My colleague told me about this about a week ago -- this blog post by Adrian Holovaty was written in 2006, but it's spot on in terms of describing the fundamental problem that the media industry, specifically print, has in negotiating technology and the internet.
He looks at the way in which the newspaper industry is presenting and sharing news on the internet. What he suggest in simple -- stop having such a story-centric (read: blob of text) view of the world and look at presenting news/information in different ways, say through databases.
Of course that brings up the question, is this journalism? To which he says:
Journalists should have less of a concern of what is and isn't "journalism," and more of a concern for important, focused information that is useful to people's lives and helps them understand the world. A newspaper ought to be that: a fair look at current, important information for a readership.
Ultimately, he says, newspapers should move away from the story-centric CMS (content management system) and start having CMSs that can "slice and dice" information and collect them in databases, which can then be used help to explain trends, and inform readers. Importantly, it's about enriching the readers' access to information, not about replacing stories.
Read more here:
A fundamental way newspaper sites need to change
Written by Adrian Holovaty on September 6, 2006
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Greenslade on why there's no need for subs
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
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
Monday, February 2, 2009
Bye bye print
Two articles today about the decline of newspapers:
Fall in advertising prompts obituaries
Miriam Steffens, SMH
Just over two years ago The Economist predicted the rise of the digital age would see the last newspaper rolling off the presses some time in early 2043. But as the world slides into recession, the growing number of newspaper casualties has raised fears of a demise much sooner. MORE
Online revenue no match for print costs
Lara Sinclair, The Australian
Newspapers are facing a future where smaller newsrooms will need to turn out smarter reporting in a variety of media, while the printed product is sold at a higher price to fewer advertisers and a smaller paid circulation. But advertising staff, as well as journalists, will need to change the way they work if newspapers are to prosper in the web 3.0 world, according to Caroline Little, chief executive of Guardian News & Media in North America. MORE
Fall in advertising prompts obituaries
Miriam Steffens, SMH
Just over two years ago The Economist predicted the rise of the digital age would see the last newspaper rolling off the presses some time in early 2043. But as the world slides into recession, the growing number of newspaper casualties has raised fears of a demise much sooner. MORE
Online revenue no match for print costs
Lara Sinclair, The Australian
Newspapers are facing a future where smaller newsrooms will need to turn out smarter reporting in a variety of media, while the printed product is sold at a higher price to fewer advertisers and a smaller paid circulation. But advertising staff, as well as journalists, will need to change the way they work if newspapers are to prosper in the web 3.0 world, according to Caroline Little, chief executive of Guardian News & Media in North America. MORE
Monday, January 19, 2009
Learn coding ... does it matter?
Continuing the journalists/developers train of thought ...
This blogger thinks all new journalists should learn how to code. And if you can, you'll be able to code a nice, functional and pretty map like this one on The Guardian.
If I had one piece of advice to a journalist starting out now, it would be: learn to code
Yes, it would. Seriously, if you’re doing one of those courses where they’re making you learn shorthand and so on, take some time to learn to code. MORE
This blogger thinks all new journalists should learn how to code. And if you can, you'll be able to code a nice, functional and pretty map like this one on The Guardian.
If I had one piece of advice to a journalist starting out now, it would be: learn to code
Yes, it would. Seriously, if you’re doing one of those courses where they’re making you learn shorthand and so on, take some time to learn to code. MORE
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The future: journalists-slash-developers?
A good piece on interactives ventures at the nytimes.com website. The way of the future for newspapers, methinks.
The New Journalism: Goosing the Gray Lady
What are these renegade cybergeeks doing at the New York Times? Maybe saving it.
By Emily Nussbaum Published Jan 11, 2009
On the day Barack Obama was elected, a strange new feature appeared on the website of the New York Times. Called the Word Train, it asked a simple question: What one word describes your current state of mind? Readers could enter an adjective or select from a menu of options. They could specify whether they supported McCain or Obama. Below, the results appeared in six rows of adjectives, scrolling left to right, coded red or blue, descending in size of font. The larger the word, the more people felt that way. MORE
The New Journalism: Goosing the Gray Lady
What are these renegade cybergeeks doing at the New York Times? Maybe saving it.
