Now that I'm on the outside of the news business, I've had more time on my hands and more time has meant more of an opportunity to explore everything from Twitter and Facebook to iGoogle and the Web sites of numerous news outlets. (Not that I wasn't already doing that when I was at the Rocky Mountain News. But not to the extent I am now.)
The experience has made me realize something I should have done when I was an editor/publisher. I should have gone cold turkey on the print edition of my own and other newspapers for two weeks or a month and determined what life was like for those who were living solely in a digital world.
I say that because somehow the print paper always remains front and center - after all, it still provides most of the revenue - for most newspaper executives and there's only so much time in the day. I use the term executives because I think it's important that all the top leadership of a local newspaper do this, not just the editor or publisher.
If they would try this, I think newspaper executives would quickly see flaws in their offerings and would also more clearly understand the flood tide that is running. I'm not writing to criticize specifically what papers are doing online. Only to say that my experience being outside a newspaper tells me that other executives while they still have a chance might want to experience the world without their newspaper. I believe it would hasten their sense of urgency. I'm not talking about a sense of urgency about revenue. We know that's there in most buildings in this economic downturn. But is it there to the same degree in understanding audience and what's available to people today? Is it there in making sure their offerings stack up?
They could consider this exercise a competitive analysis if they must. But whatever they call it, weaning themselves from the paper for a brief period could be a big help.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Worth reading: A three-point plan to save newspapers
While the newspaper industry appears mostly on the defensive in coming up with solutions to save itself - make people pay and attack aggregators - others who love newspapers are coming up with more enterprising ideas.
This article by Gary Stein of Clickz is a good example. One idea he offers is that newspapers should massively increase the value and the cost of the print edition. He writes: "Unfortunately, newspapers are gutting their papers of precisely what their loyal readers are looking for in an attempt to make the print edition something it isn't. Stop. Instead, take the content and make it even richer and deeper."
Stein's "3-point plan" is at least worth considering. Such contributions from folks who love newspapers at least help open the door to a future.
This article by Gary Stein of Clickz is a good example. One idea he offers is that newspapers should massively increase the value and the cost of the print edition. He writes: "Unfortunately, newspapers are gutting their papers of precisely what their loyal readers are looking for in an attempt to make the print edition something it isn't. Stop. Instead, take the content and make it even richer and deeper."
Stein's "3-point plan" is at least worth considering. Such contributions from folks who love newspapers at least help open the door to a future.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Connie Schultz vs. Jeff Jarvis generates lots of heat, not much light
No, just because you raise the hackles of someone or some alleged group, that doesn't mean you must be on to something important or valuable.
That's the specious argument of Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Connie Schultz in response to an attack on her views on tightening copyright laws by uber-blogger Jeff Jarvis.
Here's how she begins her latest column:
"When you write a column and immediately become the target of numerous bloggers, you suspect you're on to something.
That's the specious argument of Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Connie Schultz in response to an attack on her views on tightening copyright laws by uber-blogger Jeff Jarvis.
Here's how she begins her latest column:
"When you write a column and immediately become the target of numerous bloggers, you suspect you're on to something.
"When bloggers resort to personal attacks and distortions, you know you are"
Well, as one of the bloggers who took on Schultz's original column, let me state here that I didn't do so because I thought she was "on to something." I thought she was way off track.
That said, while I sympathize with her criticism of Jarvis' too personal attack on her and her ideas, I think I understand where he was coming from. It's frustrating when the ideas for saving newspapers from traditional journalists seem to boil down to building a wall and condemning new media. And it's disappointing when serious writers like Schultz put so little meat to the bones of their argument. It would be much more encouraging to see so-called mainstream news organizations and journalists embrace the opportunity of the Web and find new ways to grow their audience and business.
Schultz's argument echoes what I often used to hear from reporters and editors when they were criticized for unfair coverage. They'd say, "If I'm taking flack from both sides, I must be doing something right."
