Yes, you read it right. An advocate for good journalism dissing subs? Have a read and tell me what you think:
Subeditors: another attempt to explain why they are becoming redundant
An interesting little discussion broke out yesterday afternoon over the value and fate of newspaper subeditors during a Publishing Expo seminar at London's Olympia.
I used the opportunity to make clear where I stand on the subject, but probably failed to get across that I do not approve of the wholesale junking of a section of journalists. (And whatever writers, reporters and columnists might think, subs are journalists too). MORE
Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Saturday, September 6, 2008
'A problem for the democratic functioning of society'
More editorials and opinion pieces about the changing nature of journalism. The two here focus on the structural problems being faced by the industry as a whole. Can they be overcome? Has the industry past a turning point where there's no turning back?
The winter of journalism's content
THE AUSTRALIAN
David McKnight and Penny O'Donnell | September 03, 2008
NEWSPAPERS in Australia and the world face difficult choices in the next decade. The dilemma can be expressed in a simple question: who will pay for quality journalism in the future? Until now the answer has been obvious. Advertising has subsidised journalism since the mass market press emerged at the end of the 19th century.
But the much-despised advertising is on the move. It's heading for the internet and with it is going one of the main props for journalists' salaries. In the language of economists, the business model for journalism is collapsing. But this is more than a problem for journalists or media owners; it is a problem for the democratic functioning of society.
Techno-optimists will tell you that the dinosaur newspaper industry simply will be replaced. The public will be informed by news on the internet, television and radio.
There are at least three problems with this bright forecast. First, newspapers are by far the main source of news as well as agenda setters compared with radio, TV and online, according to research for the Australian Broadcasting Authority in 2001 (now the Australian Communications and Media Authority). MORE
Loss of deepest diggers
Mark Day Blog | September 04, 2008 | 15 Comments
THE ructions at Fairfax Media have succeeded in putting the future of newspapers and journalism front and centre of debate about future trends in media. Commentary has focused mainly on Fairfax’s policies, its financial modelling and the perception that publishing is a business on a slippery slope.
Precious little has been said about how the industry’s structural problems may be overcome. Will it be by slashing and burning, reducing costs by sacking people in a spiralling game with no end? Or will it be by investing in new ways of doing things in the hope or expectation that they will deliver the profits required to grow?
Fairfax, driven by the cost-cutting experts it inherited from last year’s merger with Rural Press, has opted for the slash and burn model. Of the 550 people earmarked for the sack, about 180 will be journalists, with an expected 120 to go from the company’s flagship titles The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
Fairfax is not alone in going down this route. The big US papers, led by The New York Times, have been leading the way in recent years. MORE
The winter of journalism's content
THE AUSTRALIAN
David McKnight and Penny O'Donnell | September 03, 2008
NEWSPAPERS in Australia and the world face difficult choices in the next decade. The dilemma can be expressed in a simple question: who will pay for quality journalism in the future? Until now the answer has been obvious. Advertising has subsidised journalism since the mass market press emerged at the end of the 19th century.
But the much-despised advertising is on the move. It's heading for the internet and with it is going one of the main props for journalists' salaries. In the language of economists, the business model for journalism is collapsing. But this is more than a problem for journalists or media owners; it is a problem for the democratic functioning of society.
Techno-optimists will tell you that the dinosaur newspaper industry simply will be replaced. The public will be informed by news on the internet, television and radio.
There are at least three problems with this bright forecast. First, newspapers are by far the main source of news as well as agenda setters compared with radio, TV and online, according to research for the Australian Broadcasting Authority in 2001 (now the Australian Communications and Media Authority). MORE
Loss of deepest diggers
Mark Day Blog | September 04, 2008 | 15 Comments
THE ructions at Fairfax Media have succeeded in putting the future of newspapers and journalism front and centre of debate about future trends in media. Commentary has focused mainly on Fairfax’s policies, its financial modelling and the perception that publishing is a business on a slippery slope.
