MediaBlog

#Poynter #PolitiFact and St. Pete Times: Overblown blowhards?

2011-12-23T20:21:00.003-06:00

Between deliberately slapping ESPN in the face at times just to prove it's a good contract/consultant ombudsman, between financially affiliated St. Petersburg Times getting ready to call itself the Tampa ("Bay, if you will") Times while the Tampa Tribune still publishes, and other things, I'm beyond skeptical to cynical about both the paper and the media institute.

The latest? Its/their PolitiFact have awarded the claim that the GOP wants to kill Medicare the lie of the year, then said that the raft of objections to that award is all just from liberals being in an echo chamber.

Oh, technically, the GOP doesn't want to directly kill Medicare. But, privatization of it? Everybody with a brain knows that is exactly what will happen.

Basically, PolitiFact descends into he said/she said journalism:

We stand by our story and our conclusion that the claim was the most significant falsehood of 2011. We made no judgments on the merits of the Ryan plan; we just said that the characterization by the Democrats was false.

That's exactly the problem: Politifact made no judgment on the merits of the Ryan plan. Krugman's right: RIP PolitiFact. And, as far as I am concerned, everything else in the Poynter/St. Pete Times stable.

Is #AP prostituting itself?

2011-12-14T23:11:00.002-06:00

Possibly, if you look at this story:

The Associated Press said Wednesday that it has entered into a partnership with WhoSay Inc., a company that helps celebrities manage interactions with fans through social networks and traditional media outlets.

The AP will give celebrities who are members of WhoSay the option to provide exclusive, personal photos and videos to the AP for licensing to major media companies worldwide. ...

The company puts celebrities in greater control of —and offers the opportunity to profit from— their photographic lives. It also allows them to spread their social media posts easily across sites like Twitter and Facebook. As an example, (Sofia ) Vergara posted a picture of a family lunch in Miami last month. The photo has a copyright symbol, indicating she owns it and can make money from it if, say, a magazine wants to publish it.

At the least, it sounds like it's cheapening itself. Basically, WhoSay looks like an elitist version of Twitter. Which makes it look very much like AP is doing celebrity butt-kissing. Great. AP's entertainment feed will look like TMZ soon.

And, shock me that Dean Singleton, as ongoing chairman of the board (who should have been canned when MediaNews filed Chapter 11) would think this is a wonderful idea. Hell, look at AP's whole board of directors.

Singleton/MediaNews? Chapter 11. Mary Junck/Lee Enterprises? Chapter 11. Donna J. Barrett/CNHI? Should be in Chapter 11, but, being owned by the Alabama state pension system, probably can't be. Craig A. Dubow/Gannett? Should be. Still doing mandatory furloughs, isn't it? Michael Golden/New York Times? The company that has a fake paywall and lies about it. Paul C. Tash/St. Petersburg Times? Lives on its Poynter reputation. Katharine Weymouth/Washington Post? Would be in Chapter 11 if not for Kaplan. Gary Pruitt/McClatchy? Wouldn't surprise me if it winds up there.

As Michael Hirschorn at The Atlantic notes, it's precisely strategies like this that have made the general public undervalue daily newspapers for years if not decades. Add in the AP board originally selling its content to online aggregators for pennies, and the circle is complete.

Court: Blogger isn't journalist - he may be right

2011-12-07T22:41:00.001-06:00

Let's see the new media fluffers' take on this:

A federal judge in Oregon has ruled that a Montana woman sued for defamation was not a journalist when she posted online that an Oregon lawyer acted criminally during a bankruptcy case, a decision with implications for bloggers around the country.

Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., was sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick when she posted online that he was a thug and a thief during the handling of bankruptcy proceedings by him and Obsidian Finance Group LLC.

U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.

Is this just a matter of Oregon needing a better shield law? That's one claim.

“My advice to bloggers operating in the state of Oregon is lobby to get your shield law improved so bloggers are covered,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Dalgish may or may not be right on that. She is right on this:

“But do not expect the shield law to provide you a defense in a libel case where you want to rely on an anonymous source for that information.”

That's because Hernandez went further:

The judge ruled that Cox was not protected by Oregon’s shield law from having to produce sources, saying even though Cox defines herself as media, she was not affiliated with any mainstream outlet. He added that the shield law does not apply to civil actions for defamation.

But, Dalgish is not guaranteed to be right on this, if Cox is indeed not a journalist.

Now, contra new media fluffers who accuse old media of trying to maintain a guild system, I'm not doing that.

Let's read WHY Hernandez ruled as he did:

Hernandez said Cox was not a journalist because she offered no professional qualifications as a journalist or legitimate news outlet. She had no journalism education, credentials or affiliation with a recognized news outlet, proof of adhering to journalistic standards such as editing or checking her facts, evidence she produced an independent product or evidence she ever tried to get both sides of the story.

Emphasis on the last clauses are mine. Hernandez, although he appears to start from the "guild" point of view himself, goes beyond that to use generally recognized journalistic standards as a large portion of his decision.

And Cox's response, if anything, justifies Hernandez's decision:

Cox said she considered herself a journalist, producing more than 400 blogs over the past five years, with a proprietary technique to get her postings on the top of search engines where they get the most notice.

“What could be more mainstream than the Internet and the top of the search engine?” she said.

Let's try riffs on that:
1. Twenty years ago: What could be more mainstream than junk mail and a filled mailbox?
2. Sixty years ago: What could be more mainstream than Joe McCarthy and a stack of papers waved in one's hand?
3. Seventy-five years ago: What could be more mainstream than Father Coughlin?
I think you get the drift.

I'm sure Dalgish's organization and others will file amicus briefs in any appeal, but, really, they shouldn't. Both for the actual defendant and for the material facts involved.

Here's my response.

First, blogging may be journalism. It isn't automatically journalism. That's reason one professional media organizations should be wary of offering amicus briefs in this case, at least without actually taking a look at Cox's blog first.

Second, I'd potentially partially disagree with the judge that that plaintiff is not a public figure. I'd have to see the details of how big his tax shelter advice was, whether he's a defendant in the fraud case against some of his advisees and other things. He may be a public figure.

This isn't a slam-dunk one way or the other, unlike the Houston-area blogger of a few years ago, who was reporting on a criminal case, a felony, and using anonymous sources.. There's no indication that Cox was even using anonymous sources, or doing anything more than writing opinion pieces. And, even if attorney Patrick IS a public figure, while case law cuts more latitude on opinion pages in conventional newspapers and magazines, even there, there isn't a license to libel.

Given that Cox is using a "proprietary technique," which is probably called paying $99 to some SEO optimizer outfit, and boasts about that, she's not a journalist from where I stand, and probably stands guilty of the failings of effort Hernandez found.

I do agree with media analysts that a case like this shows we need SCOTUS to eventually wade in. BUT, this case ain't the vehicle for it.

New media fluffers profit from dissing old media?

2011-12-03T20:45:00.001-06:00

Just wow .... Columbia Journalism Review takes Clay Shirky, Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, et al, to the cleaners. And, the article is very good overall, not just in the claim that these and other new media fluffer leaders, through consulting fees, teaching at public universities, etc., profit, and perhaps hypocritically, by being old media dissers.

And, it's one thing to disagree on what the future of media should be. It's another to profit off of saying what the media SHOULD be, while pretending to be disinterested. And, it's yet another to ignore "concentration" in social media, ethics issues at some social media, and other factors.

Item No. 2 in the paragraph above is why I largely not just mistrust but actually dislike new media fluffers, at least the new media fluffing part of their personalities. Hey, I'm not denying the right to make a buck. BUT, be honest that your new media fluffing is anything but disinterested.

Anway, let's take a look at CJR.

I'm going to run a string of a few quotes, then start commenting;

The establishment is gloomy and old; the (Future Of Newspapers) consensus is hopeful and young (or purports to represent youth). The establishment has no plan. The FON consensus says no plan is the plan. The establishment drones on about rules and standards; the FON thinkers talk about freedom and informality. FON says “cheap” and “free”; the establishment asks for your credit card number. FON talks about “networks,” “communities,” and “love”; the establishment mutters about “institutions,” like The New York Times or mental hospitals....

The problem is that journalism’s true value-creating work, the keystone of American journalism, the principle around which it is organized, is public-interest reporting; the kind that is usually expensive, risky, stressful, and time-consuming. ...

Not only does the FON consensus have little to say about public-service journalism, it is in many ways antithetical to it. For one thing, its anti-institutionalism would disempower journalism. Jarvis and Shirky in particular have reveled in the role of intellectual undertakers/grief counselors to the newspaper industry, which, for all its many failings, has traditionally carried the public-service load.

So far, I'm in total agreement. The FON crowd largely ignores costs and overheads, as do many of their fellow travelers. And, by over-touting social media, etc., can trivialize news. (See below.)

And, is there a solution? Solutions?

Many of Shirky’s prescriptions for the economics of journalism are commonsensical and even wise. A point I find inarguable is that while some news models have been found to work in some contexts-—The Wall Street Journal’s pay wall, ProPublica’s fund-raising model (basically, one big donor), Talking Points Memo’s online ad-based system—nothing to date is scalable. There is no news business “model” at all. And who can argue with his call for constant experimentation?

I would tend to agree. And, that's why I'm not always as hard on this aspect of Shirky's thought as on Rosen's or Jarvis'.

Meanwhile, is the FON crowd counter-cultural? The story suggests so:

If some aspects of peer-production theory and its FON offshoot sound familiar—anti-institutionalism; communitarianism laced with libertarianism; a millennial, Age-of-Aquarius vibe; a certain militancy—some scholars have traced its roots to 1960s counterculture.

I'd say look to today, instead; Shirky, et al, sound like the utopian wing of Occupy Wall Street.

Meanwhile, CJR gets to "throwing under the bus" time, saying Jarvis, as example, and most the FON crowd are ... hypocritical leeches:

Like other FON thinkers, he lives the contradiction of extolling peer production and volunteerism from the security of an institution. It is doubly jarring in Jarvis’s case; an opponent of publicly funded journalism, his journalistic entrepreneurialism is, in fact, publicly subsidized. The “C” in CUNY stands for “City.”

CJR then raises a related issue: the claim that news is a commodity. Of course, the FON crowd starts with one half of Steward Brand's famous quote:

Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine - too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, 'intellectual property', the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better.

And, of course, the FON crowd is coming down emphatically, and simplistically, IMO, on the "free" side. That's why they fight paywalls, diss micropayments and other things. But, as the CJR story notes, paywalls are working, and getting adopted by more and more dailies.

Meanwhile, here's more of that intellectual dishonesty:

I would note that there’s a point at which predicting institutional decline blurs into rooting for it, and then morphs into hastening it along, as the anti-pay wall debate shows. ... “We need the new news environment to be chaotic” to facilitate experimentation, Shirky writes. In fact, though, only consultants “need” the news environment to be chaotic.

CJN's Starkman goes on to say he expects some "media establishment" to remain in place for quite some time.

I’m going to make a bold leap and predict—eenie meenie chili beanie—that for a long time the Future of News is going to look unnervingly like the Present of News: hobbled news organizations, limping along, supplemented by swarms of new media outlets doing their best. It’s not sexy, but that’s journalism for you.

And, here's why he's at least halfway comfortable with that statement:

It pays to remember that the most triumphalist FON works were written in 2008 and 2009, during journalism’s time of maximum panic. But now, panic time is over.

It is ... and as he says, "muddling" time continues. And, that is no thanks to the FON crowd:

The cruel truth of the emerging networked news environment is that reporters are as disempowered as they have ever been, writing more often, under more pressure, with less autonomy, about more trivial things than under the previous monopolistic regime. Indeed, if one were looking for ways to undermine reporters in their work, FON ideas would be a good place to start.

Indeed, especially about the trivialization. Working at a newspaper that thinks Facebook and Twitter posting will magically fix things seems to illustrate that. When everything is news, nothing is.

Finally, Starkman says that what he calls "Neo-institutional journalism" can be rebuilt, but that it will take work.

Shirky responds, but, IMO, as a kinder, gentler Jarvis more than anything else.

Beyond that, the new media fluffers fail to address how social media, Internet 2.0, etc. threaten us all, not just journalists, with being crushed beneath the wheel, whether like in Hesse's novel of that name or some other way.

What went wrong at the Mercury News?

2011-11-17T22:20:00.001-06:00

An early online innovator. Great reporting by the likes of Gary Webb (before the Merc threw him under the bus). A booming market. Mediocre papers in San Francisco.

So, what went wrong? That's the theme of this in-depth piece by Columbia Journalism Review. (H/t to my friend Leo Lincourt.)

My reaction? It nails the main points of what went wrong not just at the Merc, but to some degree, the industry in general:

First. I didn't realize that the Merc had, at the start, "paywalled" its website, only to abandon it later. Related to that, as Leo notes, is its failure to find "niche" reporting worthy of being paywalled, or to realize what it had in Silicon Valley. Especially after Steve Jobs' return to Apple, the Merc, even with national media "discovering" Silicon Valley, could have had the angle on premium, paywalled content. The WSJ is partially paywalled even with the New York Times in its backyard, after all.

Second, specific to the Merc, Dean Singleton is an idiot, and certainly had a hand in the Merc's demise, as he has in the AP focusing first on news aggregators and many other things that have hurt the industry. The story doesn't at all look at him, but it's too bad it didn't. (That said, Deano's injuriousness to the industry, while being Example No. 1 of not "getting" the online newspaper world, could make a separate story of equal length all by itself.

Third per many other observers, we see the problems with newspapers trading on the NYSE and focusing on short-term profits. The stock-zooming 1990s has had its payback, with newspapers doubling down on new purchases while ignoring the destructiveness of the Net:

(General manager Dan) Finnigan explained that either they were going to cannibalize their own businesses or someone else would.

This was at a meeting of Knight-Ridder publishers, where he tried to get them on board with investing in ...

