Newsosaur a dinosaur on editorial endorsements and the AJC

The usually astute Alan Mutter is way off base in his criticism of the Atlanta Journal Constitution's decision to quit endorsing candidates.

Mutter is stellar when it comes to media economics. But his comments on endorsements seem to reflect how long he's been out of a newsroom and seem kind of strange given how smart he is about how the Internet has changed the role of newspapers.

I've written extensively on this topic and below have pasted my own column from the Rocky Mountain News prior to last year's presidential election. Bottom line: Just because a paper gives up endorsements doesn't mean it will stop doing exactly what Mutter thinks a newspaper should be doing: "vigorously vetting candidates and forthrightly informing readers of the findings." It just means that it won't take the extra step in most cases and actually tell readers how to vote. I think that makes sense.

The following is my column published on Oct. 18, 2008, under the headline, "Input, not endorsements."

I'm asked quite often these days when we'll publish our endorsements for president and other federal offices.

There seems to remain a fascination among some about what a major newspaper like the Rocky Mountain News will do. Perhaps it's because they believe the opinion of our editorial page could make a difference. Or perhaps just that they look forward to us stirring up political debate.

I've struggled to respond this year because I've been wrestling with how to handle endorsements in a media landscape dramatically altered by the Internet.

At the start of this decade you would have found me making an impassioned argument about the importance of a newspaper taking a clear position as a leader in its community. But as I indicated in a column at the time of Colorado's presidential caucuses, I feel differently today. And so, it seems, do many of you, based on the reaction to that column.

Today I have come to believe that rather than recommending how you should vote on partisan races, we better serve you by providing perspective that may help you shape your own opinion. After all, our motto is, "Give light and the people will find their own way."

When E.W. Scripps, the founder of the company for which I work, created the first chain of newspapers more than 125 years ago, he encouraged Americans to vote the way he thought they should.

Newspapers were far more partisan then. What's more, he actually did have more access to candidates and information about them than almost anyone. There was no radio. TV. Or Internet.

Going back farther to the time of the Founding Fathers, we know, of course, that newspapers were political; there was no attempt to separate opinion from news. Readers understood that. They bought newspapers in part because they agreed with their point of view. Readers didn't need endorsements. The opinion of the paper was clear in its news coverage.

But we live in a different world today, a world where citizens have a wealth of information available to them. If anything, what they need is a trusted source to help them evaluate that information and come to their own conclusions. As a result, I think it's time to change how we operate on the editorial page.

That's why, from here on out, it will be the exception for you to read an editorial endorsing a candidate in the Rocky.

This decision is based in part on an exercise I often undertake when I try to determine the right direction for the paper. I ask myself what I would do if I were to start a news organization today, one unburdened by the history of my own company and industry.

It seems you have two basic choices: Establish a clearly opinionated publication or Web site, a la HuffingtonPost.com on the left or Free Republic.com on the right, or try to give readers something they can trust because of its clear commitment to fair-minded and incisive reporting.

I believe the latter is the best course for the Rocky. But what about the editorials and opinion columns, you are probably wondering. How do they fit into this vision of mine? Well, I don't think fair-minded readers resent opinion per se. In fact, it's clear that they value opinion writing a great deal. What they do resent is evidence that their newspaper is in the tank for one political party or the other. And too many readers tend to confuse endorsements - particularly if a majority happens to be for one party - as evidence that a newspaper is partisan as opposed to principled.

Endorsements are probably the decisive factor contributing to confusion about this distinction. I think the better way is to focus on critiquing issues and actions in real time.

You may have noticed that our editorial page has been more aggressive this year in running commentary on the major races. Since the start of the Democratic National Convention we've written nearly 20 editorials involving John McCain and Sarah Palin, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. We've tried to contribute to the discussion by probing issues or the candidates' conduct without ever urging you to vote a certain way in the polling booth.

Just last week, for example, we strongly criticized McCain's bailout plan for "failing" mortgages. I think knowing that we weren't likely to endorse either candidate may have made it easier for us to hit him hard for abandoning his fiscal conservatism when we thought he deserved it.

I suspect some of you were surprised by that editorial because you expected us to endorse McCain and refrain from criticizing him. That's not how we have ever operated, but that's how endorsements color some readers' perceptions. Our editorial board does lean center right and might be expected to be more sympathetic to McCain's views. But while some of the principles that our editorial page values might be more closely linked to the Republican Party, we pride ourselves on being nonpartisan. I don't just mean that we endorse candidates from both parties - Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar, for example. But also that we don't care where good ideas come from.

Now you may ask if I feel this way why did we take a formal position on all the Colorado ballot issues. I think ballot issues are different from candidates. Some of them are difficult to decipher without the aid of political observers - such as our editorial writers - who have followed closely their history and are familiar with the motives and goals of the proponents. But most important, they're more like bills in a legislature. They're specific and limited in scope. Ultimately the question is yes or no. If you're confused, you can always vote, "No," to preserve the status quo.

But when it comes to candidates, you don't really have that option. Nor do we when making an endorsement. Even though that might be our first choice.

