Television and magazines and other words that have lost their meaning

Hearst Magazines and Fox Television Studios are joining forces to create “webisode” projects inspired by CosmoGirl and Popular Mechanics. According to MediaPost.com, “The first video content for CosmoGirl is a drama centered on the travails of three female best friends during their junior year of high school. The format of the series, as yet unnamed, is apparently designed for mobile consumption with two new “Webisodes,” no longer than three minutes, appearing every week…Popular Mechanics will get a different series, with real mechanics and designers delivering pearls of technical wisdom.”

(Observation: I think a mashup of the two projects may prove more entertaining than the separate projects.)

So here’s a question: If a television studio is producing something that is not appearing on television in partnership with a magazine company that is not distributing it via a magazine, do we need to come up with different words to describe what business those companies are in?

  • Well, we had “mainstream media” for awhile, but that appears to be tainted now….

  • scott

    no new words are necessary to describe them because they’re still in the media/entertainment business. nbc has mini-episodes of the office that are exclusively online. record labels now have tv shows where they find new talent. mtv is no longer only about music television – such as their entry into movie prodution. espn went to print in addition to television. the lines may have blurred with regards to their traditional distribution channel, but they’re still in the business of providing entertainment and/or information.