By Emily Nussbaum Published Jan 11, 2009
On the day Barack Obama was elected, a strange new feature appeared on the website of the New York Times. Called the Word Train, it asked a simple question: What one word describes your current state of mind? Readers could enter an adjective or select from a menu of options. They could specify whether they supported McCain or Obama. Below, the results appeared in six rows of adjectives, scrolling left to right, coded red or blue, descending in size of font. The larger the word, the more people felt that way. MORE
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Tribune journos fight back
Reporters From Paper Suing Chief of Tribune
and a media agency head writes about where journalists should turn to for their next pay check:
Future of journalism may be in private companies
and a media agency head writes about where journalists should turn to for their next pay check:
Future of journalism may be in private companies
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, September 2, 2008
ABC's take on the media crisis in Australia
Here are two Australian Broadcasting Corporation stories on the current Fairfax Media cuts and the general decline of the media industry.
1. 7.30 Report
Media industry in crisis as standards decline: Davies
Kerry O’Brien speaks with investigative journalist and author Nick Davies about his new book, Flat Earth News. Davies argues that journalistic standards are declining the world over as cost cutting and government pressures take toll on the industry.
Read transcript.
Watch video of extended interview.
2. Media Watch
Trouble at Fairfax
The rise of the internet and a slowing economy has led to the announcement by Fairfax that it will cut 5% of its workforce in Australia and New Zealand. Will these cuts come at the expense of journalism?
Read transcript.
Watch video.
1. 7.30 Report
Media industry in crisis as standards decline: Davies
Kerry O’Brien speaks with investigative journalist and author Nick Davies about his new book, Flat Earth News. Davies argues that journalistic standards are declining the world over as cost cutting and government pressures take toll on the industry.
Read transcript.
Watch video of extended interview.
2. Media Watch
Trouble at Fairfax
The rise of the internet and a slowing economy has led to the announcement by Fairfax that it will cut 5% of its workforce in Australia and New Zealand. Will these cuts come at the expense of journalism?
Read transcript.
Watch video.
Monday, September 1, 2008
The digital side of Fairfax
Fairfax Digital is growing while Fairfax Media is being cut - that's the latest news coming out of the Australian media company. But how effective are the advertising and profit models at the moment. Can the company evolve into a digital information company?
Bright future for Fairfax Media digital division
Michael Sainsbury | September 01, 2008
FAIRFAX Media's booming digital division -- which provided the only bright spot in disappointing recent financials -- is gearing up to grab a slice of $3.3 billion in television advertising as the Australian internet industry moves towards a cohesive audience measurement system.
The Fairfax digital division, which will escape the axe-wielding announced at its Australian and New Zealand broadsheets, boosted profits by more than 50 per cent in Australia and New Zealand and is adding more staff to its existing 600.
In the days after Fairfax's main newspaper group announced staff cuts of 550 people, or 5 per cent of the workforce, Fairfax Digital chief Jack Matthews said the division had added about 100 people in the 2008 financial year.
Mr Matthews said staff growth would continue next year, although not at such a fast rate, and the group could pick up people who had lost their jobs in the newspaper division.
"We are operating in a very different environment but the same kind of pressures to be efficient and cost-effective exist here," Mr Matthews said.
"It's not like we have a blank chequebook. One difference is that our industry and our market are still high-growth areas and we need to invest in that growth.
"Even though revenue growth slowed a bit in the second half, year on year, the bottom line increased in the second half." MORE
Bright future for Fairfax Media digital division
Michael Sainsbury | September 01, 2008
FAIRFAX Media's booming digital division -- which provided the only bright spot in disappointing recent financials -- is gearing up to grab a slice of $3.3 billion in television advertising as the Australian internet industry moves towards a cohesive audience measurement system.
The Fairfax digital division, which will escape the axe-wielding announced at its Australian and New Zealand broadsheets, boosted profits by more than 50 per cent in Australia and New Zealand and is adding more staff to its existing 600.