That's not a commentary on this presidential election. Personally, I think there's much to admire about both candidates. And we'll give their advocates plenty of room to explain why you should support them.

In the end we'll leave it to you to come to your own conclusion, trusting that's what you want and believing this newspaper's editorial page can be most valuable to you if it helps you reach an informed decision, with an emphasis on informed. After all, ultimately that's our job. It's not to pick presidents, senators or representatives.

Random thoughts on recent journalism stories, columns and speeches

I hope you saw The New York Times story today about former Rocky Mountain News Washington reporter M.E. Sprengelmeyer. Good story about a guy deserving of coverage. I shared M.E.'s story first here, when he wrote about his new adventure running the paper in Santa Rosa, N.M. His story, based on the reaction it received on my blog, inspired many other journalists.

Good column by L. Gordon Crovitz in The Wall Street Journal today. The headline is "Media Moguls and Creative Destruction," spinning off a new book entitled "The Curse of the Mogul: What's Wrong with the World's Leading Media Companies." The column's conclusion about what any media organization should do: "Focus on what makes each brand different and more valuable than the ever-increasing number of alternatives that technology makes inevitable." Good advice, I think. But probably not enough, even if I'm not sure there's anything more that news organizations can do. The reason I say it may not be enough is that in most cases, achieving scale seems so critical. Easier said than done. At the same time, scale may not be enough. Look at the big newspapers and how they tout the fact that their total audience is growing at the same time as their print circulation is declining. While that's true, in the digital world, total audience isn't the key, or at least it doesn't seem to be to me. What's key is knowing who the audience is and where they are. What good does it do an advertiser in Denver if most of the readers on a local Web site are from distant cities or have no interest in their product because they're the wrong demographic for the advertiser.

Chicago Tribune Editor Gerald Kern gave a stirring speech at the Medill School of Journalism last week. I thought it especially interesting how he defined the mission/brand of his news organization.

• We stand up for our community and citizens.
• We capture the Chicago experience.
• We move people emotionally and intellectually.
• We help people navigate their daily lives.
• We fuel conversation - the Tribune is a social medium
• We break news - we don't just report it.

I wish Medill or Kern would post the speech on the Web. I think it would be interesting to know whether these brand qualities are how the paper's readers and the rest of the community would describe the company. While the troubles of the Tribune company are legendary, it is clear that the Chicago Tribune itself is trying all kinds of things to remain relevant in this era, from RedEye to its hyper-local initiative, TribLocal, and that without the burdensome debt of the parent company the Tribune alone would be a viable business, as would The Los Angeles Times. The question is for how much longer. Nobody knows the answer. Kern's ending, "One thing is clear - We're here to stay," is the weakest part of the speech. Clearly they want to be there to stay. And I hope that's possible. But we've seen enough wreckage in media and other industries to know that there's no guarantee that the Tribune or any other paper is here to stay. Nobody knows what's going to happen. Predicting the future isn't a strength of journalists. Better to stick with what we do know. That the company is doing a lot of good things and is committed to trying to figure out how to be there to stay. And that its efforts are worth following.

The video of Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit and the meaning of newspapers

The release of the video of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in a strange way provides insight into the meaning of newspapers. Shalit was abducted by Hamas in a cross-border raid in Israeli territory outside Gaza more than three years ago. It's an outrageous aspect of international relations that he is still in the custody of Hamas.

My purpose in writing today, though, is not to condemn Hamas for using him as a pawn, although I think the group's conduct is abhorrent and immoral. My purpose is to reflect on how his kidnappers used a newspaper to establish the authenticity of the tape they released in exchange for 20 female prisoners.

It makes one ask what else could they have used to establish that a video was produced at a certain place and time. Clearly the paper is also used to hide that he's reading from a prepared text, approved or even written by his kidnappers. But it's hard to imagine what else they could have used to establish that the tape is real. Perhaps they could have used a laptop screen facing the camera, showing the news of a certain day. But would it have been the same? I don't think so.

What does that say about newspapers? I think it's a reminder of the unique role they can play, even in a digital era. It gives a different meaning to the term "newspaper of record." The newspaper establishes the authenticity not just of a video, but also in a broader sense the people and places it covers. That's why editors should remember the historic aspect of each edition, the fact that the newspaper can reflect a community in both a timely and a timeless way, and in fact should do both every day. In an era when news is instant, the paper itself should be something different. It should reflect the day, but it should also memorialize it in such a way that its readers understand what makes it special, different from all other days. That takes a different mindset than the mindset at many newspapers, which, sadly, is still to fill the holes around the ads with what happened yesterday.

Here's to the day when Gilad Shalit will be free to read a paper of his own choosing in his own country, free at last. That will be a paper worth keeping, a front page worth remembering in a video of his return home.

Google must think I'm really religious

I decided to add advertising to my blog, largely, frankly, to learn more about how Google adsense works and how people respond to it. I thought it was fascinating that somehow Google figured I or my readers must be really religious, because the site was immediately populated with Bible ads, including one for the Gospel of John. Well, at least that's my name, but I know the readers of this blog know it doesn't have anything to do with gospel. Wandering the desert maybe...