CareerBuilder! (K-R/The Merc also took a whiff at buying into eBay.)

This was even as people were warning that newspapers should accept lower profit margins and maybe even initial losses for investments in some new technology, websites, etc.

In that way, newspapers (those publicly traded and especially those, like Knight-Ridder but unlike the NYT, with one-level stock structure) are emblematic of what's wrong with hypercapitalist America today.

The "cannibalization" is also another argument for paywalls. Especially at smaller, more regional papers, paywalls not only are a way to make more money off of online operations, but keep people from leaving hardcopy and its ads, which are still the largest revenue producer.

Related to that, how many industries bemoan making "only" a 9 percent profit? As noted, the Merc's margin had fallen to 9 percent by 2006. Even today, if you throw out debt service (mainly from the buying-up binges of 1995-2005) papers are still profitable; just not at 20-plus percent.

In the story, Tony Ridder comes off as a bean-counter, but one who honestly was doing so within "old newspaper" mentality.

Anyway, give the whole thing a read.

One complaint, though. The story throws Gary Webb and his well-known reporting on the Nicaraguan Contras-cocaine-CIA connection kind of, or more than kind of, under the bus, at least by implication. On the purely editorial side, I'd have to agree with one commenter that slicing and dicing Webb was far more egregious than any of the business/editorial/Internet inter-departmental screw-ups.

#Facebook ain't salvation for newspapers

2011-10-29T02:55:00.002-05:00

Unfortunately, from blindly buying into Facebook-based commenting systems rather than internally controlling commenting as part of a paywall, to thinking that "socializing" every editorial employee if not every employee of the newspaper with a corporate-backwalled Facebook account, it seems like too many newspapers are still looking for and buying into easy fixes.

The reality, though, is different.

First of all, some newspapers continue the same stupidity that got them into trouble in the first place.

For instance, if you, like many nondaily and smaller daily newspapers, have finally gotten your website paywelled, but undercut it by posting updates about breaking news stories on a regular basis to your free Facebook site, don't be surprised if a lot of people don't sign up for online newspaper subscriptions. Why should they? I wouldn't. Twitter's not quite so bad, if you keep your updates generic and link to a continually-developing version of the story on your website, behind your paywall.

The same holds true for blogging, to some degree. If you're a smaller daily, and your website isn't set up to do an internal, paywalled blog, don't set up a linked, free Blogger or Wordpress blog.

Second, if you don't have a paywalled website, Facebook isn't offering you its comment moderation services on your website out of the goodness of its heart. Rather, it's looking to:
1. Increase its demographic information about its members by seeing what they're reading, and targeting ads that way;
2. Increase its information about what ads on your website may interest them, and targeting its ads that way.

Third, Facebook appeals as much to the casual glancer as the in-depth reader. It may send a few more eyeballs to your website, but, whether that website has any sort of paywall or not, they're not likely to be very "sticky" eyeballs.

Pound #socialmedia sand down a rathole without a #paywall

2011-10-07T01:13:00.000-05:00

OK, folks, what would you think of ...

One of the larger newspaper/media companies in America coming up with this bright idea:

Everybody in the editorial office now, including copy editors, who of course aren't out reporting stories, is supposed to create a "personal" office FB account and Twitter account. This from a company that paywalls nothing at any of its daily papers, including multiple seven-day dailies.

It started paywalling one this spring.

Then some alleged hardcopy subscribers bitched about having to remember a password, so they dropped the paywall.

First, I suspect the paper didn't even check to see if these were hardcopy subscribers. Second, anybody knows you can reset a password. Third, after this, the paper (now becoming corporate-wide) signed up for Facebook logins to comment on stories, allegedly to make it easier to moderate offensive comment. Which you can do even better by restricting comment to paying subscribers with a paywall!

Yet another example of how the newspaper industry continues to shoot itself in the foot.

Anyway, back to this latest directive. Beyond the copy editors not reporting stories issue, my political and religious views are 180 degrees to the third dimension diametrically opposite the place I currently happen to be. So, readers aren't going to want to read Tweets from the real me anyway.

And, speaking of "political angles," somebody at the office here created a stupid, hokey, WWI-knockoff poster about "Facebook and Twitter: It's everybody's job." Yep, 50-something regular readers will be "hooked," sure, while 20-something "leeches" will keep on leeching. That's great strategy there.

Meanwhile, via a press association website, I saw Russell Viers touted as another "guru" for how to "fix" newspapers. He's no more a guru than Clay Shirky, Jay Rosen, et al. First, he says he was dead set against paywalls in the past. Then, he claims that the current NYT one - you know, the one with the Canadian hack invented for it even before it officially debuted in the U.S. - was "working." No, really.

With "gurus" like him, Rosen, et al, on the finance/business side, and being listened to, judging by posts on his blog, again, newspapers keep shooting themselves in the foot. One reader talked about "giving it away" as long as he had ads, clueless to the fact that many people use ad-blocking extensions.

UPDATE, Oct. 27: OK, the latest on this "brightness." The whippersnapper online editor at this paper, in his belief that Facebook = salvation, last Saturday, when we are shorthanded on the copy desk anyway, suggested that, if we had time, we live blog the World Series on the company's main Facebook page, complete with poll. And, he's doing it again tonight with Game 6.

Hey, "dude." People do that already. They work at Yahoo Sports and ESPN, where serious national baseball fans will go to keep up with things like that.

UPDATE, Nov. 2: Not too long after the first update on this blog, the online editor asks me (and our news editor) if we would put some sort of picture/logo (not necessarily our mugs) on our FB and Twitter corporate pages.

And I obliged -- with one version of the Green Party logo. For some reason, I was asked to take that off.

Otherwise, the whole thing seems like an attempt to reach Gen Y types who are generally plugged in, but generally ... DON'T READ NEWSPAPERS! Among other things that they've learned all too well from the tail end of Gen X.

UPDATE, Dec. 20: Oh, and add to this a news editor and assistant news editor who spell "south-southwest" as "south, southwest." Among other things.

The AP keeps slipping

2011-06-01T17:59:00.000-05:00

Really, AP? Using a photo from AOL serf labor site Patch.com for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's controversial helicopter flight to his son's ballgame?

Really?

Yet another bridesmaid on a job

2011-05-17T01:33:00.000-05:00

Was one of a few, maybe jst two, finalists to be managing editor of a semiweekly in Rio Ranch, New Mexico. Didn't get it.

Publisher left me head-scratching. Before I interviewed in person, I forwarded by email a list of references, even though he said he didn't need them until we were closer to a handshake.

He contacted nary a one.

Best I can figure is he had locked in on one or more candidates, possibly or probably younger and/or less experienced, to see if he could get them for less money, even though he had mentioned some definite numbers to me. He said, in a query to him after he told me his decision, that I interviewed well, when I said I was hoping for a "takeaway" from the decision. I should have been more direct with asking why somebody else, not me.

So, to recap ... a weird interview ... and from a "family owned" paper, not a corporate guy, who, IMO, didn't hire the best candidate.

Before that? Allegedly passed over from editing a week due to possible age discrimination. (Also a "family" group.)

Before that? Passed over on running a five-day daily (yest, it's CNHI) by a publisher now "looking" again, six months later or so.

On both the corporate-owned and family-owned sides, one has to "wonder" at times, right?

Corporate-owned newspapers may, by and large, NEVER adjust to the fact that 30 percent profit margins will NEVER return. They certainly have made a hash, in general, of monetizing online operations and likely will continue to do so.

Family-owned newspapers? Well, there are good ones. The Albuquerque Journal, once the Net took off, never made its online content free in the first place. That's rare, though. Many nondailies, with no wire compettion, still give ou their online content for free, and the ads don't pay the freight.

AP source anonmyity gets ridiculous

2011-04-02T22:31:00.000-05:00

Here's the latest. On political strategy for a presidential race that won't have its first semi-binding vote for nine months .... granting campaign aides anonymity to "leak" about their boss's campaign plans.

Allies and aides who outlined the path that Romney is charting to the nomination spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publically discuss private strategy sessions.

Ridiculous. "Traditional media" gets worse at this all the time.

Oh, and Philip Elliott of the AP, "publically" is NOT a word. "Publicly" is.

Paywalls and leaks — are they desirable?

2011-03-22T21:33:00.000-05:00

The Nieman Labs note that the new New York Times paywall, already live in Canada, can, in current incarnation, be cracked with just four lines of Javascript. And, it says, beyond that, that some "leakiness" in a paywall, if the media company knows how to manage it, can actually be a good thing.

The story approaches the issue in part from a cost-benefit analysis. It notes that there are a couple of classes of people who are simply determined not to pay for content in such situations. Those who have the skill, or who get the information from someone else who has the skill, will work around the paywall easily enough. As long as they're looking at ads, the story says, and maybe clocking an occasional one, then the NYT is still ahead, rather than spending more money to tighten the paywall.

OOPS.

Just one problem with that analysis.

Those same people, in general, are already blocking ads on their computers. I can't believe Nieman was either that dumb or that naive.

And, beyond THAT, the reason WHY for paywalls is to generate revenue not only from falling Internet ad rates, but, because savvy online news readers are already blocking ads, and savvy online newspaper IT staff know that.

That said, from there, we can honestly discuss whether a "straight" paywall, a "freemium" system, or a metered system like that of the NYT is the best thing for a daily newspaper vs. a "weekly" (in hardcopy) magazine, etc.

But, this idea that a fair amount of "leakage" will actually help on the ad side? Stupid.

Is TPA shooting itself in the foot on public notices?

2011-01-28T02:17:00.000-06:00

Every other year, the Texas Legislature considers, or is rumored to be considering, changing state law so that local governments do not have to post matters of legality, such as rezoning hearings, etc., in a local newspaper of public record.

Usually, proponents in the Lege argue that municipalities will save money by posting legal notices on their local websites. Or, if government websites aren't worthy, due to transparency and conflict of interest concerns, something like Craiglist.

And, every biennium, the Texas Press Association argues against the idea.

TPA has argued not just against government websites on the conflict of interest and related issues, but have argued against web-based postings in general on grounds such as "a lot of people don't have Internet access," etc.

Well, what do we have now? TPA and the Texas Daily Newspaper Association have now teamed up to offer web-based public notices!!!

At a bare minimum, local governments can now argue that ad rates for public notices should be drastically lowered, since it costs a lot less to run them online. And, if the local newspaper of record is a TPA member, then the local government can say this meets current state law on posting requirements, without going out to Craigslist, etc.

Plus, with the state budget deficit also a municipal budget deficit, this door opening is surely only going to increase that push. And, if TPA doesn't like it, I suspect state law might just get changed this time around.

Big newspaper merger ahead?

2011-01-18T23:15:00.002-06:00

Freedom Communications and MediaNews, both partially owned by the same capital management group, Alden Global Capital as part of their emergence from bankruptcy, could merge.

It seems pretty clear this is NOT MediaNews driving the process. Dean-O, Dean Singleton, CEO of pre-bankruptcy MediaNews, is being kicked upstairs:

MediaNews on Tuesday announced a series of management changes under which current chairman and chief executive William Dean Singleton will relinquish his CEO role and become executive chairman of the Denver-based company. In a news release, MediaNews said the moves, which also include the hiring of three new directors, will "position the company to identify, pursue and execute on strategic consolidation opportunities."

That said, they aren't the only merger possibilities on Alden's list.

The recession and its fallout have depressed media properties. With folks like Alden either in control, or threatening to become in control, of more and more media chains, they're surely going to throw their weight around more.

Why a newspaper editor increases his loathing for his profession

2011-01-09T13:27:00.003-06:00

Here's my personal take.

In the last 15-16 months, in chronological order?

1. I have had a tri-weekly paper try to recruit me to move just a month after I had taken a new job, which felt too soon. (And, given that this paper has gone through at least one editor since then, it may not have been the best move.

2. I have had a paper near Dallas, reportedly being "pushed" by corporate HQ to fill an editor/general manager position I would have loved, then being told by HQ NOT to fill that position, shortly before I was to have a pro forma in-person interview to be hired. (Given that I had had problems with another interview with the same company, at its flagship paper, for a job they on which they couldn't nail down work parameters, pay scale, whether pay would be wage or salary, this doesn't surprise me.) So, folks, be wary of Hartman Newspapers.

3. I have had another newspaper interview me and other candidates, pass me on to corporate for a second interview, then re-advertise the position, with additional parameters, in apparent resume fishing. I'd heard about it, but this was first-time victimhood for me. So, folks, be wary of the Los Alamos Monitor.

4. I'd had the owner of the paper under No. 1 make a run at me to be editor/publisher of a small weekly. I was intrigued, but put pen to paper and realized the margins necessary for bonuses were almost impossible to hit. I also saw that the operational structure was goofy - printing at one site, then mail labeling at a second site, and only THEN bringing papers back to the "hometown." So, ask questions whenever you come across Moser Media.

5. Had the Rio Rancho (N.M.) Observer advertise for a managing editor, noting it was on a fast hiring track. The publisher sent me a precis of the job, boasting how they held down costs in part by not offering health insurance, while noting some people were eligible to buy through a low-cost cooperative. In addition to that, though, other items in the precis made me wonder if the paper had made the ME's job, illegally, into an independent contractor's position, to dodge payroll taxes and more, as well, even as the Department of Labor had been cracking down on that. When I subtly asked in that directly, I was informed, within 2 business days, that the job had been filled.

(And, if you expect DOL's Wage and Hour Division to do a lot of legwork when you file a complaint, think again.)

6. Had the publisher of another paper ask me about a good time to call for an interview, then never call. I suspect this Granite Publications newspaper asked more about why I worked less than a year at a sister publication in the chain, but never asked me about the job bait-and-switch on an advertised vs. an offered job that landed unemployed, job-needing me in Navasota, Texas, as managing editor of a weekly, rather than Taylor, Texas, as ME of a five-day daily, in the first place. So, be wary of Granite Publications.

