The question of how to handle photos of the dead - fallen in war or in attacks on our own soil, such as Columbine - is never easy for editors.
But the Associated Press is in a different position from a local newspaper. Its role is to provide its members and customers content that they decide what to do with. As a former editor who used to work with AP, the last thing I wanted the agency to do was hold back on content. Every day pictures streamed into our newsroom that would never see the light of day for a number of reasons, including that they were too graphic without a reason to justify showing the bloodshed. But that was our decision, not the decision of the editors at AP.
Clearly the AP photographer traveling with the troops when Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard was hit was there under certain ground rules. I don't know what they were, but I'm hoping they were that she was free to use her own judgment about what to distribute. That appears to be the case from the excellent story that went with her photos.
But the most important reason I appreciate AP editors making the decision to distribute the photo as part of a package of photos on Bernard is that it can't be left up to the family of the fallen or the defense secretary what Americans will see of a war the country is engaged in. I have the experience of Columbine to inform my thinking on such matters. I chose to publish a photo of a dead child on the sidewalk outside the school. It was an excruciating decision. The family disagreed with it at the time. But a few years later their view changed. They came to feel that people needed to see the truth and thanked me for having the courage to publish the photo. They encouraged me to have the courage to publish difficult photos in the future.
There's no doubt that the photo AP moved was a difficult photo. But the wire service did the right thing by distributing it.
There are ways to publish troubling photos. One is to prepare newspaper readers for it by not printing it on the front page. Then parents can make the decision whether they want their children to see it.
I can understand why Defense Secretary Gates might go to bat for the family and try to stop distribution of the photo. But I think it would be better for him to show what distinguishes the United States from its enemies, and one of those things is a free press. Such cases are not easy for anyone. The family's grief is profound and immeasurable. I believe the nation shares in it in some small way. Nobody wants to deepen their suffering. On the other hand, the obligation of news organizations is to inform their readers. Part of that job is to show the actual cost of war.
Showing posts with label Associated Press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Associated Press. Show all posts
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The Associated Press responds to my blog post. How about naming names instead of tell us to "rest assured" about the basis for its "important" plan?
Paul Colford, AP Director of Media Relations, responded to my earlier post raising questions about whether its "plan for reclaiming news" needed an editor.
I think it's important to give prominence to his response for two reasons: a sense of fairness requires me to give his words the same prominence my own writing had, and I think he raises an important issue that would open the door to a more fruitful discussion of news and who owns it in the Internet era. The following is the entirety of what he wrote:
"Mr. Temple appears to believe that the one "important internal document" on which he bases his blogpost is the lone, full summary of AP's ongoing efforts to protect its news content.
"Rest assured that additional materials, valuable research and AP's fruitful discussions with its members continue to inform this important undertaking."
Paul Colford
AP Director of Media Relations
I don't actually believe what Mr. Colford says I believe. But I have seen AP struggle to explain its position. Which raises questions for me about the quality and depth of the supporting material he assures us exists. But most important, the AP and other news organizations routinely urge government and powerful corporations to be open and transparent. Yet when dealing with such an important issue as what constitutes misappropriation of content and what should be done about it, the AP isn't operating in a transparent way.
Again, let's treat this the way the AP would treat a news story in the Internet era.
I think it's important to give prominence to his response for two reasons: a sense of fairness requires me to give his words the same prominence my own writing had, and I think he raises an important issue that would open the door to a more fruitful discussion of news and who owns it in the Internet era. The following is the entirety of what he wrote:
"Mr. Temple appears to believe that the one "important internal document" on which he bases his blogpost is the lone, full summary of AP's ongoing efforts to protect its news content.
"Rest assured that additional materials, valuable research and AP's fruitful discussions with its members continue to inform this important undertaking."
