Or so The Economist argues. Can newswires like AP, Reuters, AFP and Bloomberg survive the decline of the print industry?
High wires
Feb 12th 2009
From The Economist print edition
With newspapers in crisis, newswires may learn to live without them
WHERE does news come from? The answer, much of the time, is from newswires. Many of the stories in newspapers, on television, radio and online are based on dispatches filed by the big news agencies. The biggest international newswires, Associated Press (AP) and Reuters, date back to the expansion of the telegraph in the mid-19th century, when rapid newsgathering first became possible. The agencies have usually been wholesalers of news; newspapers, broadcasters and websites act as retailers, repackaging and selling news to consumers alongside material generated in-house. MORE
Showing posts with label newspapers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newspapers. Show all posts
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Activist reporting and more ...
More on the downturn in the fortunes of the newspaper industry and what, if anything, can be done to reverse it.
Newsrooms must get active to survive the economic meltdown
By Robert Niles
The financial trouble throughout the industry is leading many to consider a future without newspapers. Or, at least, without newspapers as we now know them. LA Observed's T.J. Sullivan asked: "Ever wonder what the world would have been like if Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein hadn't uncovered Watergate? I fear we'll learn the answer in the next couple decades."
With all due respect to T.J., I fear that we already know the answer. Because we've been living in that world for the past 10 years already, a time when traditional journalists failed to uncover emerging scandals and to warn the public about abuses of power at the highest levels of government and industry. MORE
When A Newspaper Stops Publishing In Print, What Happens To The Print Advertising Dollars?
by Scott Karp
With all the debate over the future of newspapers, here’s a question I haven’t heard anybody ask (much less answer): If a metropolitan newspaper suddenly ceased to publish, leaving the city with no newspaper, what would happen to all of that newspaper’s ad dollars? MORE
French publishers vs Google: ‘You are becoming our worst enemy’
December 16th, 2008
Posted by Laura Oliver
The headline quote comes from a round-up up by Eric Scherer of a meeting involving French newspaper and magazine publishers and Google. The meeting suggests some heavy anti-Google feeling on the publishers’ part. MORE
The Fundamental Problem of Newspapers on the Internet
Robert Ivan December 08, 2008
I introduce you to the fundamental problem of newspapers on the internet: The Krugman Paradox - named by me after watching PetMeds.com (PETS) ads appear next to Paul Krugman for three days after it was announced he won a Nobel Prize.
I couldn't believe there wasn't a better way to monetize his presence on NYTimes.com (NYT). Further investigation revealed that the Krugman problem was not unique.
Here goes. MORE
Glimmers of hope for journalists in a grim world of redundancies
Andrew Keen
In the holiday spirit, two glimmers of new media hope for print journalists depressed by the drip-drip of redundancies, cuts and falling readership. MORE
Newsrooms must get active to survive the economic meltdown
By Robert Niles
The financial trouble throughout the industry is leading many to consider a future without newspapers. Or, at least, without newspapers as we now know them. LA Observed's T.J. Sullivan asked: "Ever wonder what the world would have been like if Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein hadn't uncovered Watergate? I fear we'll learn the answer in the next couple decades."
With all due respect to T.J., I fear that we already know the answer. Because we've been living in that world for the past 10 years already, a time when traditional journalists failed to uncover emerging scandals and to warn the public about abuses of power at the highest levels of government and industry. MORE
When A Newspaper Stops Publishing In Print, What Happens To The Print Advertising Dollars?
by Scott Karp
With all the debate over the future of newspapers, here’s a question I haven’t heard anybody ask (much less answer): If a metropolitan newspaper suddenly ceased to publish, leaving the city with no newspaper, what would happen to all of that newspaper’s ad dollars? MORE
French publishers vs Google: ‘You are becoming our worst enemy’
December 16th, 2008
Posted by Laura Oliver
The headline quote comes from a round-up up by Eric Scherer of a meeting involving French newspaper and magazine publishers and Google. The meeting suggests some heavy anti-Google feeling on the publishers’ part. MORE
The Fundamental Problem of Newspapers on the Internet
Robert Ivan December 08, 2008
I introduce you to the fundamental problem of newspapers on the internet: The Krugman Paradox - named by me after watching PetMeds.com (PETS) ads appear next to Paul Krugman for three days after it was announced he won a Nobel Prize.