In the days after Fairfax's main newspaper group announced staff cuts of 550 people, or 5 per cent of the workforce, Fairfax Digital chief Jack Matthews said the division had added about 100 people in the 2008 financial year.
Mr Matthews said staff growth would continue next year, although not at such a fast rate, and the group could pick up people who had lost their jobs in the newspaper division.
"We are operating in a very different environment but the same kind of pressures to be efficient and cost-effective exist here," Mr Matthews said.
"It's not like we have a blank chequebook. One difference is that our industry and our market are still high-growth areas and we need to invest in that growth.
"Even though revenue growth slowed a bit in the second half, year on year, the bottom line increased in the second half." MORE
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Are journalists just 'content providers for advertising platforms'?
First, the latest news, Australia's federal workplace minister expresses concerns about the strike:
(AAP) Fairfax strike of concern: Gillard
FEDERAL Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard says she is concerned about the industrial dispute affecting Fairfax daily newspapers and wants quality and diversity to be maintained in the media.
Journalists from Fairfax are on strike because of management plans to axe 550 jobs.
Ms Gillard told Network Ten today she was "concerned'' by the developments.
"I am someone who is concerned about the quality and diversity of our media market.''
The deputy prime minister called on both parties to talk.
"There's never been an industrial dispute in this country that wasn't solved by talking.
"I think when we look at the Fairfax dispute we need to remember that rule.''
And more editorial in support of The Sydney Morning Herald, this time from its rival paper The Daily Telegraph.
The Fairfax job cuts and the dragging down of an icon
Silver Surfer
Saturday, August 30, 2008 at 09:13pm
The shenanigans of the past week at Fairfax, publishers of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald where journos, artists and photographers are on strike over plans for mass sackings, are another example of a big company putting its profits before people, but in this case we’re not just talking about its staff. There’s the loyal core of readers to consider in this as well, and it’s a key issue here because media companies really are a different kind of animal. Be that as it may, it’s still a classic case of the old muddle-headed, knee-jerk reverse thinking that too often seems to provide a quick and easy answer to the executives of corporate Australia, who appear to the average punter more interested in saving their own bonuses and delivering dividends to shareholders than doing the right thing in the first place by their customers, staff and clients.
There’s no doubt here they’ve run out of ideas; advertising revenues are down, no one’s buying the product – at least not in the numbers required to make them highly profitable operations, and readership has been on a steady decline – and so the only answer they can come up with is to make the situation worse by giving everyone the flick. Smart move. The so-called rivers of gold once provided by Fairfax’s classified advertising obviously aren’t translating to a challenging, new era in media brought about by the digital explosion, and even before last week’s announcement, staff numbers had been pared back.
One of the worst things about these kinds of disputes (at any company) is that invariably, the axe falls on the people who are working their guts out to put out a decent product, not the people who’ve either run them into the ground in the first place or who are more interested in stripping them down to increase returns. The staff at Fairfax now face a kind of nail-biting reverse lottery with 550 job cuts on the cards and too many will be wondering in the coming weeks whether they can still pay their mortgages. It won’t be an issue for the executives, though - they’ll still be pocketing the big paypackets and carrying on as usual. For now, anyway. MORE
(AAP) Fairfax strike of concern: Gillard
FEDERAL Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard says she is concerned about the industrial dispute affecting Fairfax daily newspapers and wants quality and diversity to be maintained in the media.
Journalists from Fairfax are on strike because of management plans to axe 550 jobs.
Ms Gillard told Network Ten today she was "concerned'' by the developments.
"I am someone who is concerned about the quality and diversity of our media market.''
The deputy prime minister called on both parties to talk.
"There's never been an industrial dispute in this country that wasn't solved by talking.
"I think when we look at the Fairfax dispute we need to remember that rule.''
And more editorial in support of The Sydney Morning Herald, this time from its rival paper The Daily Telegraph.