7. I then had an initial interview for a position I really liked, or thought I might. It was in-person, but I managed to do it during my most recent vacation, without denting my vacation time. (That said, other finalists probably can't say the same.) Then, the paper told me, through a placement agency which has me on file, it was "going in a different direction." (I understood this to be on job description, not me vs. another finalist.) So, be wary of the Sangre de Christo Chronicle, and of its parent paper, the Santa Fe New Mexican.

Some newspaper publisher or owner may see this and say I'm nothing but a poor-mouther. I'd ask him or her if they're an apologist for unethical business practices.

Another newspaper for whom to not work?

2010-07-16T02:30:00.002-05:00

I saw an ad on JournalismJobs recently to be ME of a suburban weekly in a part of the country, and a metropolitan area, that I would like.

I applied six days after the posting, which did say the company, family-owned, was looking for a quick hire.

A response e-mail said I might be on the top end, or beyond, of qualification level for the position, but, I was asked if, with that in mind, was I really interested.

I got back a job description Word document in a response e-mail. In addition to pay scale, it also said, among other things:

But, by and large, we act more like a start-up than we do a traditional community newspaper. We are extremely swift to seek and seize opportunity. We welcome partnerships of all shapes and sizes within our community. We aim to be the best friend of local non-profits. And, we engage in our community – relentlessly.
That said, we also differ from most media companies in the way we tailor our compensation plans. We do not have a laundry list of special monetary incentives or perks, nor do we offer the traditional benefits that most companies struggle desperately with. We have no paid leave, no health insurance*, no retirement or cafeteria plan. Our wages do not set any records either; no one on our newspaper team can claim an above average salary.

OK, I've been at companies with no health insurance before, but not the other stuff.

So I e-mailed back a few questions:

No paid leave? As in no paid vacation? If I wanted a third week off a year, would that be problematic? What about traditional holidays? Is the managing editor an “employee” or a “contractor”? Am I responsible for all FICA taxes?

Serious questions. If it meant no paid vacation, and typical holidays weren't paid, that's a lot of $$ I have to knock off the base salary. Even more if the paper is trying to make the ME a contractor and paid self-employed payroll taxes.

Plus, there's a legality question on that, on which issue the Department of Labor has recently been cracking down.

Well, less than three business days later, I got a two-sentence e-mail response saying the position had been filled and offering me best wishes in my job hunt. None of the questions were answered.

Well, DOL's Wage and Hour division has received a query e-mail from me.

Why we don't use Comic Sans in newspapers

2010-06-19T02:57:00.000-05:00

A great blog about a great font.

Newspapers getting greedy, or skittish, on hiring

2010-05-15T03:37:00.000-05:00

In the past six months, I've had one job killed (at a weekly no less), after corporate had been pushing the publisher to fill it ASAP. Then, corporate, at Hartman Newspapers in Texas, pulled the job.

Meanwhile, in Los Alamos, N.M., the publisher there apparently considered his initial managing editor ad an excuse to float a trial balloon, then either get greedier on position demands, or else decide to get rid of somebody else and fold that work into the M.E.'s position. (Since he won't talk about the details of his re-advertising the position, I don't know which it is.)

Anyway, there is, or is supposed to be, such a thing as media ethics internally as well as externally, isn't there?

Laptop computers an enabler of bad reporting, or what?

2010-04-15T02:06:00.000-05:00

Picture a paper that has two important local events, one a city council meeting possibly awarding an $8 million grant payout for a mixed-use development and the other an appearance by Maya Angelou, and the stories get done at 10 p.m., both, because, apparently, the paper has an issue with reporters using laptops ...

My, what a formerly unmotivated Today Newspapers employee can do

2010-04-07T23:48:00.000-05:00

If Today Newspapers had had as many ads on its website as The Suburban now does, it never would have folded.

On the other hand, since it has no real, and definitely no really fresh, news on the site, those ads may be selling at bargain basement rates.

Anonymous sourcing means 'tweaked' quotes

2010-03-19T01:01:00.000-05:00

Ed Cohen raises another valid concern about the rise of anonymous comments in BOTH old and new media. And that is that anonymous comments usually have the commenter "tweaking" the quote before it sees the light of day.

In other words, BOTH old AND new media that use anonymous sources are becoming ever more propaganda by the day.

'New media' can write misleading headlines, get journalism wrong

2010-03-16T13:14:00.001-05:00

Bora Zivkovic, or Coturnix, is a very good science writer. And, he's an activist touter of the wonders of "new media." But, a Facebook note of his shows part of why I take "new media" with a grain of salt.

Start with the header "journalism" when he's just talking about academic journalism. Especially online, where there's no headline length limit, why the header didn't say "science journalism" or "academic journalism," I don't know.

The post is about whether or not public information officers do journalism. In academia, arguably, maybe they do. It's still iffy. Did the University of Utah's PIO do "journalism" after the Fleischmann/Pons "oops" of 1989? I doubt it.

But, in the second half of his post, Bora, through a couple of analogies, talks about general-purpose journalism, and is totally wrong there. Plus, his idea that an energy company should sponsor science pages in a newspaper? What idiocy in general. And that they should do it because newspapers are losing ad money?

Rather, Bora, and friends of yours such as Jay Rosen, that's argument for MY shibboleth — paywalls for online newspapers. Or, at a minimum alternative, delayed publishing of online content, at least that which is locally generated.

Anonymous sourcing: ain't just the MSM

2010-03-07T13:22:00.000-06:00

Glenn Greenwald rightly bemoans what seems to be a worsening of the use of anonymous sourcing in inside-the-Beltway reporting.

But, as I e-mailed him, this isn't just a "mainstream media" phenomenon.

I’ll hold out Talking Points Memo as a prime example, since it developed from “just a blog” into doing its own news reporting.

A couple of months ago, for example (sorry, don’t have link), one of its staff reported the “latest” on Obama’s heath care push, with a couple of different angles from inside the WH. Nothing close to national security involved, of course.

But... At least five or six different anonymously sourced comments.

Well, I was, to be blunt, disgusted to some degree when I saw that, and I think a few other TPM regular readers were too. That said, neither the reporter nor Josh Marshall commented in response, said we’re sorry, etc.

I’ll venture a guess that as “new media” tries to get more and more into reporting, not just commentary, it will do more of the same selling itself out.

So, let’s not say this is just an MSM problem.

When I grow up, I want to be a bankrupt media mogul too!

2010-03-05T03:01:00.000-06:00

Dean Singleton, the man who built up, then overbuilt, MediaNews, while simultaneously wrecking the Associated Press and undermining its connection to its traditional newspaper members in the Internet Age by letting AP whore after news aggregators, once again shows his moxie, bullshit level, or whatever.

As Media News' parent company (a shell organization, if you will — Dean-o was one of the first media moguls in on that idea) emerges from bankruptcy court, not only does the Deanster get to stay on as CEO of the newly reconstituted Affiliated Media, he does so with a nice $650K base salary, and his MediaNews co-founder apparently getting pushed out the door.

Meanwhile, we have the brown-nosing of billionaire Jon Huntsman Sr., father of the former Utah governor, callling Dean-o "a smart businessman."

Can we change that to "a bamboozling businessman"?

Yet more bad news for newspapers

2010-02-23T15:06:00.001-06:00

Among the findings of an exhaustive Nielson survey about readers' attitudes toward paying for online media (exhaustive enough to interview 52,000 people in 27 countries!) nearly two-thirds said, in essence, that if they pay for the content, that gives them the copyright to the material, as well.

Sam Zell was sooo dumb when he kept the Chicago Trib and sold the Cubs.

Journalist naivete 101

2010-02-21T01:56:00.003-06:00

I pity every under-35 journalist, even more, under-30 journalist, like this one, who thinks he, as compared to all the others now on his own, actually WILL "make it" as a-Net based freelancer.

Sheelah Kolhatkar tells a great story of the descent of all the Paul Smaleras:

You can tell when a print journalist has lost his full-time job because of the digital markings that suddenly appear, like the tail of a fading comet. First, he joins Facebook. A Gmail address is promptly obtained. The Twitter account comes next, followed by the inevitable blog. Throw in a LinkedIn profile for good measure. This online coming-out is the first step in a daunting, and economically discouraging,

transformation: from a member of a large institution to a would-be Internet “brand.”
Beyond that, writing a blog that amounts to little more than a search engine optimization tool?

Just as Google Ads is killing a lot of online advertising, the fragmentation of news/content/analysis and whatnot online is going to kill salaries, too.

Keep dreaming, Paul Smalera. Until you wake up. Or, until you OD on the Kool-Aid of the Jay Rosen types who keep hawking the Net, including the free-range, unpaywalled Net, as the salvation of media.

Read like this one to get more of a sense of how he's scraping and scrimping by. Paul, half the job dumps and revenue losses may be recession-related, but the other half? As long as print media keep repeating the same non-charging-for-online-content insanity, the other half is gone for good.

Mark Cuban calls Google a 'vampire' – and he's right

2010-02-03T01:45:00.001-06:00

He's also right that newspapers — and, even more, press organizations like AP — largely continue to be run by people who are too inept, timid, and "old thinking" as well as old media in dealing with this.

Cuban has cojones, if nothing else. He made his comments at an online media conference, and as the keynoter, no less.

Not just that, he called newspapers cowards for being afraid to let go of Google traffic even as they remain clueless, in his words, about how to monetize said traffic.

Salon, as part of its own take on his comments, highlights the pull quote:

“Show some balls,” he said. “If you turn your neck to a vampire, they are [going to] bite. But at some point the vampires run out of people’s blood to suck.”

The problem lies not so much with individual papers (though those with their own news services, like NYT, McClatchy, etc., fall under the following finger-pointing) as it does with AP (and Reuters and AFP, to the degree my solution could dodge collusion issues).

AP is not charging Google, MSNBC et al enough.

Pure and simple. If AP would increase its contract charges about six-fold — YES, as in 600 percent — and could do a work-around on the collusion stuff, not only with Reuters, but NYT News Service, MCT, etc., it might be enough to force Google to paywall.

And, yes, I think AP could write its contracts in a way as to do a work-around on the collusion issue while leaving the door open for Reuters et al to cut similar deals.

That said, AP's chairman of the board, Dean Singleton, is so effing clueless about this that he ran his own newspaper company, MediaNews, into the ground of Chapter 11, so what should we really expect?

If nothing else, maybe more newspaper chains will reverse cutting back on DC bureaus, and rebuild them — with money they save from canceling AP contracts.

Calling Jay Rosen and Google's chief ass-kisser Jeff Jarvis. Have you already started attacking Cuban?

Technology poor in old media

2010-01-29T15:43:00.001-06:00

How can a seven-day daily paper not supply laptop computers for reporters when they go to meetings?

Why the NYT is right to charge online

2010-01-26T18:28:00.002-06:00

Yes, Times Select didn't "work." Actually, it showed that, if forced to pay for Maureen Dowd, a lot of ppl wouldn't. At least not at that price.

Anyway, Steve Brill crunches all the numbers and says just $2 per month per unique visitor would pay fantastic returns. He also, obliquely, explains why the phase-in will take a while, contra a few critics on that.

Oh, The Big Money agrees.

Take THAT, Clay Shirky, Jay Rosen, and other people, like perhaps Bora, who think the online pay model is wrong. (And, maybe I overly stereotyped Mr. Rosen's views, in part as a deliberate caricature. I don't think I got them 100 percent wrong.)

Jay, you can diversify content all you want. But, any company that still relies on an advertising-only model to try to make money off that is run by schmucks.

Let's add to that. A Columbia Journalism Review story last year said that in a typical larger metro area (Baltimore was sampled in depth) the traditional newspaper still breaks 60 percent or more of the news. Next is TV, then radio. "New media"? Even in a halfway-techie area like Baltimore, it's still below 5 percent.

So, if you're still the primary purveyor, you have more incentive to charge, charge, charge.

Where media analysts of the "free Internet" stripe (and the more clueless old media moguls like Dean Singleton) miss the boat can best be illustrated by an analogy.

If Campbell's started selling its condensed soup in plstic screw-top bottles, while still selling in cans, and said it wouldn't charge for it because it could spit out soup much faster this way, we'd grab all the Campbell's we could while laughing at its stupidity.

As for the AP, more than a decade ago, buying into the "TV model"? That ignored newspapers themselves charging for circulation. In the TV world, it ignored cable, let alone premium cable.

Old media + big banks = stupidity squared

2010-01-23T15:28:00.000-06:00

Looks like old Dean-o Singleton won't have much ownership anymore in Media News, though Bank of America is going to still let him run the company. (Thereby showing that the stupidity of big banks and that of big Old Media folks is probably about equal in the past five years.)

From the AP:

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
AP Business Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Another newspaper publisher desperate to dump debt has filed for bankruptcy protection in hopes of recovering from an advertising meltdown that has obliterated much of the print media’s revenue.

Friday’s late filing by Affiliated Media Inc., the holding company of MediaNews Group, had been expected. The owner of 54 U.S. daily newspapers said Jan. 15 that it would seek to reorganize its finances in bankruptcy court.

MediaNews, based in Denver, says its newspapers, which include The Denver Post and the San Jose Mercury News, and 8,700 employees won’t be affected during the bankruptcy proceedings. The company also owns four radio stations in Texas and a television station in Alaska.

Privately held Affiliated Media worked with its major lenders and shareholders during the past year to hammer out a plan aimed at shortening the company’s stay in federal bankruptcy court in Delaware. Affiliated hopes to emerge from bankruptcy protection within two months.

The plan calls for Affiliated’s debt to fall to $179 million from $930 million, according documents filed late Friday and early Saturday.