Precious little has been said about how the industry’s structural problems may be overcome. Will it be by slashing and burning, reducing costs by sacking people in a spiralling game with no end? Or will it be by investing in new ways of doing things in the hope or expectation that they will deliver the profits required to grow?
Fairfax, driven by the cost-cutting experts it inherited from last year’s merger with Rural Press, has opted for the slash and burn model. Of the 550 people earmarked for the sack, about 180 will be journalists, with an expected 120 to go from the company’s flagship titles The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
Fairfax is not alone in going down this route. The big US papers, led by The New York Times, have been leading the way in recent years. MORE
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
So, back to the future
Playing a bit of catch up on my RSS feeds. So here's a bunch of stuff I've read that might be interesting:
* The changing newsroom: from the Pew Research Centre. It provides a good statistic look at how much things have changed in the US newspaper industry over the past few years.
--eg. that larger papers are much more greater affected by cutbacks than smaller papers, cuts especially in coverage of international news (no surprise there).
--Something one of the editors said that's quoted in the paper is worth mentioning here:
"I hated to make that cut," the editor said. "I read all these things about how
cutting film critics is a good choice because you can get film criticism from other places, but those are the same arguments you hear about foreign coverage, national coverage or state government coverage. Eventually, you wake up one day and find there is no somewhere else because everyone has done the same thing you’ve done. It’s very troubling."
--Another point that's interesting is that readers don't care too much about the loss of international coverage, or of the science writer, though they are unhappy when their crossword puzzle is cut. Wonder if that will embolden the "toe-cutters".
--I also found this quite interesting: that the cutbacks mean shorter news stories, but that investment continues in investigative journalism. eg. "shorter news stories and richer enterprise".
--And where are the cuts coming from? Here's the bar chart stats:
It seems the cuts are resulting in the loss of the more expensive but also the most experienced and talented journalists. One editor says: "I read the stories (in my own paper) today and I see more holes, questions I want answered that are not," lamented the editor of a large metropolitan newspaper. "I see more stories … that aren’t as well sourced as I’d prefer."
Here's the intro to the research paper:
Meet the American daily newspaper of 2008.
It has fewer pages than three years ago, the paper stock is thinner, and the stories are shorter. There is less foreign and national news, less space devoted to science, the arts, features and a range of specialized subjects. Business coverage is either packaged in an increasingly thin stand-alone section or collapsed into another part of the paper. The crossword puzzle has shrunk, the TV listings and stock tables may have disappeared, but coverage of some local issues has strengthened and investigative reporting remains highly valued.
The newsroom staff producing the paper is also smaller, younger, more tech-savvy, and more oriented to serving the demands of both print and the web. The staff also is under greater pressure, has less institutional memory, less knowledge of the community, of how to gather news and the history of individual beats. There are fewer editors to catch mistakes.
Despite an image of decline, more people today in more places read the content produced in the newsrooms of American daily newspapers than at any time in years. But revenues are tumbling. The editors expect the financial picture only to worsen, and they have little confidence that they know what their papers will look like in five years.
This description is a composite. It is based on face-to-face interviews conducted at newspapers across the country and the results of a detailed survey of senior newsroom executives. In total, more than 250 newspapers participated. It is, we believe, the most systematic effort yet to examine the changing nature of the resources in American newspaper newsrooms at a critical time. It is an attempt to document and quantify cutbacks and innovations that have generally been known only anecdotally. MORE
* Comment piece from The Economist on the death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Speaking truth to power. Where are today's intellectual dissident writers?
* An e-reader for newspapers like The Guardian by 2015? And rolled-up too ...
* Five steps to fostering innovation in the newsroom. Not sure how new these ideas are, to be honest, but I guess it's important to keep hammering on these points.
* The wire agency the Associated Press's study on consumption behaviours of young adults, across the United States and the world. Some conclusions were that there was
--more reading of news "above the fold"
--email is very closely linked to news
--constant news checking because of ... boredom!