The Fairfax job cuts and the dragging down of an icon
Silver Surfer
Saturday, August 30, 2008 at 09:13pm
The shenanigans of the past week at Fairfax, publishers of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald where journos, artists and photographers are on strike over plans for mass sackings, are another example of a big company putting its profits before people, but in this case we’re not just talking about its staff. There’s the loyal core of readers to consider in this as well, and it’s a key issue here because media companies really are a different kind of animal. Be that as it may, it’s still a classic case of the old muddle-headed, knee-jerk reverse thinking that too often seems to provide a quick and easy answer to the executives of corporate Australia, who appear to the average punter more interested in saving their own bonuses and delivering dividends to shareholders than doing the right thing in the first place by their customers, staff and clients.
There’s no doubt here they’ve run out of ideas; advertising revenues are down, no one’s buying the product – at least not in the numbers required to make them highly profitable operations, and readership has been on a steady decline – and so the only answer they can come up with is to make the situation worse by giving everyone the flick. Smart move. The so-called rivers of gold once provided by Fairfax’s classified advertising obviously aren’t translating to a challenging, new era in media brought about by the digital explosion, and even before last week’s announcement, staff numbers had been pared back.
One of the worst things about these kinds of disputes (at any company) is that invariably, the axe falls on the people who are working their guts out to put out a decent product, not the people who’ve either run them into the ground in the first place or who are more interested in stripping them down to increase returns. The staff at Fairfax now face a kind of nail-biting reverse lottery with 550 job cuts on the cards and too many will be wondering in the coming weeks whether they can still pay their mortgages. It won’t be an issue for the executives, though - they’ll still be pocketing the big paypackets and carrying on as usual. For now, anyway. MORE
Quality v quantity
With the impending Fairfax cuts in Australia comes more opinion pieces about the future of journalism. This one from Jack Waterford in The Canberra Times is one of the better ones I have read.
I like what he writes right at the end:
"The real test of it all is not with newspaper bottom lines. It is with circulation and readership, bearing in mind that the core readership is of baby boomer age or of the generation above it. By no means does it follow that younger journalists will have lower standards. Or that the simultaneous renewed focus on ''new media'' means that proprietors have given newspapers away. But if 50-year-olds are not comfortable with being informed, or hectored, by 25-year-olds, it is likely the demise of the newspaper will be quicker."
The real threat to newspapers comes from quality not quantity
BY JACK WATERFORD
30/08/2008 10:14:00 AM
The big challenge for any professional journalist, particularly in a city such as Canberra, is that a good proportion of readers probably more than 30 per cent here know more about your subject than you do.
They know the subject because it is their job to know it. That job, perhaps in the public service, or business, or academia, gives them access to a lot of other information, including most of our sources of raw information. If the subject is within their field of interest, they may well have already skimmed the latest information upon it even before they pick up this newspaper, or another one. MORE
I like what he writes right at the end:
"The real test of it all is not with newspaper bottom lines. It is with circulation and readership, bearing in mind that the core readership is of baby boomer age or of the generation above it. By no means does it follow that younger journalists will have lower standards. Or that the simultaneous renewed focus on ''new media'' means that proprietors have given newspapers away. But if 50-year-olds are not comfortable with being informed, or hectored, by 25-year-olds, it is likely the demise of the newspaper will be quicker."
The real threat to newspapers comes from quality not quantity
BY JACK WATERFORD
30/08/2008 10:14:00 AM
The big challenge for any professional journalist, particularly in a city such as Canberra, is that a good proportion of readers probably more than 30 per cent here know more about your subject than you do.
They know the subject because it is their job to know it. That job, perhaps in the public service, or business, or academia, gives them access to a lot of other information, including most of our sources of raw information. If the subject is within their field of interest, they may well have already skimmed the latest information upon it even before they pick up this newspaper, or another one. MORE
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Cuts in Australian media
It seems, not surprisingly, that the move to pear down newspaper staff is spreading from the US and UK to smaller markets like Australia.