I couldn't believe there wasn't a better way to monetize his presence on NYTimes.com (NYT). Further investigation revealed that the Krugman problem was not unique.
Here goes. MORE
Glimmers of hope for journalists in a grim world of redundancies
Andrew Keen
In the holiday spirit, two glimmers of new media hope for print journalists depressed by the drip-drip of redundancies, cuts and falling readership. MORE
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Microsoft exec on solutions to cuts in newspapers
An interesting read - it is a strong attack on Google, but does raise some good points on how the media industry can save itself from oblivion:
Microsoft exec maps out online strategy for media
Interesting speech on the online future of media by the Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property Strategy at Microsoft on a day when the Associated Press became the latest US media organization to announce job cuts.
Thomas C. Rubin: UK Association of Online Publishers
Prepared Remarks by Thomas C. Rubin, Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property Strategy, Microsoft Corp.
“The Change We Need”
UK Association of Online Publishers
London, England
Nov. 20, 2008
TOM RUBIN: Thank you for that kind introduction, and thank you for inviting me to speak at this important conference focused on creating vibrant business models for publishers online.
It was a sad day last month when we read that after 100 years the Christian Science Monitor will cease print publication next April. The Monitor is an esteemed newspaper with particularly distinguished international coverage. It was the first American newspaper to get a reporter behind the lines with the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan in 1979. And during its long history, it has nurtured generations of young foreign correspondents, including Jill Carroll, who you may remember was held hostage in Iraq. MORE
Microsoft exec maps out online strategy for media
Interesting speech on the online future of media by the Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property Strategy at Microsoft on a day when the Associated Press became the latest US media organization to announce job cuts.
Thomas C. Rubin: UK Association of Online Publishers
Prepared Remarks by Thomas C. Rubin, Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property Strategy, Microsoft Corp.
“The Change We Need”
UK Association of Online Publishers
London, England
Nov. 20, 2008
TOM RUBIN: Thank you for that kind introduction, and thank you for inviting me to speak at this important conference focused on creating vibrant business models for publishers online.
It was a sad day last month when we read that after 100 years the Christian Science Monitor will cease print publication next April. The Monitor is an esteemed newspaper with particularly distinguished international coverage. It was the first American newspaper to get a reporter behind the lines with the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan in 1979. And during its long history, it has nurtured generations of young foreign correspondents, including Jill Carroll, who you may remember was held hostage in Iraq. MORE
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
Friday, August 22, 2008
What's next after your broadsheet's gone?
I like this blog post that looks at what happens after a daily paper shuts down in the US. Basically, no one will miss it, because the rest of the media ecosystem will pick up on what it was doing. What's good are the replies to the blog, some of which I'll quote a little here:
"Your thought experiment assumes that with the Bugle out of the equation, the rest of the media food chain will pick up the slack. That's where I believe you're being optimistic. Because in the real world, none of those models are making enough money to pay for significant content gathering. The absolute pinnacles of the online model are places like TPM -- tiny staff, many unpaid interns, minimal (though often quite good) content creation; and the HuffPost, paid staff one, content creation minimal.
If those entities, which are widely seen as the best the online world has produced as a business model, can't pay for significant -- particularly local -- content creation, why do you assume the Whoville Daily Trumpet will do any better?
Newspapers on average make abut 7 percent of their revenue from their online product; if the Trumpet captured all of that revenue (unlikely), it could pay for 7 percent of the Bugle's staff. Do you think any major city would be well served by 7 percent of its current newspaper?