In exchange for this $751 million concession, a group of lenders led by Bank of America will become the company’s majority owners with 89 percent of the common stock, according to a disclosure statement filed Saturday. The remaining 11 percent goes to MediaNews’ management team, which is led by William Dean Singleton, who is also chairman of The Associated Press. The MediaNews executives will receive warrants that eventually could boost their combined stakes to 20 percent.

Heading into the bankruptcy filing, Singleton held a roughly 30 percent stake in Affiliated.

Richard Scudder, who co-founded MediaNews with Singleton in 1985, will relinquish his interests in the company to the lenders. Another major newspaper publisher, Hearst Corp., also will surrender a 30 percent stake it acquired in Affiliated’s newspapers outside the San Francisco Bay area as part of a complex $317 million deal in 2006.

Singleton will continue to run MediaNews, signaling the lenders remain confident in him despite the company’s recent struggles.

The decision probably stems from Singleton’s reputation as a hard-nosed businessman who has never shied away from cutting costs, said Alan Mutter, a former newspaper editor who blogs on the media business.

"Who do we know who can go in and run the hell out of a newspaper and make a buck?" he said. "The only answer is William Dean Singleton."

MediaNews spokesman Seth Faison declined to comment late Friday.

"By aggressively facing the challenges of the newspaper business, we will continue to deliver high-quality journalism and will prepare our newspapers for a promising future," Singleton said in a statement Friday.

Affiliated’s annual revenue has fallen by $270 million, or 20 percent, during the past two fiscal years, according to court documents.

To cushion the financial blow, Singleton has reduced Affiliated’s expenses by $385 million, or 31 percent, since the end of 2006, according to court documents.

Affiliated still lost $582 million as revenue fell 10 percent to $1.06 billion in its last fiscal year ending June 30, the documents show. That came on top of a $406 million loss in the previous fiscal year. The losses stemmed from accounting charges taken to reflect the crumbling value of its newspapers.

Despite Affiliated’s troubles, Singleton says all but one of the company’s newspapers are profitable. He hasn’t identified which one is losing money.

But Singleton couldn’t figure out a way to cope with all the debt that MediaNews took on to expand into new markets. Like other publishers, Singleton borrowed heavily before the Internet and recent recession began to devour the newspaper’s main source of income — advertising.

Affiliated is bracing for more tight times ahead. In a disclosure statement, the company discusses possible savings from farming out some production, newsroom and administrative jobs and imposing permanent wage cuts at some newspapers beginning this year.

The reorganization plan calls for Singleton to receive a $634,000 salary and an annual bonus of up to $500,000 as Affiliated’s chief executive. He will also continue to be paid $360,000 annually under a separate agreement with The Denver Post Corp., according to court documents.

MediaNews - The latest old media woes

2010-01-17T00:34:00.000-06:00

MediaNews, one of the nation's largest newspaper companies, is also the latest to file Chapter 11. As I e-mailed a friend, Dean Singleton may have done a great job of building up MediaNews, but as chairman of AP, he was pretty clueless about how to monetize online newspapers, and related matters.

Paywalling, for example, is one matter.

Point No. 1, even before Deano became AP's chair? When newspapers said look at the "TV model for online papers, did they forget there was such a thing as cable TV? Let alone premium cable?

Point No. 2, on specific, why didn't AP jack rates for Yahoo, Google, MSN, et al high enough to potentially force them to paywall content, therefore giving member newspapers protection to paywall?

Point No. 3 - As both owner of a major newspaper company and AP chairman, why didn't he recognize that, on this issue, AP and its member newspapers are somewhat at cross interests?

Issue No. 2 is general business management.

Point No. 1? If you're not going to paywall locally generated content as well as AP written news, why do you post it online even before your print newspapers come out? (This is not specific to Singleton, BTW.) If online newspapers aren't "monetized" yet, this is a handout. It's like if Campbell's started selling its soup in plastic bottles as well as cans, and said that because the plastic bottles were made more quickly, it would give them away for free.

Anyway, that's a few thoughts for now.

Vail Resorts' snow job gets reporter fired

2010-01-07T18:22:00.000-06:00

Bob Berwyn was, until recently, a reporter for Colorado-based Summit Daily News. Seeing a former colleague, now working for Vail Resorts, by far the biggest ski company in Colorado, doing an interview with The Weather Channel, he suspected a snow job on snowfall on the Western Slope vs. the east side of the Rockies.

And did a column about it.

Despite the fact there's now a ski report iPhone app to keep folks like Vail Resorts in line and honest, Vail Resorts yanked all its ads from the paper. Summit Daily News' managing editor insisted Berwyn needed to grovel and when he wouldn't, he fired him.

Smaller newspapers have self-inflicted wounds, too

2010-01-06T01:43:00.006-06:00

I got offered a job, then had it pulled back away, all in just six hours, yesterday.

I had a phone interview to be named the editor, and general manager in training, at a weekly paper near Dallas. Ideal!

Was tentatively offered the job over the phone, then the publisher said he'd like to meet in person just to give himself final assurance.

No problem, I said. I'll drive to Dallas this weekend.

Well, less than five hours later, I get this message in an e-mail:

The powers that be with the chain have decided to move things in a different direction.

Oh, and that was after being told on the phone five hours earlier that "the powers that be" had been pushing to get this position filled.

It's the second time in 10 months I've had an "interesting" interview situation with this newspaper chain. The first time, the company's flagship daily, on the west side of Houston (you TPA members, figure out who, I don't have the Heart to tell you) offered me a job -- a job somewhat inchoately defined as far as duties, and very inchoate as far as other things.

Like how much they were going to pay me. Whether it would be on salary or wage.

So, exactly what happened yesterday? Who knows. I do know, though, that I'd look long and hard at any other jobs this company advertises.

Nor is that the first time, or the first newspaper company, that hasn't been 100 percent up-front, or organized, or both, or whatever, about a situation.

That said, I don't know whether the track record is better or worse than other small businesses, small businesses as far as the individual outlets/franchises, at least. Maybe they're better, maybe they're worse, maybe about the same.

Jay Rosen's New Media '10 Cmdts' ain't necessarily true

2009-11-13T00:38:00.000-06:00

Starting wit his claim media atomization has been overcome. It hasn't, because of the price level of new media. To the degree it consolidates, then it will professionalize, with some of the issues of "old media."

For instance, more than three years ago, in Dallas, a group of people started a site called Pegasus News. It serves as an aggregator of bloggers (and maybe Twitterers, soon enough) on local arts, entertainment, politics, etc, while mixing in rewrites and expansions of press releases and the occasional actual story.

So, my default, if you're one the cool/lucky bloggers to have been picked up, especially early in Pegasus' history, and especially if it was without being noticed by the Dallas Morning News, you've got an inside edge.

So, in that sense, atomization may be lessened. But, Pegasis doesn't run all of the blog posts it gets from bloggers it "favorites." So, it's now ... wait for it ... a filter.

Some of the commandments are "fat chance," like this from Rosen's second commandment:

Closed systems [i.e. old media] bring editorial oversight and the authority of a respected brand while open ones crowdsource information and are easy to use. What both systems should have is trust and ethics.

But, if Rosen would have read Tech Crunch's pieceon an infamous Fort Hood-posted Army blogger, which I blogged about here, he'd be more circumspect about the likelihood of that happening soon.

Another of his commandments he just throws out without saying what will happen to it:

"Half my advertising is wasted, I just don't know which half."
Unlike the first six recent quotes, this one is almost a century old. Rosen attributes it to Philadelphia businessman John Wanamaker/

But, Rosen doesn't wonder what will happen ot the good half vs. wasted half of advertising if he's wrong, and the new media does remain atomized to some degree.

Others of the commandments aren't "wrong," they just fall into "what does this mean?" If people need better filters, since "old media" now isn't a "filtering force," or whatever, will they just give up instead? Give up filtering, or eventually tune out?

Rosen, along with Jeff Jarvis and some others (I don't think Clay Shirky is that bad) need to take to heart a previous post of mine, that "Internet triumphalism is not a public good.

It's kind of frustrating for people like this to be triumphal to the point of making overstated new media guru claims. Be more modest, realistic and fact-based about what's actually happening, or you start repeating the mistakes, and the hubris, of the old media on which you shovel dirt.

'Old media' vs. 'new media' and media vs. messages

2009-11-08T23:55:00.000-06:00

"Old media" vs. "new media"? The difference is ultimately in the medium more than the message quality. Yes, blogs have broken news stories before the "MSM" and Twitter has added color to stories, but Twitter has releasd just as much inaccurate info as the MSM outlets at breaking news events, adn blogs can look like news but be as slanted as bad MSM coverage.

Give me paywalls - from the top down

2009-11-06T00:53:00.002-06:00

It's nice that some seven-day dailies, which have a fair amount of local news content, are going to paywalls, but really, that's not enough to solve the national issue.

The real problem, though, is lack of leadership by the AP, not individual newspapers. AP ought to put mandatory paywalls, with anti-Reuters/AFP exclusivity, into another revision of new AP contract. Then, it ought to abut quintuple its rates for Google et al, (with similar exclusivity clauses), high enough that Google would have to paywall, too, and couldn't do this on ads alone.

Who died and made Jay Rosen God of what's wrong with papers?

2009-11-06T00:45:00.002-06:00

Some of his ideas about the future of media are good, but others, like saying papers ought to forget about putting up paywalls, are lunacy.

So, we should ignore the fact that ads will likely NEVER monetize online papers, and rely on the kindness of tip jars, pledge drives and whatever else?

If people like him actually worked at papers, it would be one thing, but he's an academic. As for Jeff Jarvis, another bloviator, I swear he's on Google's payroll.

Poetic thoughts on newspapers, tech and punditrynews

2009-10-27T13:06:00.000-05:00

The tombstone silence
Of the quiet places
In a not-so-noisy daily newspaper
Are symbolic.
Symbolic of death by technology,
Death by over-technology,
Death by technomancy.
Anti-Luddites say
The news will always be there.
But, who will pay?
Donations will only go so far
In a Balkanized “information” world,
Subscriptions remain anathema to many,
And, the Googleization of online text ads
Means there’s little money there.
So blogs consolidate,
Between a precious few New Media “winners”
And detritus eates of the Old Media,
Whie Twitterers blithely tweet.
What’s new?
New information,
Or just new communications speech,
Whether news, information, or misinformation?
You know that, but
“They,” of media both old and new,
As well as pundits thereof,
Won’t admit it.
And so, per a ’60s rock song,
The media is still the same.

No, newspapers aren’t dead yet, and they probably aren’t that close

2009-10-07T01:43:00.000-05:00

Which is why I get frustrated by people both well-meaning and intelligent who want to bury newspapers, especially the hardcopy versions thereof.

First, yes, newspaper readership has been stagnant since what, the early 1960s? But, if you throw out illegal immigration, and even a fair chunk of first-generation legal immigrants, as a percentage of the populace, readership didn’t decline that much until the age of the Internet.

Second, half of the revenue decline of the last 2-3 years is due to the recession, pure and simple. Much of the ad losses will bounce back, except for some car and some real estate dinero.

More proof that a fair part of what does ail newspapers is recession-related? The rumors of an impending CBS bankruptcy, whether true or not — sparked by CBS’s ad sales dropoff.

Meanwhile, Eric Schmidt doesn’t know what he’s talking about. First of all, Herr Freeloader (albeit abetted by the clueless chairman of the AP, Dean Singleton), there’s a difference between “news” and “information.” And, except when Google links to AP, Reuters or AFP news stories, you provide information, not news.

(Also, side note to Schmidt: Stop lying about how much China censors the Internet and how much you self-censor Google there. That alone makes the rest of your claims less believable.

And, while you’re at it, tell us if Jeff Jarvis gets paid a retainer by you.)

And, none of this mentions Google becoming the new Microslob, a point I've blogged about before.

Now, back to why newspapers are still going to be around.

Especially in smaller markets, businesses need a vehicle for advertising. Radio usually doesn’t cut it, and TV is too expensive for too many local advertisers.

That leaves a conventional newspaper vs. a shopper.

Shoppers are all ads; the worse aren’t even fully disambiguated by type of product, etc.

Newspapers have style and design, and news, which people want to read about local and regional events, to set off ads.

More proof that newspapers aren’t so bad off? The New York Times has plans to start a Chicago regional issue and maybe others.

Online ads? Thanks to Herr Schmidt, the margin on them is sinking out of sight, and newspapers are finally wising up that advertising-only is NOT a profit angle for online newspapers. Add in the fact that between hosts files, ad blockers, etc., that those in the know can block most online ads, and that there’s also a fine, and usually violently crossed, border between “creative” and “annoying” with online ads, and they don’t work for most advertisers, either.

Now, what are newspapers doing WRONG?

Plenty. Details after the jump.

One, most still don’t have paywalls, though more are talking about them again. And, those that are going beyond talk are often pricing them high, to which I say GOOD! Casual readers can go away. Real ones will pay for online-only, or else will buy a hardcopy subscription with a free online one with that.

Two, it’s possible that, at all but the biggest dailies, a lot of ad salespeople still don’t know how to sell online ads. It’s wholly different. At the minimum, instead of taking a couple of pages of spec sheets, if you want to show something to a customer, you have to take a laptop computer. And, you have to be “Internet intuitive” in some way.

Three, though, is that many newspaper corporations/execs have been incompetent, mainly in running up massive debt. That debt came from buying other overvalued newspapers 7-10 years ago, buying back their own then-overvalued stock, etc. Per the lines of pre-deregulation utilities, they need to accept smaller profit margins, look for “steadiness,” stop trying to buy each other out, and go from there.

That said, even with some of these chains in Chapter 11, let’s note that almost all individual daily papers in the U.S. still have decent, or better, profit margins. And, with the Minneapolis Star-Tribune coming out of Chapter 11 pretty decently on its debt restructuring, if its new management (unfortunately, primarily from LBOs) remembers the points I just stressed, it should do OK in the future.

