to different images of democracy and sociological implications. Algorithmic journalism is reducible to quantification and the visualization of an aggregative audience. Because the domain of this research is quite new, it’s more of speculation rather than empiricism. The way algorithmic journalism works is based on INTERNAL BIAS, which goes back to the last week’s reading: democratic journalism provides what the public needs, not what the public wants. If algorithmic journalism sees audiences as non-participatory, simply guided by their internal bias without critical thinking, content with what the media has to offer, and unconcerned with eliminating bad information, how is it different from the way capitalism operates? Yes, journalism is a unique business model, but the very nature of journalism is to create the civil society. It should be careful not to simply follow the systems of capitalism and advertising.

Don't track me, bro

The topics raised by the paper were very interesting after just reading through the two articles on Facebook's studies. A lot of what the researchers wrote involved how much power the audience now has in agenda-setting, and how journalists need to understand they are no longer passive. This thought is reinforced by the two articles on Facebook where we saw audience posts manipulated to successfully influence other users.

To me, this just shows how important it continues to be that journalists not get swept up in audience-driven editorial judgement because enough of that is happening in the social media world already. The authors cite Barger and Barney saying “the market requires giving the public what it wants; democracy requires giving the public what it needs” (2004) and I think it's crucial for journalists to remember that they are not exclusively market-driven.

Of course, privacy issues are also a big concern in the first two articles, as big data is collected and then used to manipulate the public unknowingly. It certainly reinforces how important it is to have trained professional researchers and journalists who know the ethics of what they do.

Ethics

Facebook conducted a study, which manipulated users’ emotional state. More negative News Feeds led to more negative status messages, as more positive News Feeds led to positive statuses. Not to mention their mal use of the tools, it seriously challenges ethical issues. Even though some might refer this study as original, ethically, it’s an open question. Morality comes before any legality. We make regulations/laws out of ethical reasons. Somewhat contrary to their findings, there have been studies indicating the more users see other people being happy, the more they feel depressed and less happy.

 

The Facebook has always been manipulating users’ News Feeds. It uses an algorithm to determine what to display and hide, and it rarely discloses any detailed information about how the algorithm works. This is why I don’t use Facebook.
Tandoc and Thomas’ article on “The ethics of web analytics” was a good transition after reading articles about how deceptive the Facebook is. However, whether the Facebook can be considered as journalism still remains.

Ethics and Audiences

The readings this week were really fascinating. I had not read a full autopsy of the Facebook/Cornell study, and the Atlantic's article delivered!

The Atlantic piece offers both a critique of Facebook users for being too over the top, and Facebook/Cornell for being surreptitious and shady. It's interesting to see users/audiences have such vehement reactions to the study, however, people didn't actually leave. Facebook continues to grow. The research Facebook is doing should give audiences pause. Though Facebook claims to have not read personal messages of people in the study, it is manipulating users' experiences as they not only engage with content but with each other. I think this is what I find most ethically questionable. Facebook's algorithm has the power to manipulate our relationships with our family, friends. Yes, it may be useful to helping us connect with one another, but now that the company is a publicly trading entity, its focus has shifted to serving its shareholders. The Huffington Post article describes how Facebook may have impacted an election, and though on the face encouraging people to vote is a positive thing, I think audiences should be weary that a company like Facebook can influence who we vote for. Facebook is not simply a tech company, but also prescribes to certain political beliefs.

On the other hand, it is really interesting to see the strong reactions from Facebook users. We are seemingly manipulated every day by similar A/B tests from our cable and mobile providers, and perhaps even the people at the Belo coffee shop. There appears to be a strong disconnect with people understanding what Facebook provides and what Facebook is. And when its true colors are brightly lit, people freak out en masse. This reaction is ephemeral as people continue using Facebook's service. Perhaps if we paid for Facebook, there may be a different reaction?