I'd love it if you were right; I've been dying to see an online news model appear that thrives financially without taking most of its content from a newspaper. But if there's one out there, I haven't seen it."
and another:
"The layoffs and buyouts have hit newsrooms hard, partly because they are being carried out by managers who want to keep their jobs and think they can still put out newspapers with a dwindled staff. That only results in rewritten press releases, space-filling and mindless whos'-in-who's-out features and skimpy stories with a lot of color pictures"
another:
"People now have other sources and venues for their news. They don't have to read the tainted liberal stories and opinions with so many other available options.
Selling newspapers is not like selling toilet paper. Toilet paper is something that people will always need. People might start buying papers if they started reporting the news the way it happened and not the way the editors and reporters wanted it to happen. In other words, people need toilet paper but they don't need the LA Times."
"Your thought experiment assumes that with the Bugle out of the equation, the rest of the media food chain will pick up the slack. That's where I believe you're being optimistic. Because in the real world, none of those models are making enough money to pay for significant content gathering. The absolute pinnacles of the online model are places like TPM -- tiny staff, many unpaid interns, minimal (though often quite good) content creation; and the HuffPost, paid staff one, content creation minimal.
If those entities, which are widely seen as the best the online world has produced as a business model, can't pay for significant -- particularly local -- content creation, why do you assume the Whoville Daily Trumpet will do any better?
Newspapers on average make abut 7 percent of their revenue from their online product; if the Trumpet captured all of that revenue (unlikely), it could pay for 7 percent of the Bugle's staff. Do you think any major city would be well served by 7 percent of its current newspaper?
I'd love it if you were right; I've been dying to see an online news model appear that thrives financially without taking most of its content from a newspaper. But if there's one out there, I haven't seen it."
and another:
"The layoffs and buyouts have hit newsrooms hard, partly because they are being carried out by managers who want to keep their jobs and think they can still put out newspapers with a dwindled staff. That only results in rewritten press releases, space-filling and mindless whos'-in-who's-out features and skimpy stories with a lot of color pictures"
another:
"People now have other sources and venues for their news. They don't have to read the tainted liberal stories and opinions with so many other available options.
Selling newspapers is not like selling toilet paper. Toilet paper is something that people will always need. People might start buying papers if they started reporting the news the way it happened and not the way the editors and reporters wanted it to happen. In other words, people need toilet paper but they don't need the LA Times."
'Everything's on the table'
Catching up on the latest news ...
FEAR
Some good quotes from this article in the Editor and Publisher.
There's one good reason for the industry's new openness to change — fear, says Drew Davis, president and executive director of the American Press Institute (API): "I have never seen so many senior newspaper executives so depressed and frightened for their future."
"They used to say, 'Tell me who's doing this, and if it's working to increase readership.' Now what they say is, 'Tell me who's doing this — and making money at it.' Everyone wants promises that risks they take will bring in dollars — and, of course, nobody can do that."
"He said, 'We are like drowning people, who are treading water as fast as we can. And you people are throwing life preservers' — he meant it in the form of Newspaper Next — 'and we can't even get our hands out of the water to reach them.'
"What we're lacking right now is really philosophical thinking. If this is a seminal crisis, then we have to do some seminal thinking. And it really does have to be radical."
So everything is on the table, anything goes, because everyone's trying to keep afloat, make ends meet (and keep the sceptical shareholders happy).
What's good about this article is that it takes a hard look at the real dire state of the US newspaper industry and how it is struggling to adapt to the cost-cutting and to produce a product with a lot less people.
1. a look at the deep cuts at the Tribune after the change in management
2. suggestions that some days of the week would be dropped (eg. no more Monday papers)
3. getting rid of feature stories on low-circulation days (and maybe even the reporter)
4. there's also cutbacks in marketing, advertising sales and research
5. don't chase non-readers - leave the paper for those who would read it for 25 years or more, and websites for the younger audiences
Another article - this one from Baltimore - looks at how some media companies are turning to niche publications as the way of the future.
