More doom and gloom for newspapers
Posted on July 28, 2007
>> AP ending ‘asap’: No real surprise, says Doug Fisher. “E&P and some others seem surprised at this. Why? AP continued to distribute ‘asap’ through its members’ Web sites. But the 18-to-34 set isn’t going to ‘newspaper.com’ to start or end the day — or much in the middle, for that matter. Those readers tend to go to more socially oriented sites that let them share stories, photos, experiences, etc. Most newspaper sites are still far from that.”
>> The next three years are critical for newspaper Web sites, according to Howard Owens. He says: “I know there are those who would say the prospects are bleak now. I disagree. I remain hopeful. But I would say the trends now are neutral. Our fate hangs in the balance.”
>> David Johnson at the LostRemote gives some good analysis of Fortune’s “Can the Washington Post survive?” “Anyway you look at this, it isn’t a pretty picture for anyone in the news business,” he says. “Print is bleeding, but our customers, the guys like Jordan Bitterman who buy our advertising space, go to bed happy at night knowing they don’t need to pay us a lot to reach our online audiences.”
>> Advertisers better enjoy their shut-eye while they can get it. Sharply increased online rates are on the way, says Lucas Grindley. “If newspapers respond to market demands, the amount of money it costs for a simple banner ad is about to jump dramatically. Just guessing on the exact figure, but I’d say online CPMs have a strong likelihood of at least doubling within the next two years.”
>> And Lucas has a warning for newspaper employees: Prepare for salary cuts across the board. “Plan now,” he warns. “Many of you will make less money in the near future. Instead of cutting bodies, some newsroom managers will consider slashing salaries as a better option.”
Who should foot the bill?
Posted on July 22, 2007
Angela Grant points out a debate about multimedia equipment in a blog post by SPJ President Christine Tatum. Should journalists or their employers foot the bill for Web resources?
This is an issue that’s bothered me this past year as I hand out equipment recommendations to reporters and photographers (I tell them to ask their editors about reimbursement options). And I’ve been on the “if it’s the company’s time, it should be the company’s equipment” side of the argument. Why should we buy hardware and software to produce content that we don’t own?
I do agree there are some pluses to owning my gear, though. I wouldn’t have to wait in line or deal with a broken device. And there’s an opportunity that with your own (and assumedly better) equipment, you could get better results. Says Tatum: “I hear from far too many reporters who say, ‘They expect fire but give me flint to make it.’ ”
I have heard that in some newsrooms, photographers DO purchase their own still cameras (and maybe video, too). So this concept may be more jarring for reporters.
I fear that journalists in newsrooms that aren’t paying for gear and who can’t or won’t buy it for themselves will fall behind in what’s becoming and going to be essential skill sets. Are they just SOL?
But, egads. Angela’s wish list would cost more that $6,000 for just the camera, computer and software. Then you have to buy the peripherals. That sure would be painful on many pocketbooks. It’s not like journalists are making the big bucks to begin with.
A multimedia/online news growing pain
Posted on July 12, 2007
Mindy McAdams is calling for more breaking news multimedia by showcasing a breaking news audio slideshow produced by photojournalist Dan Limmer about a protest in Kennebunkport, Maine, and providing an analysis of the piece.
At the end of her post, she brings up a most interesting question:
Dan thinks it might be problematic if a package like this one were edited by someone who never went to the scene:
“If a paper employed a producer, it would help overall in time/resource management. But in a news situation, I would want to be sure the multimedia was mixed in context to the photos and in accordance with ethical standards. That may be difficult for someone who wasn’t there.
The concept of editing audio and integrating still photos (the “vision” aspect of the multimedia) can’t be overlooked as challenging and time consuming. Going back to square one after already mixing sound once because it doesn’t flow or tell a story is a drag. Fortunately, this one came together on the first try.”
It’s a very important question: Will a producer who was not on the scene tell the story accurately? Obviously, the photographer could sit down with the producer and ensure that the real story comes through. But in cases where that’s not possible, what will be done to ensure that the finished product is accurate and true?
This is one of our growing pains.
I agree with Mindy and Dan that it’s quite difficult for someone who wasn’t on the scene to put together a multimedia story — it’s like writing a print story from someone else’s notes.
For this type of project, reporters/photographers are doing more than “spraying the scene” with video or recording an interview for an audio clip. They’re creating STORIES while they’re out in the field, and video, photos and audio are gathered with a storyline in mind.
Pass off the content to someone else to put together, and you risk wasting any creative intents by the reporter/photographer and, more importantly, getting the facts wrong.