The ethics of audience research

The audience has a large influence on advertising but I found it surprising to read that the audience matters to the newsroom to the "point where audience members can choose, promote, and even disseminate information beyond the control of the newsroom and thus potentially set the news agenda" (Tandoc & Thomas 2015). While I agree that the power balance between journalists and audiences may shift due to technology advancements and the influence of social media, I don't think that audience feedback should determine or set the news agenda. This is unethical as news should be based on hard factual news that informs the people of what is happening around the world. It should not be based on what audiences want to see reported in their news.

Tandoc & Thomas (2015) advice that journalists "resist the commercial imperative." There needs to be a balance between the market and the audience to come to an ethical decision about news reporting. I think that with news, audience opinions and responses to the content of the report should be gathered so the next report can reflect public opinion - not just a collection of preferences and judgement on the type of articles they want to see. Whether audiences like it or not, things are going to happen regardless of audience preference, and it only hurts the audience if these are left unreported. This is not like an advertisement where the only consequences of a failed ad is loss in revenue of a company and brand. News that centers around the audience too much may fail to bring out important issues in the society which has a greater impact on society than just monetary loss.

"Results are in: A cleaner webpage design equals more engaged readers"

Since we were just talking about design vs content, i thought this recent study was relevant: http://www.rjionline.org/blog/results-are-cleaner-webpage-design-equals-more-engaged-readers

term paper

As some of you'd already know, my research area revolves around transnational media culture in the era of globalization. For this term paper, I'll look at Western fans' reading and decoding of K-pop by conducting online ethnography and emplying several thoretical concepts from globalization paradigm. I'll look at how this contraflow of media culture challenges hegemony drvien by Western imperialism, and how it relates to racial/ethnic/gender identity.
While doing online ethnographic work, I found this funny video on YouTube.
https://youtu.be/sYgYNNBFBjU

Audience Psychology

Queen of social science

Assumption: People are ______.

A few theories related to audience --


Mere exposure:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEsC4gDkk-E

Facial feedback: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR9lTqrkTYw
http://www.workplacehealthcare.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pencil-happy.jpg

The Penny Gap: The chocolate experiment by Dan Ariely

Pricing and the perception of quality: The wine and energy drink experiments

Physical touch and the perception of quality


Pricing for physical, online, and hybrid products

Paywalls and Revenues

Pew's fact sheet suggests that in 2014 The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal had a similar number of users who paid for access to the websites (more than 700,000). The Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times also had a similar number of such users (around 60,000).  However, I am interested in examining the relationship between the type of paywall – metered or hard – and the growth in digital subscribes. The New York Times, for example, uses a metered paywall that allows online visitors to view a limited number of stories for free before requiring a subscription. In the first quarter of 2015 the outlet added around 33,000 net digital subscribers. Circulation revenue from digital-only subscription was 46.1 million – an increase of 14.4% from the first quarter of 2014. While this revenue accounts for about 20% of the total circulation revenue, it allows The New York Times to earn more revenue from paid circulation than from advertising. The newspaper has tried to improve in engaging users to the point where they are willing to pay – for example, by analyzing the last pages that users visited before signing up for a subscription. I have not seen similar data about The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers that use a hard paywall, but I am curious to see whether and how the number of their digital subscribers has grown, and look at their revenue from digital only subscriptions.

Free....dom

 Anderson and Ariely (I'll cite him like JC) both make great points of how "free" goods and services do wonders to our psyches. Ariely conducts a number of informal tests in his book Predictably Irrational, showing that peoples' tastes change dramatically when products go from free to $.01. An actual price becomes a barrier to purchasing that good. I think the increasing adoption of subscription services challenges this idea. Once people purchase a Netflix or Hulu subscription, they'll often put these subscription services on auto-pay. I wonder how much we begin assuming, over time, that the content we're getting from these services is effectively free. The value proposition is far greater than a cable subscription, at about $10 for thousands of shows and films. It's the cost of a single meal at Chipotle. I don't use Netflix nearly as much as most people I know, but I view it as a public utility rather than something I pay for. I wonder if "cheap" could start feeling more like "free?"