Four, tying points two and three immediately above together, many of those same CEOs are clueless, still, about how the Net likely never will be monetized for newspapers on an ads-only basis. In hardcopy, for pay newspapers, circulation traditionally paid one-quarter the freight. Why, instead of a TV model, didn’t newspapers take their own financial model to the Net in the start?

Five, is it too late today to install a paywall? No. First, see the AJR column I linked. Second, if Dean Singleton had more brains, he would implement mandatory paywalls for AP content as part of new AP content package contracts.

He would then, instead of haggling with Google about a few dinky ads, would quadruple or quintuple the rates AP charges it, and have an exclusivity sidebar in there which would force Google to treat AFP and Reuters the same to avoid the freeloader problem.

The price would be set so high that, even after negotiated downward, Google couldn’t afford to cover it with ads alone, unless it wanted to do so as a major loss leader. In other words, if Dean-o had brains, he would force Google, Yahoo and MSN to paywall also.

But, while he may have built MediaNews into an empire, I’ve never accused Dean Singleton of having brains while running the AP.

As for online-only newspapers, if they don’t paywall, they have to depend on donations from individuals, non-profit foundations, or both. The latter puts you at the whim of non-profit interests, or potentially so. The former has worked for a couple of blogs that have expanded into reporting, like Talking Points Memo, but only (so far) for narrow, focused political news. Ditto for online papers.

Will people donate for bonus local sports coverage? Hell, no, is my intuitive answer. Ditto for feature stories. Will they donate for something as mundane as community calendar listings?

So, online newspapers, without paywalls, will simply balkanize the situation further.

(Note: This paywall issue and related parts will be posted again, separately.)

Newspapers - pretty alive for a 'dying' industry

2009-10-07T01:41:00.000-05:00

More proof that newspapers aren’t so bad off? The New York Times has plans to start a Chicago regional issue and maybe others.

More proof that a fair part of what does ail newspapers is recession-related? The rumors of an impending CBS bankruptcy, whether true or not — sparked by CBS’s ad sales dropoff.

No, no, no to ‘non-profit’ newspaper start-ups

2009-10-01T15:24:00.000-05:00

Among other things, pay in corner office suites is NOT so “non-profit,” as Jack Shafer notes.

Second, some of these start-ups leaning heavily on student interns means an unfair wage advantage, AND poorer news quality; see here for more.

Third, back to Shafer. Non-profit journalism is at the whims of its donors just as corporate journalism is at the whims of its owners.

Beyond Shafer: Yes, a Talking Points Memo has been successful with fund drives, but despite the Wal-Mart touch, how many readers will pay — and pay and pay and pay — to become “donors” rather than simply subscribing?

In that vein, non-profit papers are no more ready to address the paywall situation than are “old media” newspapers, it seems. And, so, will be not much more successful at new media hoops until they do.

On the other hand, the idea of just letting newspapers die is stupid in general, and is “rich” coming from someone at Newsweek, struggling more than a lot of newspapers.

Should we subsidize newspapers?

2009-10-01T15:23:00.001-05:00

I'm worried about benign paternalism more than actual active interference, but The Nation argues that newspapers need a direct tax infusion, as is the case in Europe.

That said, to avoid partisanship like we've had over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting budget, along with those of NEA, NEH, etc., we'd have to launch this program with a multi-year budget.

That said, while PBS is not a total lapdog, it's not the best example that could be cited, either? Or NPR. They're perhaps better than commercial networks, but not great.

Govt support can ONLY go to entities that declare themselves nonprofit, is one stipulation -- with strict definitions of what nonprofit is, like, say Pacifica.

Murdoch to charge to read all online papers

2009-08-06T12:50:00.001-05:00

Of course, the Wall Street Journal already charges for some content, but this is news indeed, and good news.

My only question is, does he mean just staff-generated news, or is he going to try to charge for wires, too?

To me, this has been one of the biggest failures of Dean Singleton as head of the Associated Press — the failure to push for a paywall, perhaps as a mandatory requirement under the new AP package, then doubling or tripling charges to Yahoo, Google, et al. And, playing hardball with AFP and Reuters if they don’t want to play along.

Dallas Morning News planning more layoffs?

2009-08-04T17:30:00.000-05:00

A source of mine says it's likely. And, sadly, it's not hard to see why.

I took a gander at today's paper, not to read a single story, but to eyeball inches on display ads. Here's a quick summary.

Front section? About 30 percent ads, decent amount of them color.
Metro? Almost adless, not counting obits.
Guide section? About 10 percent, not counting the four pages of advertorial. (And, how many people, like me, wonder if newspapers will eventually take the "advertorial" tag off advertorial items, if there's any way they can?)
Business section? It did have a full-page color Ebby Halliday ad at back. Otherwise, not counting classifieds, about 10 percent ads.
ONE non-classified ad in the entire sports section. (That said, people who defend major daily newspaper sports coverage in general? Sure, people may read it, but it's always been below normal on display ad inches. If you are, or have been, in the journalism business and still want to try to defend it, stop. It is indefensible from a business position.)
Overall? About 15 percent display ads.

For people who don't know, a healthy margin is about 60-40 advertising to editorial copy. And since, traditionally, major newspapers have relied 75 percent on advertising, 25 percent on circulation, now you can understand just how bad of trouble this is.

And, most auto ads? Never coming back. Real estate? Will be slow, even in a relatively "bubbleless" DFW.

As for going more and more online? People still haven't figured out how to adequately monetize online ad revenues. And, while you save trees, paper, ink and press costs, you still need (theoretically) web copy editors, online content/upload editors, etc.

Blogging? That's like the Morning News thinking it's like the NY Times editorial page during Times Select times. You see much in the way of ad revenue there?

With newspapers like this …

2009-08-01T23:17:00.000-05:00

It’s no wonder the industry is struggling.

The more I look for jobs, the more idiocy I see within the newspaper world (And I’m not just looking for jobs there.)

Here’s one example: A semiweekly paper that just did a website redesign that, except for the top banner, has no locally sold ads, just Google AdSense ads. And, you can’t even access classifieds online with this paper now.

Another… a group of two weekly papers and one semiweekly in the same market as a five-day daily that covers most the same territory, and saying they use their joint website to be like a daily. (The competition to is the best five-day daily, on both design and content, I’ve ever seen, going by the one issue in the racks.) That said, the group of non-dailies does have each of its editors cut a video short each week.

Yet another. A seven-day daily with no staff photographer is bad enough. One that runs submitted photos as the lead art half the time is even worse. (And it’s the rare duck that’s afternoon M-F and mornings Sat-Sun.)

My own former paper, which was doing all sorts of dumb ad trade-outs, like swapping a 1x8 ad to Cinemark in exchange for movie passes, or giving the eventual ad sales manager’s hubby a 2x5 trade-out in exchange for him allegedly being our computer consultant, even though he only knew PCs and not Macs.

Atlantic and WaPost hypocrisy fest

2009-07-10T14:26:00.000-05:00

As readers who follow national politics may already know, the Atlantic Monthly didn’t comment on the Washington Post’s “pay-to-play” salons because it’s been doing pretty much the same thing and, so far at least, is even less repentant than the Post.

Speaking of that, though, the Post says it will conduct an internal investigation of it’s own salon plans and how they got to be the way they did.

Given that Publisher Katherine Weymouth has refused to fall on the sword herself, and still isn’t:

Weymouth said she was on vacation last week and did not see the invitation that was sent out in her name

(As if the flier invitation is the only thing wrong about this)

And Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli really can’t be as ignorant of what happened as he claims, it’s clear that “internal investigation” means scapegoat searching.

Let’s let Post political reporter Dan Balz talk about that:

“I think everyone still has questions about how this collective breakdown occurred. This was not just two people in a room. There were a number of discussions about it. That part concerned me. Everyone knows the dinners were a bad idea.”

It appears new marketing exec Charles Pelton, already fingered for the fliers about the salons, would be scapegoating target No. 1.

That said, how different is this from newspapers spiking, toning down, delaying, or otherwise bollixing up stories for fear of offending major advertisers?

Not much. So, in that sense, this is nothing new.

The end of a newspaper era

2009-07-03T12:28:00.002-05:00

It looks like Today Newspapers, a group of south suburban Dallas newspapers, and my employer for most the last 9 and 1/2 years, less an eight-month hiatus, is now history.

Causes? Many.

The recession and the newspaper economy in general.

Others in particular? South suburban Dallas is tough. The Dallas Morning News never even tried to run a free-standing paper here, other than their (subsidized?) freebie tabs they do now in different parts of the Metroplex.

At the same time, in a Tar Baby style dysfunctional relationship, many civic leaders in the “Best Southwest” suburbs have, for years, done what I call “whoring after the Morning News,” riffing on the Old Testament prophets’ comments about Israel “whoring after the Ba’als.”

Schadenfreude, in a large glass says, Fine, now you have the News, or either a small daily paper with unaudited circulation which doesn’t run school lunch menus, honor rolls and more, to cover your area.

And, some of the problems were peculiar to our staff. Without going into details, or throwing people too far under the bus, we never did get much in the way of online ad sales from our staff, who never seemed that interested in learning more about doing online sales, sales techniques for online ads, etc. (Of course, one of our ad reps claimed she could always get a job up at the News, which wasn’t likely even before all of its cuts.)

I do feel sorry for people in our area who will miss us and know what they’re missing. As for the rest, no.

The actual ending? To riff on George Santayana, both tragedy and farce at the same time. Pettiness from our webmaster, taking down all news stories off the website, because somebody else had already "moved" CDs with archived digital hardcopy pages, photos, etc.

Beyond that, I’ve been wanting out of newspaper journalism more and more. If I have to stay in it shorter-term, fine. But, I know there are other things that better fit my skills and acumen, even if I didn’t go to the right Ivy League or other school.

MediaNews’ I-News sounds like DMN’s CueCat

2009-06-02T14:18:00.001-05:00

So MediaNews is starting what it calls an “Individuated News: personalized newspaper?

Peter Vandevanter, vice president of targeted products for MediaNews Group, told the World Association of Newspapers (WAN) “The Power of Print Conference” that the subscribers will get home delivery of a printed paper, through home printers or portable devices, with content personalized to their demands and including hyper-targeted advertising and coupon offers.

So, on the ad side, MediaNews and Dean Singleton are trying to out-Google Google and Sergey Brin? Good luck with that. Coupons? BFD. Everybody knows their use rate is in single digits.

If I want to read hardcopy, I can just go to a webpage and hit “print” if I have a home printer. If it doesn’t correctly format for 8.5x11, I can copy the text and paste in a Word document. Plus, if I have ad-block settings and/or a good hosts file, I don’t get any of Singleton’s ads.

What moronity.

But wait, that’s not ALL the moronity. The MediaNews printer ain’t a freebee:

Subscribers buy the printer at a deep discount and pay a “modest” subscription fee, Vandenvanter told Mitchell. The newspaper reimburses subscribers for the consumable. Advertisers pay the newspaper for targeted ads.

Even THAT isn’t all the moronity. Allegedly, advertising rates for the I-News product “are 10 times print advertising rates.”

Good luck with that one!

Time vs Time on Sotomayor

2009-05-26T21:08:00.001-05:00

Does Time magazine not have a managing editor anymore? Or has the Internet basically castrated the powers of such a person at what is theoretically a weekly newsmagazine?

At Time, Karen Tumulty says Sotomayor WILL get a tough Senate fight: “Indeed, a fight is a political inevitability.”

(Sidebar nutbarrery: Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network calling the current SCOTUS “liberal activist.”)

Anyway, in contradistinction to Tumulty, Time’s Mark Halperin predicts smooth sailing for Sotomayor.

So, which is it?

And, in a broader, more philosophical question, are more magazines of news and opinion going to become more like this – little more than quasi-freelancers under one roof?

Dallas Morning News hiring again?? WTF?

2009-05-23T01:00:00.001-05:00

That’s about all I can say after seeing ads for a Dallas city hall reporter and a Dallas ISD reporter at Journalism Jobs, just two months after taking a meat axe to its editorial staff.

Sac Bee goes chickenshit on Cal voters op-ed

2009-05-21T11:07:00.000-05:00

In the wake of California voters rejecting five budget-related referenda, the Sacramento Bee originally had a FANTASTIC house editorial spanking the voters’ collective tuchises. But then, top management at the Bee, apparently after a flood of calls and e-mails (interestingly, the Bee announced a few weeks ago its looking for an editorial page editor) got cold feet, pulled the original (the Bee has turned off Google Cache, but the idiots thought the whole world had, I guess), and substituted this limp drivel.

Don’t get me wrong. The California Legislature deserved a spanking too. But NOT at the expense of letting California voters off the hook. The Bee cravenly abdicated its editorial page responsibility and duty.

The original editorial did just that, telling California voters, in more words, they were 20-million plus credit card users now blaming the state for failing to rescue them from their own overcharging without paying for it.

Metered newspaper charges?

2009-05-15T18:18:00.000-05:00

Amongst all the different ways to try to get people to pony up for reading newspapers, I hadn’t heard anybody mention the option “the New York Times is considering.

Basically, it’s something similar to your cell phone bill, or the way your ISP bill may have been in the past, or may still be today.

You buy an account with a limit, except in this case the limit will be pageviews or online words rather than minutes. As the story notes, setting the base rate price is key. If you set it right, and get enough people reading, you can charge pretty high “extra” fees.

Of course, the next question is what goes behind the paywall. Times Select flopped with its columnists, which was probably embarrassing to them.

I’d start with the Mag and the Review of Books. Narrowly focused audiences, more dedicated than average readers, even average Times readers.

Clay Shirky on the ‘whys’ of newspaper demise

2009-03-14T15:47:00.000-05:00

Clay Shirky has three great posts on why the online newspaper world, as a business model, is basically vaporizing. I’m going to look at all three.

First, Shirky gives us the big picture of where we’re at today and why, including why the TV-radio model, the “digital garden” model of pay circulation, the micropayment model like iTunes and others, won’t work.