FEAR
Some good quotes from this article in the Editor and Publisher.
There's one good reason for the industry's new openness to change — fear, says Drew Davis, president and executive director of the American Press Institute (API): "I have never seen so many senior newspaper executives so depressed and frightened for their future."
"They used to say, 'Tell me who's doing this, and if it's working to increase readership.' Now what they say is, 'Tell me who's doing this — and making money at it.' Everyone wants promises that risks they take will bring in dollars — and, of course, nobody can do that."
"He said, 'We are like drowning people, who are treading water as fast as we can. And you people are throwing life preservers' — he meant it in the form of Newspaper Next — 'and we can't even get our hands out of the water to reach them.'
"What we're lacking right now is really philosophical thinking. If this is a seminal crisis, then we have to do some seminal thinking. And it really does have to be radical."
So everything is on the table, anything goes, because everyone's trying to keep afloat, make ends meet (and keep the sceptical shareholders happy).
What's good about this article is that it takes a hard look at the real dire state of the US newspaper industry and how it is struggling to adapt to the cost-cutting and to produce a product with a lot less people.
1. a look at the deep cuts at the Tribune after the change in management
2. suggestions that some days of the week would be dropped (eg. no more Monday papers)
3. getting rid of feature stories on low-circulation days (and maybe even the reporter)
4. there's also cutbacks in marketing, advertising sales and research
5. don't chase non-readers - leave the paper for those who would read it for 25 years or more, and websites for the younger audiences
Another article - this one from Baltimore - looks at how some media companies are turning to niche publications as the way of the future.
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
Full text of Giles Coren's rant to Times subs
Absolutely hilarious and a must read, though not for the subs at that time I suppose ...
For all the poor subs getting axed out there. You matter!
Chaps,
I am mightily pissed off. I have addressed this to Owen, Amanda and Ben because I don't know who i am supposed to be pissed off with (i'm assuming owen, but i filed to amanda and ben so it's only fair), and also to Tony, who wasn't here - if he had been I'm guessing it wouldn't have happened.
I don't really like people tinkering with my copy for the sake of tinkering. I do not enjoy the suggestion that you have a better ear or eye for how I want my words to read than I do. Owen, we discussed your turning three of my long sentences into six short ones in a single piece, and how that wasn't going to happen anymore, so I'm really hoping it wasn't you that fucked up my review on saturday.
It was the final sentence. Final sentences are very, very important. A piece builds to them, they are the little jingle that the reader takes with him into the weekend.
I wrote: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for a nosh."
It appeared as: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for nosh."
There is no length issue. This is someone thinking "I'll just remove this indefinite article because Coren is an illiterate cunt and i know best".
Well, you fucking don't.
This was shit, shit sub-editing for three reasons.
1) 'Nosh', as I'm sure you fluent Yiddish speakers know, is a noun formed from a bastardisation of the German 'naschen'. It is a verb, and can be construed into two distinct nouns. One, 'nosh', means simply 'food'. You have decided that this is what i meant and removed the 'a'. I am insulted enough that you think you have a better ear for English than me. But a better ear for Yiddish? I doubt it. Because the other noun, 'nosh' means "a session of eating" - in this sense you might think of its dual valency as being similar to that of 'scoff'. you can go for a scoff. or you can buy some scoff. the sentence you left me with is shit, and is not what i meant. Why would you change a sentnece aso that it meant something i didn't mean? I don't know, but you risk doing it every time you change something. And the way you avoid this kind of fuck up is by not changing a word of my copy without asking me, okay? it's easy. Not. A. Word. Ever.