But, whew, that’s a lot of extra work for reporters/photographers to do. Newspapers are cutting personnel, and leaner newsrooms means there’s more on everyone’s plates.
Not to say that reporters/photographers aren’t eager to learn new online skills. But they’re still expected fulfill their print obligations, and multimedia is one more thing they would have to get done for the story that could take them away from covering something else. Really, when it comes down to it, which is going to win: Multimedia or another news story?
So what’s the solution? With tighter resources, it doesn’t make sense to send two reporters to a scene — one for print and one for online. And it just gets us away from the integrated newsroom philosophy (which I fully support), so it’s not a viable option.
It’s got to be a change in workflow philosophy to reverse publishing.
When the newsroom ALWAYS thinks online FIRST — and decides the best way to tell that story (text, audio, slideshow, video or an interactive graphic/database) –THEN takes that story and modifies/edits it for print, the reporter/photographer always will be the creative behind the multimedia.
It WILL work. Editor & Publisher reports: Gannett’s Democrat and Chronicle, under the new “Information Center” directive, has learned that the online features can drive print circulation.
Editors discovered this in September when they prepared a multimedia package on local sex offenders, which included a database of registered felons and various audio and video reports. The Web package was prominently placed on the homepage Sept. 28 to promote much of the same material in a Sunday print presentation three days later. The effort resulted in the biggest Sunday single-copy sales of the year, with 4.9% more than any other Sunday. That record was broken two months later when the same approach was used for a report on police overtime.
Unfortunately, all is not rosy with this method; reporters/photographers still feel stretched too thin:
Still, the increased workload and broader news scope are stressing some staffers, who also worry about accuracy and the need for down time. “They are stressed out,” says Lou Mleczko, president of the Detroit Newspaper Guild, which represents newsroom staffers at Gannett’s Detroit Free Press. “It reduces the amount of time available to do reporting and other things they have to do. Errors are appearing online, and that is because there is not enough time to look things up. Editors are in such a panic to get things up on the Web.”
Maybe the answer is to switch everything around. Instead of having the same staff try to do both, why not keep the teams with concentrated focuses, but flip the resources. Instead of having our main production efforts going to print production, and a small online team, why not have the main production efforts be for online, and employ a smaller set of editors to package the print product?
Until we figure out the best workflow, I think management will look for ways to make the current systems most efficient, and that probably will mean we’ll see many organizations channel content through an online editor/producer. It will be essential for that person to make sure they tell the story accurately.
(BTW, all this leads me to wonder: Am I working myself out of a job? I’m a journalist, and I love to tell stories. But I don’t go out in the field to do the reporting — the reporters and photographers do that. So when my ideal scenario happens, what happens to the online producer?)
‘Ten Principles for Washington Post Journalism on the Web’
Posted on July 5, 2007
The Washington City Paper was so kind to post an internal memo encouraging the WP and WP.com to play nice.
Say Washington Post Executive Editor Len Downie and Managing Editor Phil Bennett:
We wanted to develop and prioritize the most promising aspects of our partnership, address bottlenecks in our relationship and create the 2.0 version of the newsroom’s role in what is already one of the most successful journalism sites on the Web.
And here’s the list:
1. The Washington Post is an online source of local, national and international news and information. We serve local, national and international audiences on the Web.
2. We will be prepared to publish Washington Post journalism online 24/7. Web users expect to see news as it happens. If they do not find it on our site they will go elsewhere.
3. We will publish most scoops and other exclusives when they are ready, which often will be online.
4. The originality and added value of Post journalism distinguishes us on the Web. We will emphasize enterprise, analysis, criticism and investigations in our online journalism.
5. Post journalism published online has the same value as journalism published in the newspaper. We embrace chats, blogs and multimedia presentations as contributions to our journalism.
6. Accuracy, fairness and transparency are as important online as on the printed page. Post journalism in either medium should meet those standards.
7. We recognize and support the central role of opinion, personality and reader-generated content on the Web. But reporters and editors should not express personal opinions unless they would be allowed in the newspaper, such as in criticism or columns.
8. The newsroom will respond to the rhythms of the Web as ably and responsibly as we do to the rhythms of the printed newspaper. Our deadline schedules, newsroom structures and forms of journalism will evolve to meet the possibilities of the Web.
9. Newsroom employees will receive training appropriate to their roles in producing online journalism.
10. Publishing our journalism on the Web should make us more open to change what we publish in the printed newspaper. There is no meaningful division at The Post between “old media” and “new media.”