Not necessarily so. And that's the problem. It's easy to take pride in being the subject of criticism. But it's better to ask yourself whether in fact the reason your work is under fire is that it's somehow flawed, as I think Schultz's is. So far, at least, she hasn't made her case.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Editors would do well to explain themselves
When I became editor of the Rocky Mountain News in the late '90s, my philosophy was that I would let our work speak for itself. I didn't see the value in explaining our decisions.
That changed quickly. And I think for the better.
The debate over the decision by Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, not to report the kidnapping in Afghanistan of his own reporter, David Rohde, is an example of the kind of case where it would be helpful for an editor to explain himself. It's not like Keller hasn't done so in other cases in the past.
The Times published an excellent column by Clark Hoyt, its ombudsman, sympathetic to Keller's thinking. But as good as the column was, it was written by a third party, not the person who had to make the excruciating decision to suppress information he would normally publish, going against the grain of the ethos of any good news organization, including his own. Keller has been interviewed by others, too. He certainly hasn't hidden from the topic. But there's nothing like hearing the unfiltered voice of the person in charge.
Look, unlike Kelly McBride, an ethicist at the Poynter Institute, I think Keller did the right thing in the Rohde case. She wrote in a blog post taking on Keller that she encourages leaders who take actions contrary to the larger principles of an organization simply to say, "We set aside our core values in the face of imminent consequences."
As if it were that simple. How can maintaining our own humanity be considered a lesser core value? But even if she's correct that that's what Keller did, if you're never prepared to set aside your "core values," why do you need a human being as an editor? An automaton could do the job just as well. Just follow the rules. No, sometimes the rules need to be broken. Saving a life is one of those cases.
An editor owes it to his staff to do anything in his power to save their life when they're in danger on an assignment for the newspaper. They have to know he has their back. (One of the reasons I was reluctant as editor of the Rocky to put reporters in harm's way half way around the world was that I knew I wouldn't be able to help them if they got in trouble.) To me, Keller's decision showed the humanity and commitment of the organization.
But there may be larger lessons in what the paper did. And it would be valuable for the paper's staff and readers to hear how this experience will affect its policies and thinking in the future, if at all. When members of the public or other organizations approach the paper now and ask it not to report something based on similar serious concerns or to remove information from its archive or web site that could be harmful to someone, will the paper approach listening to the request differently? We don't know.
Keller did what he thought best to save the life of a staff member. But he has left unanswered whether the Times will be open to others who ask it for the same consideration. That's why I think Keller should write about how what he did to help Rohde will affect the paper going forward.
That changed quickly. And I think for the better.
The debate over the decision by Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, not to report the kidnapping in Afghanistan of his own reporter, David Rohde, is an example of the kind of case where it would be helpful for an editor to explain himself. It's not like Keller hasn't done so in other cases in the past.
The Times published an excellent column by Clark Hoyt, its ombudsman, sympathetic to Keller's thinking. But as good as the column was, it was written by a third party, not the person who had to make the excruciating decision to suppress information he would normally publish, going against the grain of the ethos of any good news organization, including his own. Keller has been interviewed by others, too. He certainly hasn't hidden from the topic. But there's nothing like hearing the unfiltered voice of the person in charge.
Look, unlike Kelly McBride, an ethicist at the Poynter Institute, I think Keller did the right thing in the Rohde case. She wrote in a blog post taking on Keller that she encourages leaders who take actions contrary to the larger principles of an organization simply to say, "We set aside our core values in the face of imminent consequences."
As if it were that simple. How can maintaining our own humanity be considered a lesser core value? But even if she's correct that that's what Keller did, if you're never prepared to set aside your "core values," why do you need a human being as an editor? An automaton could do the job just as well. Just follow the rules. No, sometimes the rules need to be broken. Saving a life is one of those cases.