Paul Colford
AP Director of Media Relations
I don't actually believe what Mr. Colford says I believe. But I have seen AP struggle to explain its position. Which raises questions for me about the quality and depth of the supporting material he assures us exists. But most important, the AP and other news organizations routinely urge government and powerful corporations to be open and transparent. Yet when dealing with such an important issue as what constitutes misappropriation of content and what should be done about it, the AP isn't operating in a transparent way.
Again, let's treat this the way the AP would treat a news story in the Internet era.
- AP should post a list on the Web with links to the "tens of thousands of Web sites" it believes are using AP content in unauthorized ways. Then the public could understand by example what the AP considers to be unauthorized use.
- AP should explain why it hasn't taken legal action against any of those sites that are in states where the "hot news" legal doctrine is recognized and it already has recourse to sue to stop the kind of free-riding it says is rampant. Many of the biggest states in the country recognize this doctrine: California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Missouri and Pennsylvania.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Associated Press needed an editor for its “plan for reclaiming news”
It’s strange how one of the largest news organizations in the world can make such a muddle when writing about serious issues in an important internal document.
I know the AP has good editors. But based on a reading of its confidential “plan for reclaiming news” you have to wonder whether they ever get to apply their skills to the strategic documents executives at the news cooperative produce. Thanks to the folks at the Nieman Journalism Lab for making the document available and for their intelligent reporting on the topic. The plan is worth reading. But it’s also troubling, the same way the American Press Institute’s proposals for saving newspapers were troubling. I wish industry leaders didn’t seem so defensive. There’s so much positive that could be done, and the AP, to its credit, is trying some interesting experiments.
So why do I say AP's planners needs an editor? Because editors make writing clear and understandable. And this “plan” is neither.
When reporters write news stories about the challenges an industry faces, it’s important that they be clear - and, of course, accurate - about what the problems are and what steps are proposed to address them. The reporters’ job is to help readers understand the problems and evaluate possible solutions. It’s also important that reporters be clear about the potential industry or company conflicts that stand in the way of or complicate possible solutions.
The first paragraph of the AP document makes a bald assertion without the facts to back it up that a good editor would require of any reporter. It talks of news content being monetized without fair compensation and “rampant” unauthorized use of AP content on literally tens of thousands of Web sites. It says the problem is quickly spreading. The document goes on in this vein and seems to mix and muddle two concerns: unauthorized use - the blatant stealing of entire stories or photographs - and the use of headlines and snippets by search engines and others. It never makes clear how big the first problem is. Is there really that much revenue being stolen from the owners of content as a result of bloggers and others cutting and pasting AP stories? I don’t know the answer from reading this document. But I question whether it’s a huge issue deserving of this kind of urgency. If it is, it would seem the AP has legal recourse that could serve as a persuasive warning to others. The document implies that what its authors perceive as the second problem is part and parcel of the first, that basic linking is costing the AP and newspaper publishers big time and constitutes “unauthorized” use. The conclusion one is apparently supposed to reach is that if links were not permitted without compensation, the AP would rake in more dough and the industry’s financial problems would at a minimum be much ameliorated. But there’s no analysis of the financial benefits the links bring to the papers getting the traffic or what it would cost them if they lost those links. Nor is there any examination of whether the AP has a legal foundation to challenge the link economy or why it hasn’t been able to put a stop to the “rampant unauthorized use of AP content.” Put simply: The AP position is confusing.
As for its concern about Wikipedia as a new major competitor (along with Twitter), it almost seems like a replay of the newspaper industry’s response to Craigslist. Oops, we didn’t think to build it. It would have hurt us. Somebody else did it anyway. Now they’re stealing our franchise. And we have to try to get it back. The document says the Web numbers for coverage related to Jackson’s death “suggest that more publisher content was likely consumed through search engines and aggregators than on site, which is the crux of the issue now facing publishers.” Well, do we know that to be true? Answer: No. A good editor would have asked for more rigor. It may be that other sources were better for Jackson coverage. Period. We live in a hugely competitive era. Would it also not be “likely” that Web users found many other places to go on the Web that they found more satisfying?