Lessons from the Rocky Mountain News is the most tweeted presentation on Slideshare

I got this message today from Slideshare.

"Lessons from the Rocky Mountain News" is being tweeted more than any other document on SlideShare right now. So we've put it on the homepage of SlideShare.net (in the "Hot on Twitter" section).

This is interesting to me because it's indicative of how much things have changed for a writer. A person's work is spread across the Web in different ways that would never have been possible in the print era. I have a slideshare page, but the traffic to it doesn't show up on the stats for the blog I actually own and control. I also have seen my talk summarized and discussed on many other Web sites and blogs. While they generally include a link to the original text, I doubt most people bother to spend the time to read it. The summary is enough. Again, the traffic doesn't come to my blog, so it doesn't show up in my own accounting. Is that bad? I know there are those who believe so. I don't. What I see is a conversation spreading, just the way it might among friends. The easier it is for that to happen, the better.

John Marshall on what happens to journalists after newspapers?

An interesting article by John Marshall on IndieReader.com gives a big picture view of what journalists are doing post-newspaper work. Marshall interviewed me for the piece and includes some Rocky Mountain News examples. But it's especially interesting about journalists who worked on the arts side of newspapers, from books to food. Marshall was the longtime book critic of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which shut down its paper edition this year.

Reflections on Day 2 of the UC Berkeley Media Technology Summit at Google

A few new terms and ideas stand out from the final day of the UC Berkeley Media Technology Summit at Google headquarters.

First, Hilary Schneider, executive vice president of Yahoo, stressed the importance of two key words: relevance and simplify. Amen. Those two words are great touchstones for anyone working on the Web

Economics Professor Marshall Van Allstyne of Boston University introduced a term new to me to explain how to make money in a "free" world: proprietary complementarity. He gave hope that it's possible to make money in a "free" world. Industries can succeed by giving away things for free, he argued. And he cited a number of examples to support his case, including Adobe giving away Acrobat for free but selling Distiller software and Microsoft selling software but giving away the system development tool kit. He said news "needs a complement." You can't own facts, but...

And finally, Jeffrey Ulin, a lawyer with the Haas School of Business at Berkeley, argued why the long tail theory won't work. The conclusion from his talk is that the cost of content is going to have to come down because "windows" for making money from content (at least in the film, TV world) are compressing in time. I think it would have been hard to come away from the conference not thinking that the need to continue reducing the cost of producing content isn't going to go away even if the economy comes back.

The final day was packed with good speakers, not all of whom I can do justice to here. But I'm told that presentations will be posted on this slideshare page. Also, you can read the twitter feed of participants from the first full day here on coveritlive.com. The feed from the second day is here. You can read my presentation from the first day here and see my slide deck here.

Alan Mutter of Newsosaur organized a very rich conference, certainly unlike anything I've attended that catered to the newspaper industry. We need more such collaboration across the traditional divide between newspapers and technologists. My only suggestions for others trying to do something similar are that it should become a standard that all such meetings stream live on the Internet and that all presentation slide decks go live immediately on the Web. The meeting was on the record, with reporters in the room, except for the evening conversation with former News Corp. COO Peter Chermin. So why not stream it live, especially when it comes from as sophisticated a technical location as Googleplex? Then instead of the Twitter feed being essentially reportage of the event, it could become more commentary and conversation during the talks. It would have been cool to have the twitter feed projected behind the speakers or beside their slides, for example. And the same could be done on the Web, where the twitter feed could run next to the live video.

A few other thoughts:

It came through loud and clear that readers/users are still looking for somebody to help cut through the tangled Web and make it easier to use.

The growth curve for Web advertising still seems huge, but the ineffectiveness and dismal quality of a lot of Web advertising also seems obvious. Much to be done on that front. This is also scary for newspapers, because that money shifting to the Web is going to have to come from somewhere.

In news organizations, it seems like newsrooms are perceived to be "getting the web" more than advertising departments.

It's unbelievable that no newspaper company has a simple, easy-to-use self-serve advertising vehicle. I'm talking display. Although classified in many cases is also so bad that I had one accomplished journalist tell me he gave up trying to place a classified online at a newspaper that was once a Web pioneer.

NPR is a great success story of the last few decades, and Ellen Weiss, its vice president for news, demonstrated why. Smart. Funny. But she also offered a word of caution for those who think nonprofit status is easy or a panacea. Even NPR is seeing its model being disrupted because it gets almost 40% of its $166 million budget from member stations (those annoying fund drives) and in the Internet era people no longer have to listen to NPR through their member station. I'm a big believer that newspapers should shift to a membership model along the NPR line. But she explained why membership is so difficult for start-ups. It takes time to build the loyalty NPR has built.

Chi-Town Daily News is another example of how while non-profit is a welcome addition to the mix, it's not "the solution." Geoff Dougherty, founder and CEO, spoke and I couldn't help but admire his commitment. He's switching from non-profit to a for-profit to try to make the effort work. What happened there would be a good case study for a serious, in-depth article.

On the other hand, it's clear that there's tremendous energy on the non-profit front and good things are happening. California Watch is an exciting development, for example.