An editor owes it to his staff to do anything in his power to save their life when they're in danger on an assignment for the newspaper. They have to know he has their back. (One of the reasons I was reluctant as editor of the Rocky to put reporters in harm's way half way around the world was that I knew I wouldn't be able to help them if they got in trouble.) To me, Keller's decision showed the humanity and commitment of the organization.
But there may be larger lessons in what the paper did. And it would be valuable for the paper's staff and readers to hear how this experience will affect its policies and thinking in the future, if at all. When members of the public or other organizations approach the paper now and ask it not to report something based on similar serious concerns or to remove information from its archive or web site that could be harmful to someone, will the paper approach listening to the request differently? We don't know.
Keller did what he thought best to save the life of a staff member. But he has left unanswered whether the Times will be open to others who ask it for the same consideration. That's why I think Keller should write about how what he did to help Rohde will affect the paper going forward.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Lessons from The Washington Post's fiasco over off-the-record corporate dinners
The Washington Post may have done a service by shooting itself in the foot so badly with its proposed off-the-record dinners for corporate execs and lawmakers at the publisher's house.
By pushing the concept of charging people to hear journalists' and decision-makers' views to such an extreme, the Post may have helped clarify where the line should be drawn. It seems like it should have been obvious, but maybe it's not so simple in times like these when journalists are celebrities and news organizations are scrambling to find new sources of revenue.
Basically, the Post in a flier it quickly renounced when Politico made it public, offered lobbyists and others off-the-record access to its publisher, editor and key journalists along with powerful government officials - for a price.
Clearly, the Post was way over the line. Yet what it was trying to do builds on what other esteemed news organizations already are doing. You can't read a copy of The New York Times without finding out about an event where the famous and the paper's journalists can be seen and heard together, for a fee. And The Wall Street Journal hosts an "All Things Digital" conference every year where influential people covered by the paper show up and participate.
As the Post's own Howard Kurtz points out in his story on the controversy, "A number of media companies charge substantial fees for conferences with big-name executives and government officials, but in many cases the sessions are open for news coverage."
So what are the issues, and where should the line be drawn?
Every day journalists interview the "powerful" and share what they learn with their readers. That's their job. There may be lots of acceptable ways to do it.
So the first key seems to be that any such session must be "on-the-record." Journalists always call for transparency on the part of the people they cover; they should hold themselves to the same standard. It's one thing for journalists to agree to an off-the-record interview to gain understanding of an issue; it's another for them to offer the benefits of that access to one group who pays an exorbitant fee but not to another who doesn't. And the same holds true for the politicians who grant that access. Do they really want to be pegged as people who speak only to those with the money to buy access to them? I don't think so, despite how it sometimes seems.
Insisting that such events be on-the-record helps when you come to the second question: Should corporations be able to sponsor events put on by newspapers? Look, they already pay for the advertising that makes it possible for newspapers to publish. The issue isn't whether corporations pay to sponsor events; it's whether they have an influence over what's said at the event, over the agenda - or if there's even the appearance that they have an influence. If the answer is yes, then there's a real problem. But I don't see a problem with businesses partnering with newspapers to bring more information to a community. That last word is key: community. Not to a select few. But to anyone who wants to attend in person, or today, preferably also over the Internet, even if after the fact. Again, transparency matters.
To ensure that there's no appearance of impropriety, the third requirement is that such events cannot be at the publisher's house or at any other private location. (It's one thing for the publisher to invite anybody she wants to dinner at her house on her own dime; it's another to get companies to pay to have dinner with her and powerful politicians she drags in for the purpose.) Such paid events must be in public locales where anybody can purchase a ticket, where no publisher, corporation or government official can exercise a veto over who can attend.
That brings me to the money. How much should be charged? I think that's up to the news organization. Make the cost prohibitive and what it says is that the outlet wants to be exclusive. Make it reasonable, and it sends a different message. Find different ways to make the content accessible to people and it looks like the organization is actually tuned into serving its community. Politicians and others can make their decision on whether to participate in part based on the fact that the event will be public and public knowledge. Again, transparency matters.