Fairfax media is commencing a major restructuring program of the mastheads in its stable in Australia and New Zealand, including The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
Is it the management's only option - in a climate of declining profit margins - to cut staff and downsize the editorial process? I would venture to say that yes, a restructuring may be necessary, to prime the company towards new media and importantly, other platforms, but that there should be a move towards specialist journalism, eg. more high-end analysis type articles for a market that is willing to pay, rather than towards more general reporting and lifetyle-type features. I think it's important to note that general news and entertainment/lifestyle stories can be eaily obtained from other sources on the internet, mobile, cable TV etc and people will not buy the paper for such news.
On the other hand, more exclusive stories and analysis pieces geared towards an Australian market could possibly give media companies like Fairfax a future. Examples like the success of The Economist are encouraging.
But this might also be a simple case of the demise of the daily broadsheet as a source of general news, local, state, national and international. Who knows - the market might become much more fractured, and people will choose to get information from a wider variety of sources. eg. their mobile phone for breaking news, their e-paper or iphone/PDA for longer stories, their computer at work for photos, multimedia and other feature stories, and the news in the evening on telly for a round-up of the day's news. Once a week, they'll read The Guardian Weekly, National Geographic Magazine or The Economist for a in-depth feature.
As it is, a majority of my peers (in the 18-30 age category) do not buy newspapers. They do read news websites that have articles/images/multimedia for free. They listen to commercial radio and television news, and sometimes watch documentaries on SBS, ABC and on cable television channels like the Discovery network. And some still read the weekend newspapers that have more analysis and feature articles.
I don't deny that I will miss the daily broadsheet. To me, it's like books, having a physical product has a certain attraction. But I myself am more of a news consumer online, on cable news channels like BBC and CNN, and of radio podcasts and television current affairs programs. And I'm a very heavy consumer - most people out that don't care if a newspaper collapses or a journalist loses their job.
So if a media company like Fairfax, which also owns websites like rsvp.com.au, domain.com.au and trademe.co.nz, evolves to become an information company and not a newspaper or news driven company, don't be surprised.
The journalists' union Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has set up a Fair Go, Fairfax website and a facebook group, which currently has more than 1000 members.
Articles about Fairfax's cuts:
Fairfax Media legal unit also gets chopped in job axings
Citizen McCarthy swings Fairfax axe
Fairfax newspaper production to be outsourced
Strike paper on Friday, August 29:
Video of Fairfax campaign:
Fairfax media is commencing a major restructuring program of the mastheads in its stable in Australia and New Zealand, including The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
Is it the management's only option - in a climate of declining profit margins - to cut staff and downsize the editorial process? I would venture to say that yes, a restructuring may be necessary, to prime the company towards new media and importantly, other platforms, but that there should be a move towards specialist journalism, eg. more high-end analysis type articles for a market that is willing to pay, rather than towards more general reporting and lifetyle-type features. I think it's important to note that general news and entertainment/lifestyle stories can be eaily obtained from other sources on the internet, mobile, cable TV etc and people will not buy the paper for such news.
On the other hand, more exclusive stories and analysis pieces geared towards an Australian market could possibly give media companies like Fairfax a future. Examples like the success of The Economist are encouraging.
But this might also be a simple case of the demise of the daily broadsheet as a source of general news, local, state, national and international. Who knows - the market might become much more fractured, and people will choose to get information from a wider variety of sources. eg. their mobile phone for breaking news, their e-paper or iphone/PDA for longer stories, their computer at work for photos, multimedia and other feature stories, and the news in the evening on telly for a round-up of the day's news. Once a week, they'll read The Guardian Weekly, National Geographic Magazine or The Economist for a in-depth feature.
As it is, a majority of my peers (in the 18-30 age category) do not buy newspapers. They do read news websites that have articles/images/multimedia for free. They listen to commercial radio and television news, and sometimes watch documentaries on SBS, ABC and on cable television channels like the Discovery network. And some still read the weekend newspapers that have more analysis and feature articles.
I don't deny that I will miss the daily broadsheet. To me, it's like books, having a physical product has a certain attraction. But I myself am more of a news consumer online, on cable news channels like BBC and CNN, and of radio podcasts and television current affairs programs. And I'm a very heavy consumer - most people out that don't care if a newspaper collapses or a journalist loses their job.