AP is right that Google and other aggregators get value from linking to AP content. But the AP and its members get value from the traffic generated by search engines. AP is wrong to think that just because The Los Angeles Times was the only newspaper in the top 20 for Web traffic related to Michael Jackson that it’s the fault of the aggregators or search engines. That’s not explored by the writers of the document. An editor would have asked whether there couldn’t be other explanations.
The AP’s plan sends a muddied shot across the bow of search engines and aggregators, one that I believe will sink into the sludge. I endorse the AP’s cell phone efforts and its attempt to standardize the markup of news copy to raise its profile for search engines. But I wonder whether the editors of the document shouldn’t have addressed the fact that there’s a tension between AP and its member newspaper owners. AP has historically been a business to business organization. Now it’s talking about creating features that will better serve consumers, something that is not clearly a part of AP’s DNA and something that has traditionally been the purview of its owner members. Wouldn’t an editor have asked for examples of where AP has shown itself capable of becoming a successful magnet for the general public? Just as newspapers struggle online because they’re always trying to protect the print product, the AP appears to be held back in this era because it must serve its members’ needs and can’t do what CNN or The New York Times have done, which is build robust online brands. How does it resolve that tension? Not clear from this document.
What is clear is that it wants to “extract” what it calls fair compensation from search engines and aggregators that link to its stories. Would you like to partner with somebody who wants to “extract” something from you? I can’t believe an editor would have let that word through. It's a telling word.
That’s not going to be the way to save the newspaper industry. What might be is to work with search engines and major aggregators to come up with ways to help journalism survive and thrive in the Internet era. A good editor would have asked the plan’s writers to answer whether the AP has any legal standing to take on the link economy and whether search engines or consumers would be likely to play along. The answer to both: No. But you wouldn’t know it from this call to action against those who are “siphoning off consumers and revenue from those whose content is being exploited.” What I would like to extract is the truth from that claim, something the writers of the plan never do.
I know the AP has good editors. But based on a reading of its confidential “plan for reclaiming news” you have to wonder whether they ever get to apply their skills to the strategic documents executives at the news cooperative produce. Thanks to the folks at the Nieman Journalism Lab for making the document available and for their intelligent reporting on the topic. The plan is worth reading. But it’s also troubling, the same way the American Press Institute’s proposals for saving newspapers were troubling. I wish industry leaders didn’t seem so defensive. There’s so much positive that could be done, and the AP, to its credit, is trying some interesting experiments.
So why do I say AP's planners needs an editor? Because editors make writing clear and understandable. And this “plan” is neither.
When reporters write news stories about the challenges an industry faces, it’s important that they be clear - and, of course, accurate - about what the problems are and what steps are proposed to address them. The reporters’ job is to help readers understand the problems and evaluate possible solutions. It’s also important that reporters be clear about the potential industry or company conflicts that stand in the way of or complicate possible solutions.
The first paragraph of the AP document makes a bald assertion without the facts to back it up that a good editor would require of any reporter. It talks of news content being monetized without fair compensation and “rampant” unauthorized use of AP content on literally tens of thousands of Web sites. It says the problem is quickly spreading. The document goes on in this vein and seems to mix and muddle two concerns: unauthorized use - the blatant stealing of entire stories or photographs - and the use of headlines and snippets by search engines and others. It never makes clear how big the first problem is. Is there really that much revenue being stolen from the owners of content as a result of bloggers and others cutting and pasting AP stories? I don’t know the answer from reading this document. But I question whether it’s a huge issue deserving of this kind of urgency. If it is, it would seem the AP has legal recourse that could serve as a persuasive warning to others. The document implies that what its authors perceive as the second problem is part and parcel of the first, that basic linking is costing the AP and newspaper publishers big time and constitutes “unauthorized” use. The conclusion one is apparently supposed to reach is that if links were not permitted without compensation, the AP would rake in more dough and the industry’s financial problems would at a minimum be much ameliorated. But there’s no analysis of the financial benefits the links bring to the papers getting the traffic or what it would cost them if they lost those links. Nor is there any examination of whether the AP has a legal foundation to challenge the link economy or why it hasn’t been able to put a stop to the “rampant unauthorized use of AP content.” Put simply: The AP position is confusing.