Now, comes the truly thorny issue: Should newspapers pay sources - government officials, business leaders, movie stars - to appear on panels or at meetings where the newspaper is going to make money?
Politicians talk to newspapers every day either because they feel it's their responsibility or because they want to get their message out, or some of both. If the panels are all on-the-record, then there's not much difference in politicians appearing at public events put on by the paper as long as they don't receive a fee. Remember, newspapers differentiate themselves from other news organizations by claiming they never pay for access. They don't pay people to talk to them. But what about if they do pay the powerful to appear and help further their business interests? They can't have it both ways.
The best solution to resolve this dilemma seems to be a public (transparent) honorarium that covers the expenses of the speaker to attend the event, but that's it. Anything beyond that and there's a problem.
So here's hoping the Post finds ways to inform more people and earn more money through means other than the daily newspaper. Events and conferences could well be among them. But if they are, the paper still has to uphold its principles. Now the Post owes its readers - and staff - a full explanation of what those principles are.
By pushing the concept of charging people to hear journalists' and decision-makers' views to such an extreme, the Post may have helped clarify where the line should be drawn. It seems like it should have been obvious, but maybe it's not so simple in times like these when journalists are celebrities and news organizations are scrambling to find new sources of revenue.
Basically, the Post in a flier it quickly renounced when Politico made it public, offered lobbyists and others off-the-record access to its publisher, editor and key journalists along with powerful government officials - for a price.
Clearly, the Post was way over the line. Yet what it was trying to do builds on what other esteemed news organizations already are doing. You can't read a copy of The New York Times without finding out about an event where the famous and the paper's journalists can be seen and heard together, for a fee. And The Wall Street Journal hosts an "All Things Digital" conference every year where influential people covered by the paper show up and participate.
As the Post's own Howard Kurtz points out in his story on the controversy, "A number of media companies charge substantial fees for conferences with big-name executives and government officials, but in many cases the sessions are open for news coverage."
So what are the issues, and where should the line be drawn?
Every day journalists interview the "powerful" and share what they learn with their readers. That's their job. There may be lots of acceptable ways to do it.
So the first key seems to be that any such session must be "on-the-record." Journalists always call for transparency on the part of the people they cover; they should hold themselves to the same standard. It's one thing for journalists to agree to an off-the-record interview to gain understanding of an issue; it's another for them to offer the benefits of that access to one group who pays an exorbitant fee but not to another who doesn't. And the same holds true for the politicians who grant that access. Do they really want to be pegged as people who speak only to those with the money to buy access to them? I don't think so, despite how it sometimes seems.
Insisting that such events be on-the-record helps when you come to the second question: Should corporations be able to sponsor events put on by newspapers? Look, they already pay for the advertising that makes it possible for newspapers to publish. The issue isn't whether corporations pay to sponsor events; it's whether they have an influence over what's said at the event, over the agenda - or if there's even the appearance that they have an influence. If the answer is yes, then there's a real problem. But I don't see a problem with businesses partnering with newspapers to bring more information to a community. That last word is key: community. Not to a select few. But to anyone who wants to attend in person, or today, preferably also over the Internet, even if after the fact. Again, transparency matters.
To ensure that there's no appearance of impropriety, the third requirement is that such events cannot be at the publisher's house or at any other private location. (It's one thing for the publisher to invite anybody she wants to dinner at her house on her own dime; it's another to get companies to pay to have dinner with her and powerful politicians she drags in for the purpose.) Such paid events must be in public locales where anybody can purchase a ticket, where no publisher, corporation or government official can exercise a veto over who can attend.
That brings me to the money. How much should be charged? I think that's up to the news organization. Make the cost prohibitive and what it says is that the outlet wants to be exclusive. Make it reasonable, and it sends a different message. Find different ways to make the content accessible to people and it looks like the organization is actually tuned into serving its community. Politicians and others can make their decision on whether to participate in part based on the fact that the event will be public and public knowledge. Again, transparency matters.