--way in which people consume news, laptop, TV, all at the same time
--readers WANT depth, especially during breaking news
--consuming news while doing something else, eg. driving
--news fatigue, could explain why Daily Show with Jon Stewart-type shows do well
--people love resolutions to stories (that's why they likes sports and ent)
--packaging is one of the solutions
* The changing newsroom: from the Pew Research Centre. It provides a good statistic look at how much things have changed in the US newspaper industry over the past few years.
--eg. that larger papers are much more greater affected by cutbacks than smaller papers, cuts especially in coverage of international news (no surprise there).
--Something one of the editors said that's quoted in the paper is worth mentioning here:
"I hated to make that cut," the editor said. "I read all these things about how
cutting film critics is a good choice because you can get film criticism from other places, but those are the same arguments you hear about foreign coverage, national coverage or state government coverage. Eventually, you wake up one day and find there is no somewhere else because everyone has done the same thing you’ve done. It’s very troubling."
--Another point that's interesting is that readers don't care too much about the loss of international coverage, or of the science writer, though they are unhappy when their crossword puzzle is cut. Wonder if that will embolden the "toe-cutters".
--I also found this quite interesting: that the cutbacks mean shorter news stories, but that investment continues in investigative journalism. eg. "shorter news stories and richer enterprise".
--And where are the cuts coming from? Here's the bar chart stats:
It seems the cuts are resulting in the loss of the more expensive but also the most experienced and talented journalists. One editor says: "I read the stories (in my own paper) today and I see more holes, questions I want answered that are not," lamented the editor of a large metropolitan newspaper. "I see more stories … that aren’t as well sourced as I’d prefer."
Here's the intro to the research paper:
Meet the American daily newspaper of 2008.
It has fewer pages than three years ago, the paper stock is thinner, and the stories are shorter. There is less foreign and national news, less space devoted to science, the arts, features and a range of specialized subjects. Business coverage is either packaged in an increasingly thin stand-alone section or collapsed into another part of the paper. The crossword puzzle has shrunk, the TV listings and stock tables may have disappeared, but coverage of some local issues has strengthened and investigative reporting remains highly valued.
The newsroom staff producing the paper is also smaller, younger, more tech-savvy, and more oriented to serving the demands of both print and the web. The staff also is under greater pressure, has less institutional memory, less knowledge of the community, of how to gather news and the history of individual beats. There are fewer editors to catch mistakes.
Despite an image of decline, more people today in more places read the content produced in the newsrooms of American daily newspapers than at any time in years. But revenues are tumbling. The editors expect the financial picture only to worsen, and they have little confidence that they know what their papers will look like in five years.
This description is a composite. It is based on face-to-face interviews conducted at newspapers across the country and the results of a detailed survey of senior newsroom executives. In total, more than 250 newspapers participated. It is, we believe, the most systematic effort yet to examine the changing nature of the resources in American newspaper newsrooms at a critical time. It is an attempt to document and quantify cutbacks and innovations that have generally been known only anecdotally. MORE
* Comment piece from The Economist on the death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Speaking truth to power. Where are today's intellectual dissident writers?
* An e-reader for newspapers like The Guardian by 2015? And rolled-up too ...
* Five steps to fostering innovation in the newsroom. Not sure how new these ideas are, to be honest, but I guess it's important to keep hammering on these points.
* The wire agency the Associated Press's study on consumption behaviours of young adults, across the United States and the world. Some conclusions were that there was
--more reading of news "above the fold"
--email is very closely linked to news
--constant news checking because of ... boredom!
--way in which people consume news, laptop, TV, all at the same time
--readers WANT depth, especially during breaking news
--consuming news while doing something else, eg. driving
--news fatigue, could explain why Daily Show with Jon Stewart-type shows do well
--people love resolutions to stories (that's why they likes sports and ent)
--packaging is one of the solutions
Saturday, July 26, 2008
I reckon we still need those subs, eh?