As for its concern about Wikipedia as a new major competitor (along with Twitter), it almost seems like a replay of the newspaper industry’s response to Craigslist. Oops, we didn’t think to build it. It would have hurt us. Somebody else did it anyway. Now they’re stealing our franchise. And we have to try to get it back. The document says the Web numbers for coverage related to Jackson’s death “suggest that more publisher content was likely consumed through search engines and aggregators than on site, which is the crux of the issue now facing publishers.” Well, do we know that to be true? Answer: No. A good editor would have asked for more rigor. It may be that other sources were better for Jackson coverage. Period. We live in a hugely competitive era. Would it also not be “likely” that Web users found many other places to go on the Web that they found more satisfying?
AP is right that Google and other aggregators get value from linking to AP content. But the AP and its members get value from the traffic generated by search engines. AP is wrong to think that just because The Los Angeles Times was the only newspaper in the top 20 for Web traffic related to Michael Jackson that it’s the fault of the aggregators or search engines. That’s not explored by the writers of the document. An editor would have asked whether there couldn’t be other explanations.
The AP’s plan sends a muddied shot across the bow of search engines and aggregators, one that I believe will sink into the sludge. I endorse the AP’s cell phone efforts and its attempt to standardize the markup of news copy to raise its profile for search engines. But I wonder whether the editors of the document shouldn’t have addressed the fact that there’s a tension between AP and its member newspaper owners. AP has historically been a business to business organization. Now it’s talking about creating features that will better serve consumers, something that is not clearly a part of AP’s DNA and something that has traditionally been the purview of its owner members. Wouldn’t an editor have asked for examples of where AP has shown itself capable of becoming a successful magnet for the general public? Just as newspapers struggle online because they’re always trying to protect the print product, the AP appears to be held back in this era because it must serve its members’ needs and can’t do what CNN or The New York Times have done, which is build robust online brands. How does it resolve that tension? Not clear from this document.
What is clear is that it wants to “extract” what it calls fair compensation from search engines and aggregators that link to its stories. Would you like to partner with somebody who wants to “extract” something from you? I can’t believe an editor would have let that word through. It's a telling word.
That’s not going to be the way to save the newspaper industry. What might be is to work with search engines and major aggregators to come up with ways to help journalism survive and thrive in the Internet era. A good editor would have asked the plan’s writers to answer whether the AP has any legal standing to take on the link economy and whether search engines or consumers would be likely to play along. The answer to both: No. But you wouldn’t know it from this call to action against those who are “siphoning off consumers and revenue from those whose content is being exploited.” What I would like to extract is the truth from that claim, something the writers of the plan never do.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Former Cox Newspapers President Jay Smith weighs in on future of newspapers and role of Associated Press
I received a very thoughtful personal e-mail today from Jay Smith, retired president of Cox Newspapers and former chairman of the Newspaper Association of America and board member of the Associated Press, regarding my critique of the American Press Institute's proposals to help save the industry.
I asked him whether I could share it publicly, and he graciously agreed. The following is his e-mail on my previous post - How depresssing 2 - and the non-personal part of my response to him. (He also copied Tom Curley, president and CEO of AP, on his e-mail to me.)
JAY SMITH'S E-MAIL
To:
Subject: Your piece on Romenekso today
John: Although I’ve been retired for a year, I still look in on Romenekso. I saw your piece today and thought it made great sense. As one who wrestled with the so-called business model, especially in the last two decades of my 37 years with Cox Newspapers, I look back with regret on missed opportunities. The first occurred in the mid-90’s when several companies explored the possibility of acquiring Prodigy. Divided over whether the focus should be on classifieds or news, the group bickered until the opportunity passed and was missed. The second occurred more recently, but still can be salvaged.