Now, comes the truly thorny issue: Should newspapers pay sources - government officials, business leaders, movie stars - to appear on panels or at meetings where the newspaper is going to make money?
Politicians talk to newspapers every day either because they feel it's their responsibility or because they want to get their message out, or some of both. If the panels are all on-the-record, then there's not much difference in politicians appearing at public events put on by the paper as long as they don't receive a fee. Remember, newspapers differentiate themselves from other news organizations by claiming they never pay for access. They don't pay people to talk to them. But what about if they do pay the powerful to appear and help further their business interests? They can't have it both ways.
The best solution to resolve this dilemma seems to be a public (transparent) honorarium that covers the expenses of the speaker to attend the event, but that's it. Anything beyond that and there's a problem.
So here's hoping the Post finds ways to inform more people and earn more money through means other than the daily newspaper. Events and conferences could well be among them. But if they are, the paper still has to uphold its principles. Now the Post owes its readers - and staff - a full explanation of what those principles are.
Listen to "The Ben and Joel Podcast" of an interview with me on future of newspapers
Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis recorded a lengthy interview with me following the publication of my series on 10 steps local newspapers should take to survive and thrive.
You'll find "The Ben and Joel Podcast" on the Infinite Monkeys blog.
I was lucky to work with Ben and Joel in early 2008 on the RedBlueAmerica.com Web site Scripps briefly funded. Ben was the red moderator of the site and Joel was the blue moderator . Perhaps the best result of the project was that the two of them continue to work together on their own. Obviously I'm biased, but I think they're two writers worth following.
Here are some of the issues covered in what they describe as a "provocative" interview.
Regarding what belongs in the newspaper: "If you're not adding value you shouldn't do it in print," Temple told us. "Because there's no way you're going to be reporting the news in print, unless you're the one making the news."
Among the other questions they tackle in the interview:
• Is it enough for newspapers to merely be newspapers?
• What shouldn't local newspapers be covering?
• Is the crisis that's affecting media organizations merely the result of dumb business decisions?
• What did the glorious failure of RedBlueAmerica teach us?
Ben and Joel also have an iTunes page where you can listen to their other podcasts. They also write a weekly column for Scripps Howard News Service.
You'll find "The Ben and Joel Podcast" on the Infinite Monkeys blog.
I was lucky to work with Ben and Joel in early 2008 on the RedBlueAmerica.com Web site Scripps briefly funded. Ben was the red moderator of the site and Joel was the blue moderator . Perhaps the best result of the project was that the two of them continue to work together on their own. Obviously I'm biased, but I think they're two writers worth following.
Here are some of the issues covered in what they describe as a "provocative" interview.
Regarding what belongs in the newspaper: "If you're not adding value you shouldn't do it in print," Temple told us. "Because there's no way you're going to be reporting the news in print, unless you're the one making the news."
Among the other questions they tackle in the interview:
• Is it enough for newspapers to merely be newspapers?
• What shouldn't local newspapers be covering?
• Is the crisis that's affecting media organizations merely the result of dumb business decisions?
• What did the glorious failure of RedBlueAmerica teach us?
Ben and Joel also have an iTunes page where you can listen to their other podcasts. They also write a weekly column for Scripps Howard News Service.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Good thinking on how to capitalize when Yahoo! drives millions of page views to a newspaper's Web site
In writing about steps newspapers should take to survive and thrive, my third recommendation was, "Realign the internal operations of local newspaper companies to make marketing, advertising and editorial partners every step of the way."
Reader and friend John Leach, managing Partner at Digital Strategies LLC, pointed out how the recent experience of The New York Times, when it received more than 9 million page views on one story in a few hours from a Yahoo! link, was a good example of how what I was proposing could help newspapers. If news organizations were restructured in the way I described, they'd be better able to capitalize on this kind of opportunity because the whole team would react instantly, together. Instead, according to the Nieman Journalism Lab story, the Times sold remnant ads on the page getting the fire hose of traffic.