I’ve never worked at the Post, so I don’t know how it really feels to work there, but from the outside it seems to me that it’s got to be quite difficult when the two aren’t even in the same state.
Well, OK … print is in D.C. and online is only across the Potomac in Arlington, Va., but not even being in the same building has got to hurt some of their efforts. Geesh. I sit about 30 feet from the city editor and still find it tough. I can’t imagine the obstacles these two news organizations must face (which is part of the problem — they should be one news org.)
2007 EPpy winners
Posted on May 30, 2007
Mindy McAdams, you’re wonderful for linking up all the winners.
Many thanks.
(I know, this is so last week’s news. I’ve been out of town; playing catch up!)
Still behind the 8 ball
Posted on May 30, 2007
Working in an industry in transition means you’re constantly feeling off-kilter. It’s both exhilarating and nerve-racking to try new things:
>> We get to try out new products and stretch our imaginations and notions of what storytelling is.
>> But at the same time we we wonder: Should we spend the resources and time on a new venture that could end up being yesterday’s fad?
Every so often we experience bursts of creativity that we see pay off, such as the advent and quick adoption of video clips (roanoke.com’s TimesCast and naplesnews.com’s Studio55), audio slideshows (thank you, Joe Weiss for Soundslides) and interactivity (USATODAY.com’s redesign).
But really, these advancements are too small and delivery is too late when compared to what other sites and companies are producing. Ahem … Google. Yahoo. Craigslist. YouTube. Yeah. You’ve heard all that before.
But get this: Microsoft today announced a new product: Microsoft Surface. You can use your fingers, pens, brushes, etc., to create and manipulate digital files … all on a table top (much like Jefferson Han’s touchscreen). Set your PDA on that table, and it’ll sync information to it.
Damn. Seems like we’re missing the big picture here if the best we can come up with is putting together a video show online. Newspapers are NEWS PROVIDERS. We should be at the forefront of content delivery — and I think that should include the hardware development. How cool would it be if we actually invested in resources to create a product like Surface or Apple’s iPhone that would make everyone’s jaw drop and then clamor to have one?
Instead, we’re caught in this muddy swamp of trying to cling onto the past (print) and say we’re investing in multimedia (digital). If we keep this up, we’ll be known as parasites, not innovators.
There’s an ongoing discussion on Romenesko’s forum pages on Poynter about this topic, which got me riled up about this issue again. In the most recent letter, ArtsJournal.com Editor Douglas McLennan, wrote:
“While [newspapers] say they’re working on it, their investment has been far behind the curve, and virtually every meaningful innovation in the digital delivery of news and building of usership has been made outside the newspaper industry. Most newspaper websites are dull, confusing and difficult to read, violating long-established principles of reader usability. At a time when social networking sites are showing how to build massive loyal communities, news organizations’ interactivity is rudimentary at best. Companies like Google have raised digital advertising to an art, making it easy for advertisers to find the customers they want. Where have newspapers been? Asleep, while Craigslist and a host of other competitors have eaten their lunch.
Time out for funnies
Posted on May 30, 2007
Need a break and a laugh?
Danny Sanchez is sharing his editorial cartoons.
This one’s great:
ONA annual conference
Posted on April 13, 2007
Registration is open for the Online News Association’s annual conference, which takes place this year at the Sheraton Centre in Toronto, Oct. 17-19.
Here’s some more information from publicity chair Tiffany Shackelford:
You can now register online for the Oct. 17-19 conference and awards banquet. Reserve your hotel room now to get the ONA discount. The early bird fee for ONA members to attend the conference is $399. Early bird registration lasts until Sept. 16. After September 16, the fee will be $449 for ONA members. Fees at all times for non-ONA members are $549.
The Sheraton Centre, Toronto, is offering those wishing to attend the conference a rate of $191 ($229 CAD) a night. This offer is only in effect until Sept. 16. After that regular rates are in effect, which vary from room to room and night to night. You can register here at the Sheraton Centre Toronto or call (416) 361-1000. If you call, please tell the registration desk you are with the ONA conference in order to get the special rate.
**A passport is required for US citizens traveling by air to Canada. Apply here.
2007 ONA Conference and Awards Banquet
Oct. 17-19, 2007
Sheraton Centre, Toronto, OntarioJu-Don Roberts, WashingtonPost.com, Chair
Anjali Kapoor, Yahoo!, Co-Chair
Currently reading
-
I am melissaworden on del.icio.us.
Add me to your network