So if a media company like Fairfax, which also owns websites like rsvp.com.au, domain.com.au and trademe.co.nz, evolves to become an information company and not a newspaper or news driven company, don't be surprised.
The journalists' union Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has set up a Fair Go, Fairfax website and a facebook group, which currently has more than 1000 members.
Articles about Fairfax's cuts:
Fairfax Media legal unit also gets chopped in job axings
Citizen McCarthy swings Fairfax axe
Fairfax newspaper production to be outsourced
Strike paper on Friday, August 29:
Video of Fairfax campaign:
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
Sydney tackles online media
New setup that I stumbled across on Facebook. First meeting of Media in the Pub is at Surry Hills on August 26. Let's hope it's a useful discussion about the future of journalism in Australia.
I find, personally anyway, that often these types of discussions focus on "oh, all you have online is stuff about Kylie etc" and don't focus on what can actually be done to save jobs. And of course how our industry is changing. Also big questions. But we can't ignore the internet, or change what's happening in the industry right? So why not work on the solutions, alternatives instead?
I find, personally anyway, that often these types of discussions focus on "oh, all you have online is stuff about Kylie etc" and don't focus on what can actually be done to save jobs. And of course how our industry is changing. Also big questions. But we can't ignore the internet, or change what's happening in the industry right? So why not work on the solutions, alternatives instead?
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
Monday, July 21, 2008
'Things are happening at the speed of light'
An uncertain future? What's going to happen next? Is the uncertainty of not knowing if your industry, job, etc is gonna be around good cos it promotes inventiveness, or is it just waaaay too depressing? Like this bit at the end of the article:
Many said, though, that they were uncertain improved editorial content would ensure a bright future — especially since most organizations failed to anticipate the changes that have wracked newsrooms in recent years.
Only 5 percent of the editors surveyed said they were confident they could predict what the newsroom would look like in five years.
"I feel I'm being catapulted into another world, a world I don't really understand," Virginian-Pilot editor Dennis Finley told PEJ. "Things are happening at the speed of light."
Study: shrinking newsrooms hurting papers' quality
NEW YORK (AP) — The many and deepening cuts at newspapers across the country are starting to take a toll on their content, according to a study being released Monday.
The challenge newspapers must meet immediately is to find more revenue on the Internet, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's study, called "The Changing Newsroom: What is Being Gained and What is Being Lost in America's Daily Newspapers."
Newspaper managers need to "find a way to monetize the rapid growth of Web readership before newsroom staff cuts so weaken newspapers that their competitive advantage disappears."
Stories are shorter overall, the study found, and staff coverage tends to focus on local and community news.
"America's newspapers are narrowing their reach and their ambitions and becoming niche reads," the study said.
Even when foreign and national news makes it into the papers, it is being relegated to less prominent pages.
"To make the front page, it has to be a significant development or a story that we can see through Florida eyes," said Sharon Rosenhause, managing editor of the Fort Lauderdale-based South Florida Sun-Sentinel and a longtime newspaper executive.
The reasons for the newsroom cutbacks are well known: Newsprint costs have jumped, and advertising and circulation revenue have quickened their descent this year as advertisers follow readers online. Newspaper Web sites capture only a small fraction of the revenue lost as they sell fewer print ads, which fetch more money. MORE
Many said, though, that they were uncertain improved editorial content would ensure a bright future — especially since most organizations failed to anticipate the changes that have wracked newsrooms in recent years.
Only 5 percent of the editors surveyed said they were confident they could predict what the newsroom would look like in five years.
"I feel I'm being catapulted into another world, a world I don't really understand," Virginian-Pilot editor Dennis Finley told PEJ. "Things are happening at the speed of light."
Study: shrinking newsrooms hurting papers' quality
NEW YORK (AP) — The many and deepening cuts at newspapers across the country are starting to take a toll on their content, according to a study being released Monday.
