St. Petersburg Times writer Thomas French and his editor at the paper, Mike Wilson, whom I met in the hotel lobby for breakfast during the Nieman conference, made a similar point. They noted that a clear symptom of the encroachment of Found Media on Lost Media is the new penchant for posting lists of “most e-mailed” stories on traditional news and magazine Web sites. While the stories that make the list are often maligned by traditional journalists as being marshmallow-light, many are neither irrelevant nor sensationalist—not just about cat suicide or the most popular camcorder. French pointed out that what tends to bind the most e-mailed stories together is that they are interesting. (Michael Hirschorn in the December issue of The Atlantic makes the same point.) That reporters and editors are paying so much attention to what pieces make the most e-mailed list is one collision of Lost and Found Media that is productive. To French, the articles on these “most popular” lists suggest that strong storytelling will ultimately win out. After all, stories have always been necessary, French said. Look at the cave drawings. Look at the Bible.
A quarter of a century ago, George W. S. Trow, the essayist and media critic, imagined that television would unravel existing contexts and confound people’s minds, that the great figures and aesthetics of his day had been sapped of their deserved authority. By 1981, the year that Within the Context of No Context was published, it was all already over, he wrote. But I wonder if perhaps the real dawn of contextlessness was not when television was the invading medium. After all, TV emanated from a box and, in sense, stayed in its box; it certainly did not engulf other media the way the Web has.
On the train back home, I thought back to when I was an aspiring writer. My torn suede jackets and savoir faire couldn’t hide a sometimes overwrought dream to be a renowned literary journalist. I was inspired by countless novels and memoirs about women coming to New York to become writers. I wanted to be the critic for the radical magazine in the short story “The Man in the Brooks Brothers Suit,” impressing strangers on a train with my review copy of an “important” new book. But I was not yet that woman: I was twenty-one, and it was 1993, the year of the slacker, and I spent my days in public parks, reading Frances FitzGerald and Jessica Mitford as if they were the Talmud. I had no idea then that within a decade and a half, the stakes and structures of journalism would significantly change.
The Found Media future will be one with millions of counterpublics, all commenting, connecting, and curating information from their interest-and-identity-bound niches. Thankfully, “imagined communities” still exist within Found Media and, often enough, they are likely to be international. Readers are connected not by the fact that they dwell in a particular township or city but by their identities, tastes, hobbies, and predilections—and language specific to each community. The future may be crowd-sourced. It may be amateur. The glamour of the magazine star may disappear—mystique could accrue ever more to gossip bloggers with boundary problems. People might be writing for free à la HuffPost, the fact of their own face and commentary appearing on their computer screens the only payment they expect. Indeed, we may return more to the “for love not money” journalism of writers of the earlier part of the twentieth century. Generally, the future may be nonprofit-funded, although to imagine that this method will fund more than a few ventures is hard, at least in the short term.
For better or worse, we in Lost Media must look to the Found Media and try to learn or steal what we can from it. And perhaps some of the conventions of traditional newspaper and magazine writing that can make it rigid and bland will fade into the background. Maybe some of the best qualities of the blogs—directness and informality—will positively infect us.

Heavens, not ANOTHER article about how "bloggers" are all young, and mostly not paid, and recycling others' hard work. Please look a little bit further for your sourcing next time you tackle this topic. We are not so young (a couple in the near-50/just-past-50 range), paid (our ad sales continue to grow), and writing/reporting ALL original material, with the occasional link only provided if it's something so incredible it's news all its own, at our community-level news website. I'm the editor and I worked in "lost media" for 25-plus years. Made my own pathway out (although we didn't start our site with that intention - it evolved because there was an aching community need for up-to-the-minute news, information, and discussion). You touch on this briefly but I strongly urge anyone else who fears their old-media days are numbered (mine probably weren't but I just didn't want to stay in that festering situation any more) to look at the options with promise and hope, not dread and fear. So many community-news sites are not only helping citizens become more informed, educated, and involved, but also are creating more of an appetite for news and information that can be provided by other sources too, including those that previously were here but hadn't quite evolved. P.S. Don't bother getting into "found media" if you're afraid of hard work. It's 24/7. And it's by far the most fulfilling thing I've ever done, professionally.
Posted by West Seattle Blog
on Wed 21 May 2008 at 02:31 PM
Is the esteem of the industry so low that we get to read several thousand words on how journalism's future will be guided by unpaid, unedited and totally self-directed keyboard addicts?
The entire argument on Lost Media and Found Media may sound tasty today, but there's less structure to it than a Wheat Thin. The success of the Found Media is dependent on aggregators finding a way to make a profit -- something that doesn't seem to be in the cards yet. Whatever margin that's available now is due mainly to the low- and no-cost supply of content, and those brazen, pioneering young things of the Found Media are going to have to find money for rent, kids and health insurance someday soon.
And, despite the best of intentions, things done for the glory of being on the cutting edge tend to wane, as we've seen one (and arguably two or three) digital revolutions turn into, well, not much. We are running fast into an age where that Lost Media is losing ground, although it's easier to credit a conjured-up Found Media movement than realise the public isn't buying your product because they don't feel they need it. And it's not all being captured by what's being presented as the Next Best Thing in journalism; instead of asking "how many hours do you spend on the Internet" for a survey question, ask "How many blogs do you read every day? Please tell us which ones are your favorites." Think you'll really get more than three percent of the audience actually able to tick off the Huntington Post or Daily Kos (especially without being prompted)?
The business is changing, and we have to adapt to what the consumer wants. Do you really think that's going to be a product dominated by, to be honest, amateurs with no real goal beyond today?
Posted by psemerson
on Wed 21 May 2008 at 05:38 PM
Stop whining. Start innovating.
Every reporter, editor and news exec should repeat that like a mantra every morning and every evening. Why alleged newspaper leaders think they can do better by making their product increasingly irrelevant is beyond imagining.
Cutting staff and shrinking newsholes for short-term financial gain is no strategy. Less does not equal more. And old does not equal new.
Newspaper execs talk like the record company executives who still think they are selling CDs, not music. Market news, not paper. Give people a reason to buy the paper/visit the website/watch the video/listen to the audio/interact online.
I get the fear and uncertainty. I scored my first professional newspaper byline in 1993. I have bled ink.
But the world is changing. Deal with it.
Posted by Sean Carr
on Thu 22 May 2008 at 12:16 PM
I once wa-as lost but now am found, was blind bu-ut now I see...
But what I see is media folks of all kinds clamoring for a more nuanced, less polarized discussion. More at mediarepublic.org.
Posted by Persephone
on Fri 23 May 2008 at 01:27 PM
Let's face the facts. I'm not being cynic but its true. We all have to deal with the fact that web-addicts ARE in fact taking over what you may call the "Lost Media". It's time to accept that journalism has not entirely been shaped by it's writers, its also been shaped by its readers. If the audience wants entertainment and entertainment is web based than writers must mold to fit that requirement. Unfortunately, this is the way it must be done. One cannot spend their days moping about change, its a "if you can't beat them, join them" situation. The "found media" is actually not that bad. Bloggers can provide some writers with some type certainty that articles are being read. Whether they like what is written or not, is another story, but hey it comes with the job. The world is changing you either mold with it or you'll find yourself in an uphill battle.
In the end, accept it..you really can't ignore the digital elephant in the room.
Posted by Y.T.S. on Mon 9 Mar 2009 at 02:26 PM