I've attached David Marsh's comment on the Giles Coren rant. He does put a good point across that subs are more important nowadays in the digital age. What I wonder though is this - he mentions all these people who diss subs, including, might I add, colleagues in his own paper. No surprise there.
The thing is that if the people who hold the purse strings feel the same way, then the cuts are going to happen anyway right, whether or not the quality of the media product deteriotates or not.
What do you think?
Excoriating the coruscating Coren
Giles Coren's blistering rebuke to a hapless Times subeditor actually highlights what a vital role subs still play in the media
If only Giles Coren had given his email to a good subeditor before sending it, he might have got his point across effectively without revealing himself to be arrogant, petulant, pompous and, frankly, the last person you'd want to be stuck in a restaurant with.
As a sub by trade, it pains me to say it, but the foul-mouthed food critic was actually in the right: the hapless Times sub who removed a harmless sounding "a" from the last sentence of his column did subtly change the meaning and remove a joke (although one so obscure that it must be said Coren poses no immediate threat to the writers of, say, Peep Show).
What the email lacks is a sense of proportion. After ranting at length about his knowledge of Yiddish, laboriously explaining the aforementioned joke ("looking for a nosh has a secondary meaning of looking for a blowjob" – hilarious!), and comparing the sub to "a pissed Irish plasterer restoring a renaissance [sic] fresco and thinking jesus [sic] looks shit with a bear so plastering over it", our tortured artist turns his attention to metre: "Dumbest, deafest, shittest of all, you have removed the unstressed 'a' so that the stress that should have fallen on 'nosh' is lost, and my piece ends on an unstressed syllable." This, apparently, is "pre-GCSE scansion" (what kind of advanced academy of linguistics was Coren attending at 15?).
Then comes the eloquent clincher: "Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck." Well, to be fair, it scans perfectly.
Putting to one side the thought that being a sub at the Times right now must be about as rewarding an occupation as trying to sell Mother's Day cards to a Canoe Wife's sons, I'm struck by the fact that Coren's onanistic outburst is the latest in a series of recent attacks on subeditors. MORE
The thing is that if the people who hold the purse strings feel the same way, then the cuts are going to happen anyway right, whether or not the quality of the media product deteriotates or not.
What do you think?
Excoriating the coruscating Coren
Giles Coren's blistering rebuke to a hapless Times subeditor actually highlights what a vital role subs still play in the media
If only Giles Coren had given his email to a good subeditor before sending it, he might have got his point across effectively without revealing himself to be arrogant, petulant, pompous and, frankly, the last person you'd want to be stuck in a restaurant with.
As a sub by trade, it pains me to say it, but the foul-mouthed food critic was actually in the right: the hapless Times sub who removed a harmless sounding "a" from the last sentence of his column did subtly change the meaning and remove a joke (although one so obscure that it must be said Coren poses no immediate threat to the writers of, say, Peep Show).
What the email lacks is a sense of proportion. After ranting at length about his knowledge of Yiddish, laboriously explaining the aforementioned joke ("looking for a nosh has a secondary meaning of looking for a blowjob" – hilarious!), and comparing the sub to "a pissed Irish plasterer restoring a renaissance [sic] fresco and thinking jesus [sic] looks shit with a bear so plastering over it", our tortured artist turns his attention to metre: "Dumbest, deafest, shittest of all, you have removed the unstressed 'a' so that the stress that should have fallen on 'nosh' is lost, and my piece ends on an unstressed syllable." This, apparently, is "pre-GCSE scansion" (what kind of advanced academy of linguistics was Coren attending at 15?).
Then comes the eloquent clincher: "Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck." Well, to be fair, it scans perfectly.
Putting to one side the thought that being a sub at the Times right now must be about as rewarding an occupation as trying to sell Mother's Day cards to a Canoe Wife's sons, I'm struck by the fact that Coren's onanistic outburst is the latest in a series of recent attacks on subeditors. MORE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