I used to agree with Clay Shirky's idea that we should give our content away for free in the short term in order to build a a fanbase. However, I think we (scholars, and well all of society), need to take a much closer look at the actual benefits to society of all of us creating more content. Sure, if I was to produce a tutorial video series, it could benefit Hyeri JUNG, but am I also creating a treasure trove of data for advertisers to learn more about me? And in a sense, give them more opportunities to target me, and take my disposable income with purchases I perhaps do not need? Also, I think we need to be weary of the fact that, much of the power we as consumer-producers have to distribute our free content rests in the hands of a few large corporations. I am not saying everything is inherently bad or good, but free comes with a lot of considerations. I think society needs to better understand how much free stuff takes away from our freedom.

The psychology of digital media audiences—willingness to pay

The Psychology of Free by Anderson (2009) gave an interesting perspective on free subscription. I had subconsciously thought about this but never in such ways as the penny gap and the cost of zero cost. It makes logical sense to think that a source that has always been free remain unaffected if it continues to remain free to consumers. However,  that paid content is devalued and discredited when it becomes free also makes logical sense. Some equate money with more credibility, higher quality, more information, etc. However, if the same content becomes available for free, its consumers may question whether or not it will have the same amount of credibility, quality and information as it did previously when it was paid. This made perfect sense to me. However, this paper was published in 2009. I wonder if this will still be true today in 2015.

In 2015, I believe Dan Ariely's version of "free" is true as was described in Predictably Irrational. He says "zero is an emotional hot button - a source of irrational excitement." Free does not speak to price/quality as it did previously but rather removes risk and we "forget about the downside." In this case, I think the penny gap works to rationalize consumers preference for free things over paid. Now, we see more free content change from free to paid which is disgruntling to a lot of consumers. Some consumers only look for free content and disregard any paid source because the quality of information is thought to be similar if not the same. Paid content is often called a premium now: the free version gives you everything you need but paid accounts give you more options. Therefore, finding anything for free is exciting and preferred.

"Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive … That tension will not go away." (Anderson 2008)

I've paid a lot of attention over the last several years to the model of online news, hoping that a clear leader in monetization would emerge in the same way that the iTunes store brought change in how most obtained their digital music. The chapter slightly depressed me because it started out strong by comparing the two newspapers but then failed to really address how the rest of the chapter could apply to news. Other than implying "if you started free you're good. if you didn't start free, sucks to be you." The author did a lot to talk about the gap between free and charging ANYthing, which i found very interesting. I never thought of the Penny Gap that way before, and how even a financial commitment of $0.01 is enough to change someone's mindset.

Comparing the chapter to the paywall data, it appears as if most people are still willing to "pay themselves less than minimum wage" to find their content elsewhere. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have a M-F average circulation of more than 2 million yet only ~700,000 behind the  paywall. I'd love to see a comparison of how many metered clicks the NY Times gets versus paid clicks. What's the falloff after the 10 free monthly views are reached? Do people pay or do they just open it in another browser or in an incognito browser to trick the metering code? 

----

In a funny turn, i just opened an email and this ad was at the bottom:

Online or print?

The psychology of digital media audiences—the lack of engagement; the perceived inferiority of digital content

In Chyi (2015), the idea of digital natives are discussed. Even though many think that the future is online due to the rise in the number of digital natives, many still prefer print newspapers. The stats provided in the paper support what I wrote about last week. I argued that print newspaper will still be consumed by older generations mainly due to habit and being a laggard in the technology adoption model. The baby boomers, are aging and this large group of people are non-digital natives. Chyi (2015) offers that 46% of people aged 65+ report reading print newspaper yesterday while only 7% of those aged 18-24 read print newspaper. Baby boomers make up the largest group of people in the United States (until this year - Millennials will outnumber them). They will support the use of print newspaper even if digital natives do not. 