It involves the Associated Press on whose board I served for several years. Individually, newspapers do not have the technological firepower to compete in the Internet world. Those that have (Cox with its AutoTrader.com entity; Tribune/Gannett with CareerBuilder have put their stakes in the ground). Collectively and on their behalf, AP does have the capacity to help newspapers develop new online businesses that can generate revenue, whether from subscribers or advertisers. More important, AP has access to a nation of newspapers. While few newspapers can gin up content on their own for which users will pay, there is content that, when properly collected and edited, does have real value. For instance, how much might, say, the soft drink industry pay for a daily report of EVERY news item of interest printed in every US newspaper? Such real-time information can be critical to anyone whose living depends on decisions made by the Coca-Colas and Pepsi-Colas of the world.
While this is but one example, you can let your imagination run wild and develop hundreds, if not thousands, of others. In effect, the AP can vacuum up and create a multitude of individual, albeit small, news and information businesses that collectively could approach something of real value for AP and its members.
Sadly, I fear, the leaders of newspapers and newspaper companies have yet to place their faith in such a venture. Until and unless they do, our former colleagues will continue to thrash about in pursuit of the salvation they so desperately need. Jay Smith, former president of Cox Newspapers, Inc.
THE FOLLOWING IS MY RESPONSE
Jay,
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my blog.
I agree with you that individually newspapers don't have the technological firepower to compete in the Internet world. I feel it's now incumbent on me to share on my blog some of my own ideas for how local news organizations committed to the role of furthering our democracy by informing and engaging the public can survive and even thrive in this new era. I'll try to do so over the coming weeks.
I agree with you that AP is one of the organizations positioned to help newspapers create new online businesses. In my corporate role with Scripps, I tried to work with AP to do just that. But it's not easy, as you know, when most folks at a newspaper are just trying to get their daily work done and AP has a million balls in the air. I don't think I was successful.
It seems to me that newspapers, even within large companies like Scripps, are essentially one-of-a-kind businesses in a world where that no longer works, unless you have a really unique product. Local publishers need to be part of a larger national network using shared tools and approaches. I look at what's happening with the iphone and the way Apple opened the door for developers to create new apps and think that local news organizations need to find some similar way to be on a common platform that is open to outsiders, of course with some gatekeeping mechanism to make sure new services/tools make sense. I'm just not sure how we get there. I don't think the industry can get there if all it does is try to hold on to its legacy revenue streams and its legacy business. One thing that concerns me is that newspapers don't seem to be working with local businesses to help them find their own foothold on the Internet and at the same time possibly place themselves in the middle of transactions. This might enable them to find a new revenue stream they couldn't have tapped before. When I read that the new iphone is going to be able to tell where the user is and provide information down to the block level, I think about how newspapers could hep local businesses participate in this new world. Those businesses are also at a disadvantage because they don't have the technological wherewithal either to make the most of the potential of this new era.
As I think you know, my background is as a journalist. I was publisher of the Rocky, but it was an unusual situation because the president and CEO of the Denver Newspaper Agency had revenue responsiblity. I think we've entered a different stage in our business where the publisher can't just be a chief revenue officer. I don't see how local news organizations will be successful if the publisher doesn't feel as responsible for content and services as an individual owner might have in previous generations. I also don't see how the walls between editorial/marketing/advertising can remain in place. I think local news organizations need a clear and common set of values. But then I think they need to operate more like the way I saw CNN act when it was in Denver for the Democratic National Convention. The marketing people sat in the same room as the journalists. As it seemed did the advertising people. We're all in this together, yet you wouldn't know it from the way we run our organizations.
Thanks again for writing.
Best,
J
I asked him whether I could share it publicly, and he graciously agreed. The following is his e-mail on my previous post - How depresssing 2 - and the non-personal part of my response to him. (He also copied Tom Curley, president and CEO of AP, on his e-mail to me.)
