Internet Outlook with Richard Wiggins | 9

When to Broadcast, and When to Narrowcast?

Way back before the Web, in 1992, the final presidential debate was held on the campus of Michigan State University. At the time I managed the university's campus-wide information system, and a colleague, Dennis Boone, and I conspired to cover the event on the Internet. The Commission on Presidential Debates made elaborate plans to use court reporters to prepare an official transcript in almost-real time. I made arrangements to get a copy of the transcript from the press office as they were being delivered to the press. The media of choice were floppy disk and paper. We managed to have the official transcript of the event up on the Internet within a half hour of the end of the televised event. A few hours later, we offered an audio transcript of the entire debate - all 100 minutes digitized. See the Web version of the MSU Presidential debate of 1992.

We had two reasons for putting up the transcript in text and audio forms immediately after the event:

• To demonstrate that the Internet could provide a useful archive of an event for analysis and scholarship, with random-access entry points into any part of the event.
• To demonstrate that we could provide such an archive immediately after the event in question.

Similarly, Judge Zobel may have felt a both a legitimate (if misguided) desire to improve communication -- and that infernal desire to look cool.

Today, with streaming media, some would try to send out such an event such as the debate in real time. Yet that would be a foolish undertaking - every bit as foolish as Judge Zobel's failed attempt to push out a verdict in real time.

The fact of the matter is, a news event that is covered by the traditional electronic media can never be covered as well by an Internet feed. Until we see major advances in multicasting technology, the Net just can't deliver the facts as efficiently as the radio and television networks can. Whether 20 million, or 100 million, or 1 billion, people tune into a televised event, the global television infrastructure cares not a whit. When 20 million, or 100 million, or 1 billion people hit the reload button waiting for a Web site to deliver the news - that's a different story.

In recent months we've seen an attempt to proclaim that the Net is the new medium for sharing worldwide events - from Pathfinder landing to the death of Princess Di. Ironically, the old media seeks to reinforce this notion, with newspapers, radio, and television all proclaiming that the Web is the place to learn about the events.

But the very idea is absurd on its face. Whether you're listening to the radio in your car, as I was, or glued to the tube at home or in a pub in Elton, England, the broadcast media are far superior in terms of immediacy and the quality of information delivery.

Of course, some people are chained to desks at work where they can't listen to radio or watch TV. In that case, "push" systems such as Pointcast can deliver breaking news efficiently. Even then, that's the end of the news delivery process coming via the Net; the news feeds Pointcast provides begin with old-fashioned wire services. Those services do not necessarily work better or faster if you try to set up a private Internet feed to deliver the hot news to the media or to consumers.

Where the Web wins is in providing background information and original source documents for the relatively smaller audiences who crave such materials. A few million people visited the Pathfinder site to download photographs, video, and data that could not be efficiently provided over television. Those same people, along with hundreds of millions of more people, watched news coverage on CNN or on NASA Select TV as well. This is making the best use of both media.

This is the fundamental difference between broadcasting and narrowcasting: use broadcast media to reach many millions of people who crave instant news. Use the Net for those people, smaller in number but more devoted in curiosity, who want deeper detail or access to original source documents that the traditional media have never offered.

An analogy plays out very nicely each week on Audionet, which carries dozens of college sporting events via live streaming media. If you're a Stanford fan and the game is available on TV (local or national) or on local radio, you'll tune in to the old medium. If the game isn't on TV, or you're located outside the radio or TV orbit - say, you're in Tokyo - then you're a perfect candidate for narrowcasting, and you should tune into the Audionet feed. But it'd be downright dumb to listen to the Audionet feed if you can get the coverage on radio or on television. Why waste bandwidth for a less reliable, lower-fidelity experience?

So, Judge Zobel, please forget the James Bond business of sending e-mail by stealth at the time the verdict is announced. The basic news is not the full text of your ruling, but rather a summary of its substance. Get the word to the media the old-fashioned way. They have enough tools of their own - telephones, cell phones, satellite phones, satellite TV trucks, and yes, the Internet - to get the word out. By all means, however, do go ahead and publish the entire ruling on the Web - and include the URL in the formal announcement. This gives the public what they crave: the news as it's announced, and, for a subset of the populace, access to the source documents for their own inspection.

In short, Judge, you do your job - and let the media do theirs.