2) I will now explain why your error is even more shit than it looks. You see, i was making a joke. I do that sometimes. I have set up the street as "sexually-charged". I have described the shenanigans across the road at G.A.Y.. I have used the word 'gaily' as a gentle nudge. And "looking for a nosh" has a secondary meaning of looking for a blowjob. Not specifically gay, for this is soho, and there are plenty of girls there who take money for noshing boys. "looking for nosh" does not have that ambiguity. the joke is gone. I only wrote that sodding paragraph to make that joke. And you've fucking stripped it out like a pissed Irish plasterer restoring a renaissance fresco and thinking jesus looks shit with a bear so plastering over it. You might as well have removed the whole paragraph. I mean, fucking christ, don't you read the copy?
3) And worst of all. 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. When you're winding up a piece of prose, metre is crucial. Can't you hear? Can't you hear that it is wrong? It's not fucking rocket science. It's fucking pre-GCSE scansion. I have written 350 restaurant reviews for The Times and i have never ended on an unstressed syllable. Fuck. fuck, fuck, fuck.
I am sorry if this looks petty (last time i mailed a Times sub about the change of a single word i got in all sorts of trouble) but i care deeply about my work and i hate to have it fucked up by shit subbing. I have been away, you've been subbing joe and hugo and maybe they just file and fuck off and think "hey ho, it's tomorrow's fish and chips" - well, not me. I woke up at three in the morning on sunday and fucking lay there, furious, for two hours. weird, maybe. but that's how it is.
It strips me of all confidence in writing for the magazine. No exaggeration. i've got a review to write this morning and i really don't feel like doing it, for fear that some nuance is going to be removed from the final line, the pay-off, and i'm going to have another weekend ruined for me.
I've been writing for The Times for 15 years and i have never asked this before - i have never asked it of anyone i have written for - but I must insist, from now on, that i am sent a proof of every review i do, in pdf format, so i can check it for fuck-ups. and i must be sent it in good time in case changes are needed. It is the only way i can carry on in the job.
And, just out of interest, I'd like whoever made that change to email me and tell me why. Tell me the exact reasoning which led you to remove that word from my copy.
Right,
Sorry to go on. Anger, real steaming fucking anger can make a man verbose.
All the best
Giles
For all the poor subs getting axed out there. You matter!
Chaps,
I am mightily pissed off. I have addressed this to Owen, Amanda and Ben because I don't know who i am supposed to be pissed off with (i'm assuming owen, but i filed to amanda and ben so it's only fair), and also to Tony, who wasn't here - if he had been I'm guessing it wouldn't have happened.
I don't really like people tinkering with my copy for the sake of tinkering. I do not enjoy the suggestion that you have a better ear or eye for how I want my words to read than I do. Owen, we discussed your turning three of my long sentences into six short ones in a single piece, and how that wasn't going to happen anymore, so I'm really hoping it wasn't you that fucked up my review on saturday.
It was the final sentence. Final sentences are very, very important. A piece builds to them, they are the little jingle that the reader takes with him into the weekend.
I wrote: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for a nosh."
It appeared as: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for nosh."
There is no length issue. This is someone thinking "I'll just remove this indefinite article because Coren is an illiterate cunt and i know best".
Well, you fucking don't.
This was shit, shit sub-editing for three reasons.
1) 'Nosh', as I'm sure you fluent Yiddish speakers know, is a noun formed from a bastardisation of the German 'naschen'. It is a verb, and can be construed into two distinct nouns. One, 'nosh', means simply 'food'. You have decided that this is what i meant and removed the 'a'. I am insulted enough that you think you have a better ear for English than me. But a better ear for Yiddish? I doubt it. Because the other noun, 'nosh' means "a session of eating" - in this sense you might think of its dual valency as being similar to that of 'scoff'. you can go for a scoff. or you can buy some scoff. the sentence you left me with is shit, and is not what i meant. Why would you change a sentnece aso that it meant something i didn't mean? I don't know, but you risk doing it every time you change something. And the way you avoid this kind of fuck up is by not changing a word of my copy without asking me, okay? it's easy. Not. A. Word. Ever.
