You’ve hit the nail on the head here. This was totally a world that I came from and when the journalism industry cratered in 2008, this perpetual motion machine was a quick fix some editors put in place to make sure some bloggers/reporters still had work. More importantly, it helped to alleviate the burden of content generation for themselves.

Another thing! A lot of these outlets soon adopted the “byline as currency” payment model and that meant that very talented reporters were disappearing and were being replaced by people who could afford to work just for that byline. So you had inexperienced people writing on subjects that they couldn’t properly analyze. And you had them producing a high volume of content, to boot.

If you were go back and look through the archives of a lot of newspapers/magazines and the writing produced between 2008-2010 (the period when the industry was struggling to figure out new media), you’ll notice there was a pretty ridiculous dip in a lot (not all) of work being printed/pushed online.

I think another problem is that many who enter journalism fancy the old-world glamor of “journalism” and don’t realize that in the new media age, they have to consider themselves more than journalists–as content creators. Unless they have a SEO army like HuffPo, they’ve got to be advocates of their work. This means tweeting the links, syndicating the post if necessary, and just finding ways to get people talking about it.

The strangest thing about this so-called “hamsterization” is how if you’re constantly churning out (“churnalism” is my favorite term for this same trend) news stories, how is anything supposed to stick?

Anyway, I think this goes back to the whole idea that social media is exactly what you make of it. And without a proper goal or game plan, of course the internet’s going to be a scary wilderness.

(I didn’t mean for this to be so long!)

Chavi makes a very valid point. Having worked as a print journalist since decades before the Internet-as-we-know-it was given life, I can tell you that the vast majority of print journalists have little to no control over the stories they work. If their editor has a decent working understanding of the Internet, beyond email and Google, they’re a lucky journalist, indeed. And most often, their direction trickles down to the editorial staff from clueless publishers.

However, I suspect you had no intention of pointing your finger at individual journalists, but rather at print media en masse. If so, then I agree that the real hamsters are those in the print media that haven’t managed to adapt.

They used to be essentially the only source of news. Then along came radio and television, but the effect wasn’t devastating. Perhaps that’s why they seem to have made no real effort to adapt to the competition presented by the Internet… they thought/assumed/prayed that they’d once again survive without suffering undue damage.
We all make mistakes. Some are fatal.
And some, like the NYT, heed the warning and adjust.

As far as I’m concerned, if they can’t or won’t adjust, they deserve to be left behind. The Internet could be the best thing that ever happened to them, if they embrace it.

Sure, I believe in being proactive, and that successful people figure it out no matter what the odds, but the FCC is asking a pertinent question. As we move to constant, real-time, 140 character, RSS feed style communication, what are we sacrificing?

The other question is, do we let progress run its course without tempering its hunger? Do we watch while Master Progress evolves – demolishing and building, devouring and creating?

Spot on, m’dear. And no – the internet’s never been a way to stay on the wheel. It’s always been the place where you can find the keys that unlock the doors to wherever you want to go. Holler.

In fact, the very activities the FCC report cites, are exactly what keeps reporters on the hamster wheels in the first place. Sure they’re running hard, but they’re just spinning their wheels because we want them out digging for the stories, not serving up TMZ style reports with the only goal being page views.

The web allowed “regular” people to dethrone the media only because the media had become lazy and complacent. And their response to the dethroning has simply been to look for an easy way out of the situation they put themselves in.

You cite examples of how they’re continuing to keep themselves in the hamster wheel, and I certainly agree, but blaming the web for putting them there is the same kind of denial and arrogance that got them there in the first place.