It was also surprising to find the preference for print over online newspapers for college newspapers. This may be attributed to availability, on-campus promotion, entertainment as well as it being offered for free. Since younger generations do not find newspapers enjoyable or entertaining, as the paper stated, they will not intentionally go to an online college newspaper site but would be open to consuming printed newspapers that are handed out on campus.

The point of online advertising revenue is interesting. Especially, mobile advertising is something that has been growing vastly in the last 5 years. I was surprised to hear how low the revenue off of web ads and mobile ads were (1% of total revenue). If paywall exists, then perhaps it would benefit mobile newspapers to get rid of advertising all together to increase audience engagement.

News: Nielsen's Total Audience Measurement

http://www.adweek.com/news/television/first-look-nielsen-s-total-audience-measurement-and-how-it-will-change-industry-167661

Multiplatform audience measurement

Displacement effect --

• Is it important? 
• Different approaches
• Medium-centric (The more time spent on medium A, the less time spent on medium B)
• User-centric (The more time spent on medium A to fulfill some needs, the more time spent on functionally similar media)
• How to measure it?
• Direct question (Are you spending more or less time on medium A because of medium B?)
• Absolute time (w/o considering overall media budget)
• Relative time
• Likert Scale (e.g., frequency of use)
• Longitudinal data (e.g., Brown sisters -- 40 years of photo data and how the NYT promoted the story on social media)
• How different measures lead to different conclusions?
• Exercise: Mobile news

Multiplatform news consumption --

• Getting complicated (see Niesen's new approach to multiplatform TV consumption)
• The repertoire approach (TV channels, Websites, cross-media media use for specific needs)

Beyond use, what other variables are of interest?

If you build it, they may not come

After reading this week's articles, I couldn't help but wonder why the legacy newspapers don't listen to their customer bases more? As Chyi (2015) points out, "if digital natives are prone to news in digital formats, they should have dropped the print edition of their campus newspaper by 2011. However, results collected through a national survey of nearly 200 U.S. college newspaper advisers indicated that the print edition reached nearly twice as many readers as the Web edition on a given day." I think this example is indicative of newspapers not learning from their loyal readership.

On the other hand the digital native publications don't have to play by the same rules. They don't have long-standing guilds (though some now have unions) to factor in to their plans or print operations. They were made specifically for the web and have more or less mastered the art of making money on digital content: Make a lot of stuff, make it cheap, and blur the lines between your content and the advertisements. And of course, make sense of your analytics, more specifically what your customers are demanding.

Digital Natives and News Consumption

I was particularly interested to read about "digital natives" and newspaper consumption. Contrary to popular belief, Chyi (2015) showed that "digital natives" do not necessarily prefer online newspapers to their print editions. For example, a national survey of US college newspaper advisers indicated that their students overwhelmingly preferred to read the print edition of the college newspaper. Other studies found that while older people were more likely than younger ones to read a print newspaper, the penetration of a given print newspaper was higher than its online penetration even among young people. That said, whether the news is in a digital or print format, young people are less likely to find news interesting or relevant for them (Lee & Chyi, 2014). They prefer entertainment over news. Chyi encourages newspaper managers to acknowledge that print is their asset and digital is not their forte. I tend to agree, but I am also concerned that in an attempt to attract more young readers to news websites, these websites may display even less news and more content related to entertainment and non-public affairs.

Readings for 10/19/15

I really enjoyed reading this week's articles. Whereas Dr. Chyi’s study indicates that digital news is not replacing newspapers yet, Lee and Leung’s study indicates that the Internet is displacing all traditional media (i.e. newspapers, television, radio, and magazines) rather than supplementing them. According to Lee and Leung’s study, Internet users for news/information and entertainment do not spend more time with functionally similar traditional media for the same purpose. Their findings reject the “more-more” hypothesis as suggested by the user-centric approach. The Internet is shown to have an overall displacement effect, and not a single instance of a “more-more” situation occurred in the use of traditional media among Internet users. The ‘‘more-less’’ scenario is seen across all traditional media.
In contrary to Lee and Leung’s study, Yuan’s study supported the user-centric model. She looked at the old and new media for the news audience from the repertoire-oriented approach, hoping to provide more fluid and dynamic analysis than the dichotomous distinction between the substitutive and supplementary relationships. Her focus on media repertoire was particularly interesting as I see it personally applying to me: for example, setting favorites on my Internet. I think the repertoire-oriented approach will greatly depend on how much effort I have to put into when using new channels. Her study only focused on news. I wonder if it would be the same for other media content, such as entertainment.