2) I will now explain why your error is even more shit than it looks. You see, i was making a joke. I do that sometimes. I have set up the street as "sexually-charged". I have described the shenanigans across the road at G.A.Y.. I have used the word 'gaily' as a gentle nudge. And "looking for a nosh" has a secondary meaning of looking for a blowjob. Not specifically gay, for this is soho, and there are plenty of girls there who take money for noshing boys. "looking for nosh" does not have that ambiguity. the joke is gone. I only wrote that sodding paragraph to make that joke. And you've fucking stripped it out like a pissed Irish plasterer restoring a renaissance fresco and thinking jesus looks shit with a bear so plastering over it. You might as well have removed the whole paragraph. I mean, fucking christ, don't you read the copy?
3) And worst of all. 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. When you're winding up a piece of prose, metre is crucial. Can't you hear? Can't you hear that it is wrong? It's not fucking rocket science. It's fucking pre-GCSE scansion. I have written 350 restaurant reviews for The Times and i have never ended on an unstressed syllable. Fuck. fuck, fuck, fuck.
I am sorry if this looks petty (last time i mailed a Times sub about the change of a single word i got in all sorts of trouble) but i care deeply about my work and i hate to have it fucked up by shit subbing. I have been away, you've been subbing joe and hugo and maybe they just file and fuck off and think "hey ho, it's tomorrow's fish and chips" - well, not me. I woke up at three in the morning on sunday and fucking lay there, furious, for two hours. weird, maybe. but that's how it is.
It strips me of all confidence in writing for the magazine. No exaggeration. i've got a review to write this morning and i really don't feel like doing it, for fear that some nuance is going to be removed from the final line, the pay-off, and i'm going to have another weekend ruined for me.
I've been writing for The Times for 15 years and i have never asked this before - i have never asked it of anyone i have written for - but I must insist, from now on, that i am sent a proof of every review i do, in pdf format, so i can check it for fuck-ups. and i must be sent it in good time in case changes are needed. It is the only way i can carry on in the job.
And, just out of interest, I'd like whoever made that change to email me and tell me why. Tell me the exact reasoning which led you to remove that word from my copy.
Right,
Sorry to go on. Anger, real steaming fucking anger can make a man verbose.
All the best
Giles
Monday, June 30, 2008
Who needs those bloody subs anyway?!?!
About 40 editing jobs expected to go at Fairfax
NZPA
Fairfax Media, which owns The Dominion Post and The Press among other publications, today flagged lay-offs of about 40 sub-editors.
The company said it had 190 sub-editors across the group and although initial indications suggested about 40 redundancies, no firm numbers could be given until after a consultation period.
The move is another blow to the news media industry. This month the New Zealand Press Association announced it was cutting seven jobs and last year TVNZ cut nearly 60 news and current affairs jobs while The New Zealand Herald's publisher, APN New Zealand, cut 70 sub-editors in an out-sourcing move.
APN said at the time it w anted to centralise the sub-editing of all its print titles with Pagemasters, which hired up to 50 people.
Fairfax Media said today that the move was part of its plan to have "national centres of expertise" for world, features and business pages on its nine daily newspapers. More generic pages such as the weather and tv pages could follow. MORE
So ... does this represent a slow and steady erosion of the standards of journalism???
NZPA
Fairfax Media, which owns The Dominion Post and The Press among other publications, today flagged lay-offs of about 40 sub-editors.
The company said it had 190 sub-editors across the group and although initial indications suggested about 40 redundancies, no firm numbers could be given until after a consultation period.
The move is another blow to the news media industry. This month the New Zealand Press Association announced it was cutting seven jobs and last year TVNZ cut nearly 60 news and current affairs jobs while The New Zealand Herald's publisher, APN New Zealand, cut 70 sub-editors in an out-sourcing move.