John wrote me: "You talked in No. 3 about putting together news, advertising and marketing staffs along the lines of what you described for CNN at the Democratic convention when you talked with the (CU Journalism School) advisory board. It's a great idea, and it's long overdue.
An online advertising staff has to be as nimble as the online news staff in order to take advantage of opportunities like the one the Times had -- and the same thing goes for the online marketing staff. As I pointed out in a brief comment to that post, the online advertising staff should have sold a client like Bing on being able to pick up 1 million or 2 million page views from a big event like that one, which is an ideal place for Bing to promote its new search engine. It could have done something similar with other big advertisers.
"What an opportunity that presents to deliver extraordinary value to a key advertiser, even if it's for a price halfway between the usual rate and the dismal remnant rate.
Instead, newspapers are functioning online like they do in print -- selling ad space, building the ad and putting it into that space on a set schedule. It's the equivalent of posting the day's paper and stopping there. Why can't we have breaking news ads to go with our breaking news?
The Times also could have targeted a marketing campaign for itself onto those pages -- getting far more value than it did from remnant ads. After all, the Times undoubtedly was getting visitors who hadn't been to the Times very often before, and visitors who hadn't been there at all, and that's a prime group to tell about what the Times offers in breaking news, in-depth coverage and multimedia. It's also a group that might well buy Times photos or other products."
I think John makes great points. Are newspapers nimble enough and are they structured to seize opportunities that present themselves quickly? Instead of complaining about the link economy, they should capitalize on it. By the way, I'm not saying the Times was complaining. But John is right that in my previous post on Yahoo! driving traffic to the Times I undervalued the opportunity that kind of traffic represented by not reiterating the importance of advertising, editorial and marketing working side by side.
Reader and friend John Leach, managing Partner at Digital Strategies LLC, pointed out how the recent experience of The New York Times, when it received more than 9 million page views on one story in a few hours from a Yahoo! link, was a good example of how what I was proposing could help newspapers. If news organizations were restructured in the way I described, they'd be better able to capitalize on this kind of opportunity because the whole team would react instantly, together. Instead, according to the Nieman Journalism Lab story, the Times sold remnant ads on the page getting the fire hose of traffic.
John wrote me: "You talked in No. 3 about putting together news, advertising and marketing staffs along the lines of what you described for CNN at the Democratic convention when you talked with the (CU Journalism School) advisory board. It's a great idea, and it's long overdue.
An online advertising staff has to be as nimble as the online news staff in order to take advantage of opportunities like the one the Times had -- and the same thing goes for the online marketing staff. As I pointed out in a brief comment to that post, the online advertising staff should have sold a client like Bing on being able to pick up 1 million or 2 million page views from a big event like that one, which is an ideal place for Bing to promote its new search engine. It could have done something similar with other big advertisers.
"What an opportunity that presents to deliver extraordinary value to a key advertiser, even if it's for a price halfway between the usual rate and the dismal remnant rate.
Instead, newspapers are functioning online like they do in print -- selling ad space, building the ad and putting it into that space on a set schedule. It's the equivalent of posting the day's paper and stopping there. Why can't we have breaking news ads to go with our breaking news?
The Times also could have targeted a marketing campaign for itself onto those pages -- getting far more value than it did from remnant ads. After all, the Times undoubtedly was getting visitors who hadn't been to the Times very often before, and visitors who hadn't been there at all, and that's a prime group to tell about what the Times offers in breaking news, in-depth coverage and multimedia. It's also a group that might well buy Times photos or other products."
I think John makes great points. Are newspapers nimble enough and are they structured to seize opportunities that present themselves quickly? Instead of complaining about the link economy, they should capitalize on it. By the way, I'm not saying the Times was complaining. But John is right that in my previous post on Yahoo! driving traffic to the Times I undervalued the opportunity that kind of traffic represented by not reiterating the importance of advertising, editorial and marketing working side by side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
