Michael Crichton, VindicatedHis 1993 prediction of mass-media extinction now looks on target.
Posted Thursday, May 29, 2008, at 6:55 PM ET
In 1993, novelist Michael Crichton riled the news business with a Wired magazine essay titled "Mediasaurus," in which he prophesied the death of the mass media—specifically the New York Times and the commercial networks. "Vanished, without a trace," he wrote.
The mediasaurs had about a decade to live, he wrote, before technological advances—"artificial intelligence agents roaming the databases, downloading stuff I am interested in, and assembling for me a front page"—swept them under. Shedding no tears, Crichton wrote that the shoddy mass media deserved its deadly fate.
"[T]he American media produce a product of very poor quality," he lectured. "Its information is not reliable, it has too much chrome and glitz, its doors rattle, it breaks down almost immediately, and it's sold without warranty. It's flashy but it's basically junk."
Had Crichton's prediction been on track, by 2002 the New York Times should have been half-fossilized. But the newspaper's vital signs were so positive that its parent company commissioned a 1,046-foot Modernist tower, which now stands in Midtown Manhattan. Other trends predicted by Crichton in 1993 hadn't materialized in 2002, either. Customized news turned out to be harder to create than hypothesize; news consumers weren't switching to unfiltered sources such as C-SPAN; and the mainstream media weren't on anyone's endangered species list.
When I interviewed Crichton in 2002 about his failed predictions for Slate, he was anything but defensive.
"I assume that nobody can predict the future well. But in this particular case, I doubt I'm wrong; it's just too early," Crichton said via e-mail.
As we pass his prediction's 15-year anniversary, I've got to declare advantage Crichton. Rot afflicts the newspaper industry, which is shedding staff, circulation, and revenues. It's gotten so bad in newspaperville that some people want Google to buy the Times and run it as a charity! Evening news viewership continues to evaporate, and while the mass media aren't going extinct tomorrow, Crichton's original observations about the media future now ring more true than false. Ask any journalist.
So with white flag in hand, I approached Crichton to chat him up once more. Magnanimous in victory, he said he had often thought about our 2002 discussion and was happy to revisit it. (Read the uncut e-mail interview in this sidebar.)
Although Crichton still subscribes to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, he dropped the Los Angeles Times a year ago—"with no discernable loss." He skims those two dailies but spends 95 percent of his "information-gathering time" on the Web.

He concedes with a shrug that the personalized infotopia he crystal-balled in 1993 has yet to arrive. When we talked in 2002, Crichton scoffed at the Web. Too slow. Its page metaphor, too limiting. Design, awful. Excessive hypertexting, too distracting. Noise-to-signal ratio, too high.
Today he's more positive about the medium. He notes with satisfaction that the Web has made it far easier for the inquisitive to find unmediated information, such as congressional hearings. It's much faster than it used to be, and more of its pages are professionally assembled. His general bitch is advertisements in the middle of stories, and he's irritated by animation and sounds in ads. "That, at least, can often be blocked by your browser," he says.
In 1993, Crichton predicted that future consumers would crave high-quality information instead of the junk they were being fed and that they'd be willing to pay for it. He's perplexed about that part of his prediction not panning out, but he has a few theories about why it hasn't.
- Your New Small Business Committee Chairwoman
- Count Yourself In On the Money-making
- The Obama Stimulus Plan and Small Business
The Day She Was Sent to Auschwitz
Girl Who Pretended To Be a Guy Now Pretends To Be Crazy
The Proper Way To Flagellate Yourself During Ashura
The Miserable Fate of Democrats Who Endorsed McCain
What Obama's Justice Department Appointees Should Fix First
Algerian Guy Walks Across America, Decides We're Pretty Nice










Notes from the Fray Editor
"Americans are the best entertained but least informed people on the planet" says Cayrick, and gives us a list of the issues we really should be worrying about. Bibble, here, has very specific complaints about the way the media covers certain stories, and Crawford answers the question on why hedge funds are unregulated. For a long argument about the article, sliding into a discussion on climate change, start here.
Comments from the Fray
While I admit the newspapers and the traditional TV news will no doubt all but vanish, what I believe we will see is a lot more smaller media projects of all kinds--hardcopy will have a longer shelf life and more local focus, and the real time-short cycle news will become more distributed as web-based featurettes or specialty parts. The newspaper cannot compete with the 24 hour news cycle, that is true, but the motivated reader is always looking for that free magazine or newspaper while waiting for a pizza or while stuck somewhere waiting for a ride. We don't take our laptops everywhere…
--The Real RML
(To reply, click here)
People need lots of information, but most of it is useless to anyone else --things like 'what is the deadline for this project at work?' This is not 'newsworthy' and will never be so. But it makes up 99.9...% of what we really need to know. Sometimes we all need to know something - and then the rumor or news spreads like wildfire person to person. Twin towers coming down; hurricane on the way... the media can speed this news up and provide a repository for more information, but often first notice is word of mouth.
So what ends up in the news, if most of it isn't important to most people? Some is news to 'some people' - to politicians, to day traders, whatever. Some of it is 'evergreens' - how to clean a wine stain. A little is investigative - but that falls into the rare 'big news' and the news to a few people. Some is just people up on a soapbox (op-ed). The evergreens will eventually move to web-references more and more. They will be there when you look for them.
News to 'some people' is actually best managed by specialist publications for different groups. We might see a NY Politics or a NY Food or something come out as sections of a paper split up.
Then there are the few pieces of real 'everybody' news - and they tend to show up on the Front Page. Perhaps then, we'll see the NY Times and its ilk become two or three page sheets - half ads, seen by everyone. Add to that the soapbox for the occasionally important opinion (ex-presidents pontificating about world affairs and the like) and you could make a very profitable paper. And a short one…
--BenK
(To reply, click here)
(6/2)