The challenge newspapers must meet immediately is to find more revenue on the Internet, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's study, called "The Changing Newsroom: What is Being Gained and What is Being Lost in America's Daily Newspapers."
Newspaper managers need to "find a way to monetize the rapid growth of Web readership before newsroom staff cuts so weaken newspapers that their competitive advantage disappears."
Stories are shorter overall, the study found, and staff coverage tends to focus on local and community news.
"America's newspapers are narrowing their reach and their ambitions and becoming niche reads," the study said.
Even when foreign and national news makes it into the papers, it is being relegated to less prominent pages.
"To make the front page, it has to be a significant development or a story that we can see through Florida eyes," said Sharon Rosenhause, managing editor of the Fort Lauderdale-based South Florida Sun-Sentinel and a longtime newspaper executive.
The reasons for the newsroom cutbacks are well known: Newsprint costs have jumped, and advertising and circulation revenue have quickened their descent this year as advertisers follow readers online. Newspaper Web sites capture only a small fraction of the revenue lost as they sell fewer print ads, which fetch more money. MORE
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Outsourcing subbing? Where else but India
Remember this company folks - Mindworks. It's one of the first Indian companies to do copyediting for US newspapers from India, and it certainly wouldn't be the last.
Copyediting? Ship the Work Out to India
Not far from New Delhi, Mindworks now has eight overseas clients, and it's mounting a big effort to go after more U.S. publications
by Nandini Lakshman
In a squat, gray building in Noida, a leading outsourcing destination 15 miles from New Delhi, is the headquarters of Mindworks Global Media. Here, 90 young men and women peer into their computers, editing copy, designing and laying out pages, and even reporting over the phone. Mindworks isn't a new publication. It's a company to which media groups in Asia, Europe, and the U.S.—including the Miami Herald and South China Morning Post—outsource work that journalists and copyeditors usually do. The Mindworks staff works two to three shifts a day, seven days a week. Tony Joseph, 46, an editor-turned-entrepreneur, is Mindworks' founder and chief executive. He sometimes drops by at 6 a.m. to see his employees, just when U.S. clients are putting their papers to bed.
Mindworks has been handling outsourcing assignments from non-Indian publishers for four years. It expects plenty more business as the cost-cutting in U.S. and European print media grinds on. Some Western publishers do their outsourcing in-house—Thomson Reuters (TRI), for instance, has moved basic Wall Street reporting on U.S., European, and Gulf equities to a new bureau in Bangalore. But other media companies prefer to outsource to the Indians directly. On June 24, Mindworks made global headlines when the Associated Press reported that the company had taken on copyediting and layout work for a couple of publications owned by the California media publishing group Orange County Register Communications. MORE
Copyediting? Ship the Work Out to India
Not far from New Delhi, Mindworks now has eight overseas clients, and it's mounting a big effort to go after more U.S. publications
by Nandini Lakshman
In a squat, gray building in Noida, a leading outsourcing destination 15 miles from New Delhi, is the headquarters of Mindworks Global Media. Here, 90 young men and women peer into their computers, editing copy, designing and laying out pages, and even reporting over the phone. Mindworks isn't a new publication. It's a company to which media groups in Asia, Europe, and the U.S.—including the Miami Herald and South China Morning Post—outsource work that journalists and copyeditors usually do. The Mindworks staff works two to three shifts a day, seven days a week. Tony Joseph, 46, an editor-turned-entrepreneur, is Mindworks' founder and chief executive. He sometimes drops by at 6 a.m. to see his employees, just when U.S. clients are putting their papers to bed.
Mindworks has been handling outsourcing assignments from non-Indian publishers for four years. It expects plenty more business as the cost-cutting in U.S. and European print media grinds on. Some Western publishers do their outsourcing in-house—Thomson Reuters (TRI), for instance, has moved basic Wall Street reporting on U.S., European, and Gulf equities to a new bureau in Bangalore. But other media companies prefer to outsource to the Indians directly. On June 24, Mindworks made global headlines when the Associated Press reported that the company had taken on copyediting and layout work for a couple of publications owned by the California media publishing group Orange County Register Communications. MORE
Sunday, July 6, 2008
... but Greenslade says don't lose hope
Memo to journalists: don't be depressed by falling paper profits, the future is ours
I have attended four newspaper conferences in the past couple of months - in Italy, Australia, Sweden and Serbia - all of which have been dominated, in varying degrees, by concern about the immediate future. Some owners, managers and editors have been in denial, arguing that things are better than they appear.