APN said at the time it w anted to centralise the sub-editing of all its print titles with Pagemasters, which hired up to 50 people.
Fairfax Media said today that the move was part of its plan to have "national centres of expertise" for world, features and business pages on its nine daily newspapers. More generic pages such as the weather and tv pages could follow. MORE
So ... does this represent a slow and steady erosion of the standards of journalism???
What Newspapers and Journalism Need Now: Experimentation, Not Nostalgia
By Clay Shirky
Nick Carr is right. Now what?
As new capabilities go, effortless distribution of unlimited perfect copies is a lulu. (Throw in low cost, accessibility to amateurs, and global reach, just for good measure.) Defending businesses based on scarce production is simply special pleading in the face of a change this epochal.
That’s not to say that the beneficiaries of the old system are above a bit of special pleading; indeed, there is a whole literature of newspaper publishers equating their falling revenues with social calamity.
To hear publishers tell it, they are deeply concerned about losing their audience, but the facts don’t bear this out. They’ve been losing their audience since 1984, the year readership first began shrinking (and ten years before the launch of the commercial web.) When their audience was shrinking but their ad revenues were growing, they were mum about social value. Now that the web means their audience is growing again but their ad revenues are falling, they’ve suddenly discovered their civic function. (Next stop: publishers lobbying for federal support on national security grounds. This will happen within two years.) MORE
Nick Carr is right. Now what?
As new capabilities go, effortless distribution of unlimited perfect copies is a lulu. (Throw in low cost, accessibility to amateurs, and global reach, just for good measure.) Defending businesses based on scarce production is simply special pleading in the face of a change this epochal.
That’s not to say that the beneficiaries of the old system are above a bit of special pleading; indeed, there is a whole literature of newspaper publishers equating their falling revenues with social calamity.
To hear publishers tell it, they are deeply concerned about losing their audience, but the facts don’t bear this out. They’ve been losing their audience since 1984, the year readership first began shrinking (and ten years before the launch of the commercial web.) When their audience was shrinking but their ad revenues were growing, they were mum about social value. Now that the web means their audience is growing again but their ad revenues are falling, they’ve suddenly discovered their civic function. (Next stop: publishers lobbying for federal support on national security grounds. This will happen within two years.) MORE
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Illustrators ... to broadcasters
One of my favourite illustrators that's now doing animations is Peter Nicholson of The Australian. You can check out his recent animations at The Australian's website or a full archive of all his work at his personal site.
The Sydney Morning Herald's illustrator Rocco Fazzari has ventured into claymation. I believe his first offering last year was one about Labor's Peter Garrett. I'm hunting around for his latest production ...
The Sydney Morning Herald's illustrator Rocco Fazzari has ventured into claymation. I believe his first offering last year was one about Labor's Peter Garrett. I'm hunting around for his latest production ...
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Britannica Blog: Newspapers & the Net Forum
So here's the first link ...
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/category/newspapers-the-net-forum/
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/category/newspapers-the-net-forum/
So is it all doom and gloom?
I've been collecting bits and pieces here and there about online news media and traditional print and broadcast media, and how the integration between the two is or is not happening.
It's all secondhand stuff really, but I thought I'll collect them all together in one blog ...
So why "brave new world"? It has a negative connotation I suppose, because of Adolf Huxley's book. But does the advent of the internet necessarily mean the demise of journalism? Are we all focusing on the wrong issues? Does an online news website have to be "Kylie's Bum" journalism (as one newspaper colleague said) to be finanically viable (let alone successful)??
It's all secondhand stuff really, but I thought I'll collect them all together in one blog ...
So why "brave new world"? It has a negative connotation I suppose, because of Adolf Huxley's book. But does the advent of the internet necessarily mean the demise of journalism? Are we all focusing on the wrong issues? Does an online news website have to be "Kylie's Bum" journalism (as one newspaper colleague said) to be finanically viable (let alone successful)??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