JAY SMITH'S E-MAIL
To:
John: Although I’ve been retired for a year, I still look in on Romenekso. I saw your piece today and thought it made great sense. As one who wrestled with the so-called business model, especially in the last two decades of my 37 years with Cox Newspapers, I look back with regret on missed opportunities. The first occurred in the mid-90’s when several companies explored the possibility of acquiring Prodigy. Divided over whether the focus should be on classifieds or news, the group bickered until the opportunity passed and was missed. The second occurred more recently, but still can be salvaged.
It involves the Associated Press on whose board I served for several years. Individually, newspapers do not have the technological firepower to compete in the Internet world. Those that have (Cox with its AutoTrader.com entity; Tribune/Gannett with CareerBuilder have put their stakes in the ground). Collectively and on their behalf, AP does have the capacity to help newspapers develop new online businesses that can generate revenue, whether from subscribers or advertisers. More important, AP has access to a nation of newspapers. While few newspapers can gin up content on their own for which users will pay, there is content that, when properly collected and edited, does have real value. For instance, how much might, say, the soft drink industry pay for a daily report of EVERY news item of interest printed in every US newspaper? Such real-time information can be critical to anyone whose living depends on decisions made by the Coca-Colas and Pepsi-Colas of the world.
While this is but one example, you can let your imagination run wild and develop hundreds, if not thousands, of others. In effect, the AP can vacuum up and create a multitude of individual, albeit small, news and information businesses that collectively could approach something of real value for AP and its members.
Sadly, I fear, the leaders of newspapers and newspaper companies have yet to place their faith in such a venture. Until and unless they do, our former colleagues will continue to thrash about in pursuit of the salvation they so desperately need. Jay Smith, former president of Cox Newspapers, Inc.
THE FOLLOWING IS MY RESPONSE
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my blog.
I agree with you that individually newspapers don't have the technological firepower to compete in the Internet world. I feel it's now incumbent on me to share on my blog some of my own ideas for how local news organizations committed to the role of furthering our democracy by informing and engaging the public can survive and even thrive in this new era. I'll try to do so over the coming weeks.
I agree with you that AP is one of the organizations positioned to help newspapers create new online businesses. In my corporate role with Scripps, I tried to work with AP to do just that. But it's not easy, as you know, when most folks at a newspaper are just trying to get their daily work done and AP has a million balls in the air. I don't think I was successful.
It seems to me that newspapers, even within large companies like Scripps, are essentially one-of-a-kind businesses in a world where that no longer works, unless you have a really unique product. Local publishers need to be part of a larger national network using shared tools and approaches. I look at what's happening with the iphone and the way Apple opened the door for developers to create new apps and think that local news organizations need to find some similar way to be on a common platform that is open to outsiders, of course with some gatekeeping mechanism to make sure new services/tools make sense. I'm just not sure how we get there. I don't think the industry can get there if all it does is try to hold on to its legacy revenue streams and its legacy business. One thing that concerns me is that newspapers don't seem to be working with local businesses to help them find their own foothold on the Internet and at the same time possibly place themselves in the middle of transactions. This might enable them to find a new revenue stream they couldn't have tapped before. When I read that the new iphone is going to be able to tell where the user is and provide information down to the block level, I think about how newspapers could hep local businesses participate in this new world. Those businesses are also at a disadvantage because they don't have the technological wherewithal either to make the most of the potential of this new era.
As I think you know, my background is as a journalist. I was publisher of the Rocky, but it was an unusual situation because the president and CEO of the Denver Newspaper Agency had revenue responsiblity. I think we've entered a different stage in our business where the publisher can't just be a chief revenue officer. I don't see how local news organizations will be successful if the publisher doesn't feel as responsible for content and services as an individual owner might have in previous generations. I also don't see how the walls between editorial/marketing/
Thanks again for writing.
Best,
J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