Here’s his nut graf, about one-quarter the way down:

The curious thing about the various plans hatched in the ’90s is that they were, at base, all the same plan: “Here’s how we’re going to preserve the old forms of organization in a world of cheap perfect copies!” The details differed, but the core assumption behind all imagined outcomes (save the unthinkable one) was that the organizational form of the newspaper, as a general-purpose vehicle for publishing a variety of news and opinion, was basically sound, and only needed a digital facelift. As a result, the conversation has degenerated into the enthusiastic grasping at straws, pursued by skeptical responses.

He next looks at the details of why some proposed alternative models won’t work, and have already been proven that way, at least to some degree:

“The Wall Street Journal has a paywall, so we can too!” (Financial information is one of the few kinds of information whose recipients don’t want to share.) “Micropayments work for iTunes, so they will work for us!” (Micropayments only work where the provider can avoid competitive business models.) “The New York Times should charge for content!” (They’ve tried, with QPass and later TimesSelect.) “Cook’s Illustrated and Consumer Reports are doing fine on subscriptions!” (Those publications forgo ad revenues; users are paying not just for content but for unimpeachability.) “We’ll form a cartel!” (…and hand a competitive advantage to every ad-supported media firm in the world.)

Shirky then pronounces his judgment, and it’s a somber one:

Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke.

Shirky goes on to like how the Internet is doing some form of what (we hope) Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction” to print media is the biggest such change since Gutenberg and the printing press.

I insert the link multiple times because this is a LONG blog post; twice as long as many a newspaper column, and because it’s WELL worth reading. So read it.

But, as I said, this is only one of three posts.

Shirky also tackles the details of the micropayments model and why it won’t work. First, we relisten to the same songs, but don’t re-read the same newspaper story. Second, Napster and its kin have been declared illegal; blogging and hyperlinks have done something different in media.

He then takes a more general look at the micropayments model. He says part of the problem is that the various micropayments models under discussion are entirely publisher-driven and don’t take the reader into account.

If that’s not enough for you, back in 2003, Shirky listed out the multitude of failed micropayment programs.

Read all four, not three, links I’ve provided, and accept that the mass-audience newspaper of today is probably doomed.

That all said, Shirky is light on prescriptions for the future.

And, as I blogged last week, online advertising is becoming the junk mail of the Internet world.

If various versions of charge-for-content aren’t going to work, and, with Shirky’s acknowledgement that the Gutenberg Revolution 2.0 will throw out lot of experimental models, at the least, I’d like to see Shirky throw out some ideas, and handicap some of the more promising models out there.

Can newspapers save themselves?

2009-03-11T15:01:00.000-05:00

First of all, despite claims to the contrary, Internet advertising is NOT very likely going to save newspapers.

My analogy is that Internet advertising is like the Red River in West Texas in summer – it’s a mile wide but only an inch deep.

Here’s the bottom line.

The failure is ultimately trying to apply a hardcopy business model to the Net. Papers, and mags, HAVE TO, even if the barn doors are already open, start charging for online content. Ads alone, in the online world, WILL NOT make a paper profitable.

Walter Isaacson says microcontent sales are the ticket, unaware that that’s already doable, and showing that Isaacson himself doesn’t have an answer.

Even readers of small dailies, semiweeklies and weeklies have gotten used to getting stories for free, off the Net.

The AP is going to have to revisit contracts with Google, Yahoo, etc., especially with Google selling its own ads on newspaper-linked stories now. It’s that simple.

Some non-dailies have pretty good websites, and I don’t just mean metropolitan alt-weeklies. And they sell ads well. Many other papers don’t. Even people at level of newspapers demand more and more free content all the time.

Why bankers aren't newspaper editors

2009-03-02T23:55:00.002-06:00

In the interest of improving efficiency or something, and showing that she's doing that to some would-be investors and or a bank that might show some loan-based largess, our owner/publisher is putting editors on the clock.

NEVER have heard of that before.

Bankers have no clue how the editorial world works.

Dallas Morning News shows bias in Sharon Keller story

2009-02-20T14:16:00.000-06:00

In reporting the fact that Sharon Keller, the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, will have to justify her conduct in closing the door and phones of her office at 5 p.m. Sept. 25, 2007, the day Michael Richard’s lawyers planned to file an appeal based on the U.S. Supreme Court accepting a case on the constitutionality of lethal injection that same day, and told Keller’s office the appeal was running late due to computer problems, the Morning News said:

The "notice of formal proceedings" issued by the commission comes after more than a year of orchestrated public outrage over the handling of Michael Richard's case.

To which, I e-mailed reporter Diana Jennings:

The word "orchestrated" in the phrase "after more than a year of orchestrated public outrage" I found to be quite editorially biased, not just a "bit," in fact.

I needed NOBODY to "orchestrate" my outrage over Judge Keller's callousness, thank you very much. That said, you've given me something to blog about.

Geez, Unbelievable it would say that.

Google CEO Schmidt offers ideas to save papers

2009-01-10T21:38:00.000-06:00

Gooogle CEO Eric Schmidt says he truly would bemoan the demise of the daily paper, then offers steps to prevent that.

Schmidt said Google is NOT looking at acquistions, investments or other financial help of its own.

To me, one of the most intriguing tools he did mention is going the nonprofit route. Schmidt mentions ProPublica. Britain's Guardian is an example across the pond.

Elsewhere and in response, Dan Froomkin goes Schmidt one better, suggesting Google form some sort of nonprofit umbrella structure. He also suggests that, even if Schmidt doesn't want to bail out for-profit newspapers, it consider investing in a nonprofit group like ProPublica.

That said, the problem is the Internet, not Google. Shouldn't we also be asking Ballmer what Microsoft should do? Or whomever winds up running Yahoo?

Do we need the Fairness Doctrine back?

2008-12-17T12:00:00.000-06:00

I don’t know exactly what California Congresswoman has in mind to replace the old Fairness Doctrine, killed in 1987. But, contrary to MSLBs who insist we’ve moved far beyond its days, due to the wonderments of the Internet, I disagree.

First, there’s no guarantees about what the future of the Internet will be, vis-à-vis Net Neutrality and other issues.

Second, folks like Steve Benen spin this out from the viewpoint of the left-hand side of the two-party duopoly, instead of looking at additional viewpoints beyond its left and right hands that need protecting.

For example, wouldn’t it be great for a socialist — a REAL one, and not you, Sen. Bernie Sanders — to have had access to the airwaves to talk about the lenders’ bailout?

Third, despite some shrinkage on traditional network TV, the cable news networks continue to grow. And, a network, whether old-time broadcast like NBC, newer cable like CNN, or newer yet cable-Net fusion like MSNBC, still has cachet that some third-party or fourth-viewpoint website doesn’t.

Unfortunately, it is 20 years too late. As the comments on the Press Club blog post show, 20 years of a free ride for Rush and dittoheads mean that they're cluelessly infantile about the First Amendment, among other things, as the Fairness Doctrine clearly WAS constitutional.

I’m not saying we need the same Fairness Doctrine today, but we need something. We don’t often get a lot of TRULY different information out of the left and right hands of the two-party duopoly and its emissaries and most people don't even know of something like Pacifica.

The Iranian philosopher Idries Shah says there are never just two sides two an issue. But, a real FD would protect the three or more sides.

You need a recruiter to hire a community newspaper editor

2008-12-16T18:33:00.002-06:00

That's a blind ad taken to a whole new level. Hell, even Park Cities People hires openly. A community newspaper using a recruiter is a whole new level of snootiness.

That said, if anybody in Texas knows a recruiter named Allen Wright, let me know anything you know!

A strange way to write a headline at the Snooze

2008-10-18T13:49:00.000-05:00

Attention, Dallas Morning News copy editors/page designers:

Cars don’t kill people, car drivers do, unless an unattended car has its “Park” lock shear off or something.

And, it takes two people to byline a story that short? Is this make-work before the next layoff ax?

Tribune Co. bailing on AP

2008-10-16T20:13:00.001-05:00

The Tribune Company, parent of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times,, is looking at not renewing its AP contract in 2010.

The Associated Press’ proposed new package of services in 2010 is unpopular with many papers, including controversial new rate structure next year.

Member papers now pay AP for a general news package tailored to their size and location. The new plan will have papers getting all available breaking news dispatches from around the world and other states with premium non-breaking content available at an added cost.

The gist of the complaint is that, even as many newspapers want more local news, the AP is forcing more international news on them.

Editor and Publisher has more:

Under current AP policy, each newspaper buys a package of general news created by AP based on that paper's location and circulation. The package usually includes breaking news, sports, business, and other national, international, and regional news relevant to the client's market, including its state AP wire.

Under the new structure, AP member newspapers will receive all breaking news worldwide (including items from other state wires), as well as breaking sports, business, and entertainment stories. In addition, a package of premium content — made up of five types of non-breaking stories including sports, entertainment, business, lifestyle and analysis — will be available at an additional cost.

The base rate is lower, but the material isn’t targeted by location.

So far, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune is the largest paper to officially opt out. Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Wash., is trying to get out at the end of this year, claiming AP’s two-year advance notice doesn’t apply as the new service package is that much different than the old one.

So far, the AP has been indifferent to member newspapers’ complaints, but I don’t see how it can ignore the Trib Co.

But, per E&P, the Trib’s empire also includes: The Sun Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; The Orlando Sentinel; Red Eye of Chicago; the Hartford Courant; The Baltimore Sun; The Morning Call of Allentown, Pa.; and The Daily Press of Newport News, Va.

I just don’t see how the AP can ignore than many newspapers of BIG circulation.

AP reporters’ arrogance toward ‘little people’ in Denver

2008-08-26T14:59:00.000-05:00

While eating lunch at the EXCELLENT New Mex-Mex restaurant Jack-N-Grill Sunday (try the chile [sic] relleno burrito, or about anything), an AP editor, and other members of the Fourth Estate, showed up for lunch.

And, overlooking the fact that is a popular restaurant, it was Sunday lunch, and this is a relatively slow-paced restaurant with a price range of about everything under $15 and most items under $10, Mr. Pinstriped Suit Pants, especially, seemed to get a little huffy toward wait staff.

Dude, chill out. You were at the good end of the outdoor seating area, next to the propane chile roaster. (My burrito, made with two Hatch rellenos rather than one ancho, had chiles roasted earlier Sunday morning.)

FOX reaches new ethical low with Photoshopping pics

2008-07-03T15:28:00.000-05:00

Here’s the story on how it deliberately Photoshopped the pics of two NYTimes staffers.

Marshall certainly didn't have Fortas’ baggage, and there is no way Northern Republican Senators would have voted against cloture, or voted against Marshall's actual nomination.

L.A. Times continues to crater

2008-07-03T11:26:00.000-05:00

When a 21st-century newspaper cuts Internet news jobs, you know it’s floundering.

The Times’ editorial staff will be shrunk 17 percent by Labor Day. The paper will also put out about 15 percent fewer pages.

The heartless mainstream media continues to filet itself

2008-06-25T12:56:00.000-05:00

The Miami Herald lays you off. After a bait-and-switch sending your job to India.

Then, it wants you to blog about it, and about how you’re going to survive without full-time income! (Scroll down to the June 22 post, or go directly there.

And, this is McClatchy.

Outside its more thorough, non Bush-shitted coverage of Iraq, it shows again it is Just.Another.Newspaper.

Bob Woodward – ‘self-effacing guy’

2008-05-21T00:29:00.000-05:00

That’s the word from Washington Post Executive Editor Len Downie said about the legendary-in-his-own-mind Woodward continuing to work for the WaPost at a buck a year as a “special asset” after taking a Post buyout.

McClatchy — just another newspaper company

2008-05-20T16:07:00.000-05:00

Forget their in-depth, unbiased Iraq coverage. When outsourcing jobs to India is he least problematic of your newspaper job downsizing actions, you’re just another big conservative newspaper company at bottom line.

Hey may not know Mavericks hoops, but he does know CEO-ing more than Snooze

2008-05-11T18:00:00.001-05:00

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban makes a compelling case to make CEO pay cash-only:

Make companies generate 100 percent of their compensation in cash that will be 100 percent expensable in the quarter paid.

Counteracting the “CEO as riskmeister” myth, Cuban writes:

Everyone who works for that company is at risk – of losing their jobs, benefits, raises, you name it. Employees live in the corporate cash zone, while CEOs and the top few in management live in the equity/lottery ticket zone.

Too bad an outsider like Cuban had to write something like this instead of the Dallas Morning News’ own op-ed staff

Of course, given that Bob Decherd, CEO of Belo Corp., the parent of the Snooze, got a $3 million bonus last year, despite a negatively performing company — a bonus that works out at about $60,000 per each of 50 fired editorial employees — it’s no wonder it took an outsider to write this.

The only wonder is that the Snooze even published it.

Dallas Morning News gets Jewish-Roman history wrong

2008-05-11T17:19:00.000-05:00

The Snooze lumps Rome’s two wars against Jewish rebels with Nazi persecution of Jews in what sets a new low standard for non-political stupidity on the editorial pages of the Snooze.

The murder of 6 million European Jews in the 1940s fiercely and urgently showed why Israel was, and is, necessary. It is no small mystery, though, that the failed attempt to exterminate the Jewish people would resurrect an ancient nation murdered by Roman legions.

As I e-mailed Snooze Editorial Page Editor Keven Willey, this is totally ahistorical. First, while Rome may have provoked Jews at times, nonetheless, the Jewish people had full religious freedom in the Roman Empire before the first Jewish Revolt. That’s TOTALLY different from the Nazis going out of their way to proscribe Judaism then kill the Jewish people just for being Jews.

And, it wasn’t until after the SECOND Jewish revolt that Rome put restrictions on Jewish practices and forbade them from living in Jerusalem.