In their view, newsprint is here to stay, though all have grasped that it cannot stand alone. Most have signed up to multi-platform journalism, though they generally see online as complementary rather than a viable replacement.
Others have been more rational, claiming that newsprint is on its way out. For them, it is only a matter of time before the online alternative replaces paper altogether. But they, like their less radical colleagues, tend to view the problem through the prism of commerce.
What exercises almost everyone connected to the newspaper industry - and industry is the key word here - is the belief that websites cannot generate anything like the revenue enjoyed by media companies throughout the last century (more properly, the last 60 years). They are cast down by their inability to "monetise the net".
Why the worry? Profits, of course. Online news sites will never generate the kind of money that has made newspaper ownership so lucrative. Corporate owners in Britain and the US - along with their investors - have revelled in achieving 30% plus profit margins in the past and cannot conceive of lower returns. The investors, ruthless and logical, are looking elsewhere for higher dividends. The owners are left with companies facing declining revenue amid a technological revolution they do not want and cannot control.
Meanwhile, many journalists who have grown used to the idea that their work is inextricably linked to profitable enterprises are scratching their heads. They cannot conceive of a journalism that is gradually freeing itself from the yoke of commerce. Without business, without profits, who will pay their wages? Who will fund the foreign assignments? Who will provide the resources for long-form investigative journalism?
ADVERTISING SLUMP HITS REGIONALS
Such journalistic anxiety is understandable, but it is no good wailing about it. We have to envisage a future with an entirely new business model based on smaller returns that will fund a small, high quality staff, probably serving niche markets. (The days of mass media may well be over). But we have to admit to ourselves first that things will never be as they were in the last millennium. MORE
What do you think?
I have attended four newspaper conferences in the past couple of months - in Italy, Australia, Sweden and Serbia - all of which have been dominated, in varying degrees, by concern about the immediate future. Some owners, managers and editors have been in denial, arguing that things are better than they appear.
In their view, newsprint is here to stay, though all have grasped that it cannot stand alone. Most have signed up to multi-platform journalism, though they generally see online as complementary rather than a viable replacement.
Others have been more rational, claiming that newsprint is on its way out. For them, it is only a matter of time before the online alternative replaces paper altogether. But they, like their less radical colleagues, tend to view the problem through the prism of commerce.
What exercises almost everyone connected to the newspaper industry - and industry is the key word here - is the belief that websites cannot generate anything like the revenue enjoyed by media companies throughout the last century (more properly, the last 60 years). They are cast down by their inability to "monetise the net".
Why the worry? Profits, of course. Online news sites will never generate the kind of money that has made newspaper ownership so lucrative. Corporate owners in Britain and the US - along with their investors - have revelled in achieving 30% plus profit margins in the past and cannot conceive of lower returns. The investors, ruthless and logical, are looking elsewhere for higher dividends. The owners are left with companies facing declining revenue amid a technological revolution they do not want and cannot control.
Meanwhile, many journalists who have grown used to the idea that their work is inextricably linked to profitable enterprises are scratching their heads. They cannot conceive of a journalism that is gradually freeing itself from the yoke of commerce. Without business, without profits, who will pay their wages? Who will fund the foreign assignments? Who will provide the resources for long-form investigative journalism?
ADVERTISING SLUMP HITS REGIONALS
Such journalistic anxiety is understandable, but it is no good wailing about it. We have to envisage a future with an entirely new business model based on smaller returns that will fund a small, high quality staff, probably serving niche markets. (The days of mass media may well be over). But we have to admit to ourselves first that things will never be as they were in the last millennium. MORE
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