Some might argue that whether or not new media replace or supplement old media would depend on multiple factors, given they provide similar functions. However, how can different media serve the same needs and functions? As Marshall McLuhan once said, “Medium is the message,” different media platforms provide distinct senses and require audiences' physiology to function differently. Although the media content might be the same, audiences change their attitude when interacting with different media platforms.
The amount of using the Internet will vary in each society depending on how developed and fast the Internet is. For example, Korea is the most wired country in the world according to the world statistics. Basically, there’s free high speed wi-fi wherever you go including subways. Because of this, there are many online-related burgeoning industries (and big conglomerates of course) coming up with innovative ways of delivering content via unprecedented media platforms. For example, there’s a new form of media called “web drama,” which is relatively very short (about 10 minutes per each episode) compared to the traditional drama shown on an old medium, television. This is increasingly getting popular in the K-drama industry mainly because about 99% of all young Korean people have a smartphone with web streaming capabilities.

Multiplatform audience measurement; displacement effects; the repertoire approach

In Lee and Leung's (2008) article, the displacement effects of the internet is discussed in multiple aspects: mediumcentric, usercentric, more-more, and relative proportion of time spent on media. Although I can see how displacement effects can occur depending on the variety of medium offered or users' preferences/media consumption behavior, and the amount of time spent on a specific medium; I cannot see how the authors could have hypothesized "more-more" as opposed to "more-less". This goes against their next hypothesis of time as a relative proportion out of a total number of time spent on all mediums. For example the second hypothesis reads:

          H2: The more time Internet users spend on news and information, the more time           they spend on the functionally similar traditional media (e.g., newspapers, radio,             and magazine) for their news and information needs.

However, according to relative proportion vs. absolute time spent on media, one would see that "relatively," if one were to spend more time on a single medium, then he/she would be less capable of spending time on another medium. A "more-more" would never result in a displacement effect, thus should not be used to measure displacement effects. This is also supported by medium-centric approach.

I liked the idea of both medium and user-centric approaches but leaned more towards the latter. New mediums will always arise but it's acceptance and use will always depend on the user. I believe that substitution is solely dependent on the users. Furthermore, since mediums have different purposes and satisfy different needs, I believe supplement will occur more than substitution.

Also, Yuan (2012) suggests media convergence is due to the change in the news media landscape. However, I think that another large role that attributed to the move to digital and mobile media technology is the push for green initiatives and pro-environmentalism. In conjunction with the advancements in technology, environmentalists realized that everything can be moved into the digital space, reducing the need to further harm the environment. The 21st century is a time where everything is eco-friendly, green and organic. With such times, things such as digital receipts, paper-less billings, re-usable canvas grocery bags, etc. have emerged. Likewise, newspaper has gone digital also. If this hadn't happened and news content only stayed on paper, I think substitution of newspaper could have been avoided. However, now that the same content is available more conveniently and in a more environmentally friendly form, there is no need to linger onto folds and folds of paper anymore. However, the greying baby boomers, who make up a large portion of the population, may continue to support printed newspapers out of habit.

Movie time!

The "real" audience-driven model of content creation through "big data":
2010 ISOJ Keynote speech (Demand Media): https://vimeo.com/20938653 (Start from 16:17)
-- They're recruiting freelancers.

On "built-in obsolescence" and "slow news": Justin Lewis featured in Consumerism & the Limits to Imagination (Start from 21:10 Bubka Principle)