Hypocrisy alert – Bob Decherd and Belo Corp

2008-05-04T20:55:00.000-05:00

Only eight of Dallas-Fort Worth’s 50 largest companies had both a revenue decline in 2007 from 2006 AND negative value to shareholders in 2007.

One of those was Belo Corp, parent of The Dallas Morning News.

The News has been slumping even by the standards of seven-day daily newspaper declines. (Interestingly, the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Orange County Register, two other openly conservative papers, have joined the Snooze at or near the bottom of worst-performing major dailies the last three or so years. The New York Post and Washington Times are perennial money losers.)

That did not phase the board of directors of Belo, apparently. Decherd, at $3 million, got the fifth-biggest bonus of those top-50 company CEOs. His total compensation for the year ranked 13th, at a shade over $10 million.

That $3 million bonus? What is that, about $60,000 each for the 50 or so editorial folks who have gotten the ax at the Snooze in the last three years or so?

Sorry I can’t find a link to the graphic box illustrating this that goes with the main story. I’d love to ask Pamela Yip, who wrote the main store and has seen dozens of friends and coworkers get axed over the last three years, how she felt about digging up that nugget.

If you’d like to ask her, here you go.

Apparently jump-page orphans don't matter at Snooze

2008-04-30T12:24:00.000-05:00

In what I would definitely consider bad copyediting/pagination, multiple stories in today's Dallas Morning News have single-word orphans on their page jumps.

Bloodbath at the Times

2008-04-25T11:13:00.001-05:00

Only 70 editorial staffers at the New York Times have accepted buyouts, less than the 100 Executive Editor Bill Keller wanted. So, the NYT is expected to engage in its first-ever mass firing. Why?

You know the drill. Poor ad revenues. Well, poor for the newspaper biz, that doesn’t want to lower profit margin expectations, especially in the middle of a board restructuring cave-in.

Murdoch wants Newsday next

2008-04-23T17:26:00.000-05:00

Considering that any deal isn’t likely until near the election, I highly doubt Rupert Murdoch will clear the antitrust hurdles necessary to complete his proposed $580 million offer for Long Island daily Newsday.

Having three of the nation’s top 10 papers, plus three in the NYC market (the Sun and the Wall Street Journal as well) would probably draw close regulator scrutiny.

But, a dingy gray knight is prepared to do battle with Murdoch the black knight. Mortimer Zuckerman, owner of the Daily News, also wants Newsday and is crafting a counteroffer.

Mort wouldn’t be much better than Rupert.

Better yet, and more reflective of NYC political realities, would be a takeover by the Observer, which is reportedly partnering with Cablevision to prepare an offer.

All three would want joint ad deals and sales the combo could offer. At the same time, Newsday continues to sag in its performance.

There goes the newspaper neighborhood

2008-04-15T00:04:00.000-05:00

A lot of liberal bloggers may be wringing their hands about Rupert Murdoch being elected to the Associated Press board of directors, but as an ink-stained wretch/member of the Fourth Estate myself, I can tell them their concerns, while not necessarily overblown, are too narrow.

Among other new board members? Donna J. Barrett, president and chief executive officer of Community Newspaper Holdings Inc. CHNI is the “Chainsaw Al” of small-town daily newspaper operations. They buy a newspaper, or small group thereof, and immediately attempt to recoup their money ASAP.

Of course, Dean Singleton, already on the board, and his MediaNews, aren’t exactly a gem of newspaper ownership either. After all, it was Deano who asked Barack Obama if he planned to do more to fight Obama bin Laden. It may have been an accident, but I wouldn’t be so sure.

If you want to know more about Deano (disclosure – I worked at one of his papers in the late 1990s), all you need is the quote below from this NYT story:

“Mr. Singleton, 54, a bantam figure with flinty blue eyes, is indeed thought of as something of a magician in the newspaper world — having transformed himself from the son of a ranch hand in a tiny town in Texas to a media baron who now controls a newspaper empire that sprawls from coast to coast,” the Times adds. “He has, in a manner of speaking, sawed many of his competitors in half, only to have them hop off the table and become his partners.”

But, don’t underestimate him, says John McManus from San Jose State’s j-school:

“He aspires to be a mogul in the ranks of Pulitzer and the Hearst of old, and I think he's going to achieve it.”

Trust me, Rupert Murdoch isn’t really an “outlier” here.

Local TV going the way of the newspaper?

2008-04-06T23:06:00.001-05:00

It would seem so, given the ad drops, viewer drops and now, the job-slashing, that’s hitting local network affiliate stations.

Outside of Baltimore, CBS is seeing cuts at network-owned affiliate stations in New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. The story says no order came out of HQ for this, but did note these were allegedly low-performing stations. CBS as a company lost 14.6 percent in the first quarter of this year.

Contrary to the newspaper article, though, it’s more than fragmenting of the market, or audience. And, yes, I agree that part of this is recession-driven.

It’s more than just the “traditional” Internet, of newspaper and TV station websites, supplemented by the Yahoos and Google News of the world.

Instead, just as blogging provided an outlet for some sort of “print” citizen journalism, now YouTube has done the same for video citizen journalism.

In other words, TV is facing the same future that hit newspapers a decade ago.

Newspapers have adapted, in many cities, by cutting staff writers and hiring more freelancers. In general assignment work, that’s OK. But, as The Dallas Morning News has shown here, when you have freelancers doing things like science journalism, it backfires.

Of course, TV does less in-depth stuff like that. You could keep staff reporters and videographers for investigative work, and start farming out the rest. The flip side of that is, TV stations could “bureau” their news by suburban areas, in the larger TV markets.

It’s coming, in some way, shape or form.

Beyond the world of local news, entertainment is not just going to cable channels. YouTube has more and more of that to offer, too.

And, if this story about Internet 3.0, Hypernet, or whatever you want to call it is true, we’ll see a lot more people leaving the traditional boob tube turned off.

Illiterate science journalism at Morning News confuses nature and nurture

2008-04-01T22:13:00.000-05:00

In a health story today at The Dallas Morning News, (don’t forget the initial capital!) freelancer (I’m sorry, “special contributor”) Elsa K. Simcik made a whopper of a mistake on nature vs. nurture. She says:

Reed also didn't realize that being African-American automatically put her at high risk for developing colon cancer. According to the American Cancer Society Web site, “African-Americans have the highest colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates of all racial groups in the United States.”

Yes, but there is NO definite evidence linking anything genetic in African-Americans to the higher colon cancer rates, therefore, Martha Reed was NOT “automatically” anything.

There are a variety of environmental risk factors, to be sure. Lower screening rates and detection often being in more advanced states of cancer both contribute to the higher fatality rate. Traditional black foods, higher in saturated fats and lower in fiber, are certainly likely contributory to higher rates of occurrence.

BUT … those are all “nature” factors, not “nurture” ones.

As for claims of genetic-driven difference, all of them are weak at this stage, and even if they do pan out with more research, nonetheless, their effects will be seen as much smaller than the environmentally-caused ones.

I know the Snooze got rid of its fantastic science editor, Tom Siegfried, in what seems like an eon ago. But, that’s not an excuse for not having at least a staff writer with some science writing doing this story.

Dallas Morning News appears to misformat column as story

2008-04-01T14:57:00.000-05:00

The Dallas Morning News has a very good freelancer’s column on potential for a “low bottom” on the housing bubble. The grimmest news is that as much as 4 percent of home loans could be in foreclosure by the end of this year. That is, barring an economic regulatory reform package that also offers homeowner some relief. Anyway, here’s where we’re at right now, along with projections for the future:

Unfortunately, the author of the story, Will Deener, says that getting mortgage defaults behind us, will allow this wonderful benefit:

Then the banks, brokerage firms and mortgage companies will start packaging those mortgages again and selling them to institutions, which is how the system is supposed to work.

Uhh, no, Will. Wrong. Exactimento wrong.
That’s how the system was gamed to get us to this point in the first place. The “system” as it currently stands is broken.

Oh, and Dallas Morning News? Why isn’t this run in hardcopy, or identified online, as news analysis or a column, which it clearly is. (Going by a column in hardcopy today, which is NOT run ragged-right on line justification like columns are supposed to be, I am assuming this one, too, if/when it appears in hardcopy, will be run as a straight financial news story.)

Oh, and why isn’t the Snooze posting e-mail addys for most of its freelance contributors anymore? I’m guessing some of them might not like it, but, the Snooze could either set them up with corporate e-mail addresses or else simply say that’s part of the price of freelancing.

Newspaper ad dropoff reflects recession ahead?

2008-03-28T18:34:00.000-05:00

Newspaper ad rates dropped almost 10 percent in 2007. The decline, in percentage, was the biggest since the Newspaper Association of American started tracking ad sales stats in 1950.

National print advertising revenue dropped 6.7 percent to $7 billion last year. Retail slipped 5 percent to $21 billion. Classified plunged 16.5 percent to $14.1 billion.

That last number, the anchor bringing the total print advertising drop to 9.4 percent, shows the effects of Craigslist, which continues to try to be like a newspaper classified advertising website when it suits its purposes, but then claims it isn’t one when it wants to avoid federal fair housing law. (Click the Craigslist label for more.)

Meanwhile, online ad revenue, while continuing to grow, had its rate of growth slow last year. Some of that is natural. Between all of the above, online ad revenue now makes up 7.5 percent of total newspaper ad revenue.

Google makes it easier to avoid Morning News website

2008-03-24T23:01:00.001-05:00

First, let me say, as tens of thousands of others in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex have said over the last three-plus years since the Snooze, officially known as The (don’t forget to capitalize that “the,” New York Times pretentiousness and all) Dallas Morning News, changed its website to its current form.

It sucks.

It sucks donkey dongs.

It sucks George Bannerman Dealey’s donkey dong, in fact.

It is probably THE WORST website of any major seven-day daily newspaper in the United States, excepting of course, other A.H. Belo papers in Riverside, Calif. and Providence, R.I. (Belo websites suck because Belo blows — the different papers’ websites are mirror images.)

One of the worst things about the Snooze’s website is the impossibility of finding any Snooze story that is not actually linked on the website’s homepage. The story may have been written in the last 24 hours; it may have run in that day’s hardcopy.

But, if it ain’t on the homepage of the website, you ain’t gonna find it.

Solution? After getting frustrated at the donkey-dong sucking Snooze website (see for yourself), I go to Google News, hit the advanced news search, enter Dallas Morning News as my search (don’t even have to use “the,” let alone the prissy-fit capitalized version), and then enter my normal Google search words.

Voila! Link(s) spit out to just the right articles.

Well, now, Google is going one step further.

This month, the company introduced a search-within-search feature that lets users stay on Google to find pages on popular sites like those of The Washington Post, Wikipedia, The New York Times, Wal-Mart and others. The search box appears when someone enters the name of certain Web addresses or company names — say, “Best Buy” — rather than entering a request like “cellphones.”

The results of the search are almost all individual company pages. Google tops those results with a link to the home page of the Web site in question, adds another search box, and offers users the chance to let Google search for certain things within that site.

The problem, for some in the industry, is that when someone enters a term into that secondary search box, Google will display ads for competing sites, thereby profiting from ads it sells against the brand. The feature also keeps users searching on Google pages and not pages of the destination Web site.

Tough shit. Your unsearchable website, with further editorial cuts ahead, certainly won’t get better. If anything, it will get worse.

Oh, and to throw you further under the bus… you have a paper always bragging about the APME awards it wins for sports coverage, then it outsources all its high school stuff to a third-party site, one that doesn’t have as much online high school sports as the DMN did five years ago.

You don’t like it? Make your own website better. Google is, indeed, just saving me more work now.

More layoffs ahead at Dallas Morning News

2008-03-22T17:51:00.001-05:00

That’s what I’ve heard through the grapevine; no numbers mentioned on the job cuts. I guess, if enough editorial staff gets cut, Southwest can go back to flying uninspected airplanes without it getting noticed in the public as readily.

Court makes wrong ruling on Craiglist housing ad bias liability

2008-03-15T23:55:00.001-05:00

Although Craigslist steals a boatload of ads from traditional newspapers and even more from alt-weeklies, a federal appeals judge said it doesn’t have the same legal burden as them to make sure its classified ads for housing aren’t discriminatory.

The lawsuit, filed by a consortium of Chicago attorneys in February 2006, accused Craigslist of violating federal housing laws by publishing more than 100 ads that excluded potential buyers or tenants on the basis of race, gender or religion.

I strongly hope this is pursued to the Supreme Court and overturned. And, the Chicago lawyers who started the legal action say they’re not giving up yet on rooting out discriminatory housing lenders and sellers.

But, that’s a toughie.

The decision upholds a November 2006 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. In dismissing the case, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve ruled that Craigslist serves as an intermediary party, not a publisher.

And, that’s why it’s a toughie. You have both a district judge and an appellate judge unwilling to tackle new media issues. And, you know SCOTUS, should it even take such an appeal, isn’t going to be any better.

So, unless those Chicago lawyers find grounds to appeal this particular ruling, this gives Craigslist a hugely unfair legal advantage over traditional newspapers.

Reporters and media protection latest BushCo ‘security threat’

2008-03-15T23:05:00.000-05:00

I guess a media shield law will give al Qaida “aid, hope and comfort,” or some other stupidity.

First, we have the Subtler, Suaver Alberto Gonzales™, Attorney General Mike Mukasey, claiming a shield law now wending its way through the Senate, defines a journalist too broadly.

Of course, this is the same AG Mukasey who cut blog/online news source Talking Points Memo off the list of daily e-mail media recipients from the Department of Justice.

And, doorknob bless Patrick Fitzgerald for prosecuting Scooter Libby, but he’s just wrong in claiming a shield law isn’t needed.

Dismissing notions that media subpoenas would dampen investigative reporting, Fitzgerald said, “Journalists have been saying the sky is falling since 1972 ... and that suddenly the stories will dry up. But I'm not seeing big blank spaces on the front page.”

Uh, Pat, the worry isn’t what has happened since 1972, but what has happened since 2001. Get a clue. Or else admit that you’re spinning a line here.

‘Weblog’ not ‘blog’ guaranteed to make paper website look old-school

2008-03-14T20:49:00.000-05:00

So, a weekly newspaper group has had a website since, oh, 2002, 2003. It’s finally entering the blogosphere, and what does the newspaper’s webmaster do?

He calls the front-page link Weblogs.

Weblog as a term, other than in the mouths of people who still wear pocket protectors in their shirts, died out about the same time five or six years ago that this newspaper group started its website.

A trite lede that is long past usable

2008-03-09T16:57:00.001-05:00

I saw this one most recently in The Dallas Morning News. It’s the old “he/she must be smiling from heaven” type lede.

With the number of Hindus, Buddhists and secularists increasing in our country, this is a lede that is of no relevance to the first two groups and off-putting to the third. That’s not to mention the fact that it was beaten to death a decade or more ago.

So, Herb Booth and thousands of other reporters? Can it.

Newspaper website marketing no-no

2008-03-08T22:35:00.000-06:00

Why would you have an “about” link on the front page of a website for a daily newspaper if you don’t actually have any information posted about yourself? Hmm, Yreka, Calif., can’t be that behind the times, right?

Journalists get depression wrong with ‘chemical imbalance’ meme

2008-03-04T22:50:00.000-06:00

No, I still don’t believe memes exist, at least not in a strong sense, but the word is a handy catch-all. Anyway, that’s besides the point.

A set of psychology researchers say that media use of “chemical imbalance” to describe depression is scientifically inaccurate. Rightly, they note that the idea comes from classical Greece’s concept of the four “humors” in the body.

Science journalists get depression wrong by dissing SSRIs

2008-03-04T22:49:00.000-06:00

A set of psychology researchers rightly say that media use of “chemical imbalance” to describe depression is scientifically inaccurate.

However, the researchers then have to follow up on the overhyped recent Public Library of Science report and claim, as does the author of the World Science story, that modern anti-depressants really don’t work:

The drugs, known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors or SSRIs, recently turned out to be largely ineffective.

Boy, that’s wrong in several ways. First, the PLoS story only claimed that antidepressants were relatively ineffective in mild or moderate depression, not all depressions.

Second, the PLoS authors overstated their case. From the study:

On average, the SSRIs improved the HRSD score of patients by 1.8 points more than the placebo, whereas NICE has defined a significant clinical benefit for antidepressants as a drug–placebo difference in the improvement of the HRSD score of 3 points.

That may not be great effectiveness, but it’s nowhere near “largely ineffective.” And, since milder depressions are usually likely to ring up lower diagnostic scores, the numeric steps of improvement, by HRSD scores, that provide relief, will be lesser anyway.

So, perhaps science journalists aren’t so great about writing about depression, either.

How newspapers endorse candidates, with one dirty little secret

2008-02-22T10:36:00.000-06:00

In between comments I made at Washington Monthly yesterday about “la Mésalliance McCain,” somebody commented about Mitt Romney being upset about the New York Times endorsing McCain instead of him; that person also wondered a bit about the process involved.

I touched a bit on the process here, but thought I could do a bit more public service by detailing the editorial endorsement process, from my experience at (much smaller) daily newspapers.

The NYT editorial board would likely have publisher Pinch Sulzberger, Executive Editor Bill Keller, Managing Editor Jill Abramson, Opinion Editor Gail Collins, possibly the top editorial writer (editorial writers and bylined op-ed columnists are different critters at major dailies), possibly/probably the deputy managing editor for politics, or similar position, and perhaps a couple of others.

You’d also have some ad hoc members. For example, for New York City mayoral endorsements, the city editor might sit in. For gubernatorial endorsements, the Albany editor. For presidential endorsements, Dean Baquet, the Washington editor.

First, outside of campaign endorsements, here’s a bit of how an editorial board operates in general. It will meet once, maybe twice a week, plus special meetings on hot button issues. At the NYT, for example, the board would develop a consensus on what issues the paper needs to officially opine about in the next week. It then, after discussion and some sort of vote, especially in a division of house on tough issues, decides the official stance to take, talking points to be mentioned, etc. (If the division on an issue is fierce, an op-ed column might be devoted to the leading representative of the minority view.) Collins would then, after the meeting, assign different editorials to her various writers, copy edit them, etc.

When it comes time for endorsements, the board would first schedule interviews, whenever possible, with the candidates involved, in elections big enough to warrant. (The full editorial board is not going to interview NYC municipal judge candidates, or even get involved in the process.) Before the interviews, board members will discuss questions they want to raise, angles they want to pursue, issues they see of importance, etc. For endorsements in primaries, rather than general elections, these issues will also be connected to some degree with party stances, etc. Interviews may be in person, speakerphone, video, e-mail or whatever.

The board then discusses the candidates after the interview and makes their call.

How this relates to Keller sitting on the story?

As I noted before, I’m sure Keller played his cards close to the vest. If Baquet was in on the McCain vs. Romney endorsement, of course he knew. Abramson was in on the loop, too. Pinch may have been. Collins, likely not.

So, this was something that could have been discussed in the endorsement process. If necessary, you could boot most the people out of the room and have discussed the McCain story and its relation to an endorsement just between Pinch, Keller, Baquet if there, Abramson and Collins, bringing her in the loop.

Was it discussed? Ahh, that’s a whole different kettle of fish.

Given that the endorsement didn’t mention McCain being ethically challenged on lobbyist issues, let alone personal issues, I’d say no. Pinch is neoconish enough, I think his mind would already have been made up for McCain. For different reasons, ditto on Keller. Baquet would have pushed to talk more about the story, I think, and not been in McCain’s endorsement corner, but I’m guessing Keller had him on an officially very short leash if he was there. Abramson? Guessing she had an open mind on the endorsement, and at this point at least, figured the story didn’t have enough new, or wasn’t moved enough by the story, for whatever reasons.

And, the dirty little secret?

It’s well-known inside the biz, and discussed, but editorial endorsements from major daily newspapers provide little “bump” in the polls to candidates. In fact, some newspapers, whether to save time or to save face, are moving away from doing them.

Follow-up thoughts on the McCain scandal story and the New York Times

2008-02-21T14:25:00.001-06:00

One: Why did the New York Times endorse John McCain over Mitt Romney if it was working on “la Mésalliance McCain”?

I'm guessing that the NYT op-ed structure has Executive Editor Bill Keller on the editorial board for endorsement interviews, endorsements, etc. (I'm a newspaper editor, but never at a paper of nearly that size; so this is my semi-insider guesstimate.)

I would guess that Keller kept his cards close enough to the vest that nobody else on the editorial board knew what was up. Prolly nobody had read the WaPost story in December or seen any blog linkage to the Drudge piece at that time. And, as we see most often and most spectacularly at the WSJ, major dailies can sometimes have huge disconnects between newshole staff and op-ed writers.

Other points:

First, the importance of Schmuck Talk hiring Bob Bennett. You just don't do that unless some real shit is up. So, right-wingers who claim this is all smoke, if they know inside Washington, know there's plenty of fire. And, they know they’re lying about this being a tempest in a teapot.

Second, is the sex side unimportant, or a matter of “private lives”?

No. McCain is pandering to the Religious Right again, and has been from the start of this campaign, after years of mutual antagonism. Given that the RR often focuses on sexual issues, it’s perfectly legitimate to focus on this.

And, given McCain has a “track record” in this area, it’s even more legitimate.

Of course, that’s not to deny the importance of the impropriety of McCain’s attempted interference with the Federal Communications Commission.

In short, looking at McCain’s life, it looks like we have a mash-up of Keating Five redux and wife-cheating round two.

Third, just how castrated, or self-castrated, can Bill Keller be? Without some combination of the staff defections over the pace of the story, D.C. editor Dean Baquet pushing back to run the piece, the earlier Drudge leak, and TNR’s sniffing around the Times news staff this week, it’s quite likely this story would be continuing to molder in a bottom-drawer file, if not actually getting an official File 13.

Keller has, and not for the first time, damaged the Times’ news-gathering credibility.

Contempt, fines for journo failing to cooperate in lawsuit: where do we draw the line?

2008-02-19T21:28:00.000-06:00

Judge Reggie Walton may hold former USA Today reporter Toni Locy in civil contempt for refusing to cooperate with former Army scientist Steven J. Hatfill in his suit against the government.

Hatfill, as some may recall, was named a “person of interest” by the government in its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks that hit the U.S. Capitol and other sites shortly after 9/11.

Hatfill, who worked at the Army's infectious diseases laboratory from 1997 to 1999, was publicly identified as a “person of interest” in the 2001 anthrax attacks. He is suing the Justice Department, accusing the agency of violating the federal Privacy Act by giving reporters information about the FBI’s investigation of him.

Five people were killed and 17 sickened by anthrax that was mailed to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and members of the news media in New York and Florida just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. After initially being identified as a "person of interest" in the investigation by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, the case remains unsolved.

Walton ordered Locy, James Stewart and three other reporters to reveal their sources to Hatfill. Stewart claims his sources have had their info corroborated by other persons identified to the public. Locy is not wanting to cooperate at all. The other three, Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek and Allan Lengel of The Washington Post, have revealed at least part of their source information.

There is precedent on this, on the civil side, from Wen Ho Lee’s suit against the AP and other media sources. After Lee reached a settlement in his suits, reporters who had been found in contempt had their appeals turned away.

I’m inclined to cut reporters some more slack in civil cases. That said, civil contempt in a suit like this may be the slap on the wrist needed to get reporters to treat government sources more critically.

Dateline: Maureen Dowd and New York Times editorial deceit

2008-01-10T15:29:00.000-06:00

A “Dateline: Kerry, N.H.” tag on a column about Hillary Clinton potentially crying her way to election loses a lot of objectivity and ethical credence when it was actually filed from Jerusalem about the obesity crisis.

Meanwhile, the column itself engages in psychobabble pseudo-analysis below even her normally vapid and puerile standards.

J-school 101 should teach you not to editorialize like this

2007-12-18T23:57:00.000-06:00

In a story about the failure of a revenue-neutral bill to change how the alternative minimum tax falls, AP writer Jim Abrams uncorks this whopper:

Failure to enact AMT legislation before this session of Congress concludes this week would be a political disaster for both parties, but especially for majority Democrats.

No empirical evidence or even political analysis to justify this statement. And, where’s his editor’s blue pencil?

FCC: Big Media can now be Ginormous Media

2007-12-18T12:59:00.000-06:00

The Federal Communications Commission, on a party-line 3-2 vote, will let broadcasters in the nation’s biggest cities also own newspapers.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin disingenuously claims that shrinkage in the newspaper biz makes this a safe move.

Of course, that’s exactly the opposite of true. Big Media, by newspapers, is a smaller pie than before; even in the nation’s 20 largest metropolitan areas, not all have multiple daily newspapers, and, of those that do, some of them have two newspapers in joint operating agreements.

The discussion and debate was rancorous:

The Democrats blasted the chairman for making changes to the proposal "in the dead of night" and just before the meeting that created new ownership loopholes instead of closing them, as he pledged during a recent hearing on Capitol Hill.

“Anybody who thinks our processes are open, thoughtful or deliberative should think twice in light of these nocturnal escapades,” said Democrat Jonathan Adelstein.

The Democrat said Martin's proposal “will allow for waivers for six new newspaper-broadcast combinations and 36 grandfathered stations.”

In places like here in Dallas, where The Dallas Morning News and WFAA-TV, one of the grandfathered stations, use this to lay off more employees, do “package” coverage, and shamelessly market each other while refusing to include each other in media criticism and critiquing pieces, shows just how wrong this is.

Sports-newspapers conflict of interest: the bottom line

2007-12-11T13:06:00.001-06:00

How can newspapers truly claim to cover sports impartially, when you have a media-sports team ownership conflict of interest lie this:

(Being a director of the Boston Red Sox) was not the first time (former Senate Majority Leader George) Mitchell would have a financial stake in a baseball team. At the same time he joined the Red Sox, Mitchell was a member of the board of directors of the Walt Disney Co., the parent company of the Anaheim Angels and eventual 2002 World Series champions. He has been on the Disney board since 1994, and was chairman at Disney from 2004-06.

But from the beginning, the Red Sox sale was a particularly sensitive issue for Selig. The commissioner was accused of engineering the $660 million Red Sox transaction to the Henry group, while various other competitors to buy the Red Sox, such as HBO and CableVision founder Charles Dolan, believed the Henry group's bid had not been the highest. Dolan reportedly believed he had outbid Henry by nearly $100 million, and a bid by Miles Prentice was said to be the highest, at $755 million. Selig denied any involvement in managing the sale of the team or that he favored Henry, who had owned the Florida Marlins, or Werner, who endured a turbulent experience as owner of the San Diego Padres during the early 1990s when baseball was embroiled in a rift between large- and small-market franchises. Selig, who was fond of Werner, watched the bitterly divided owners push Werner out of the game in 1993 and told him he would run a team again one day.

In the days following the sale, Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly announced an investigation of the transaction on the grounds that the Yawkey Trust, the charitable foundation that held the team following the 1992 death of Jean Yawkey, was entitled to the highest bid. Reilly threatened a lawsuit against the Red Sox and Major League Baseball, depending on his findings. The Boston Globe, which holds a 17-percent stake in the Red Sox through its ownership by the New York Times Company, referred to Henry's purchase as "a bag job." The Boston Herald called the sale, "the fix." Ultimately, Reilly did not take legal action after the Henry ownership group agreed to increase its charitable contribution to the Yawkey Trust.

So, you have Disney, with multiple media ownerships, above all, ESPN, controlling the Angels. You then have the Boston Globe, via the New York Times Company, with an interest in the Red Sox, which not only raises Red Sox conflicts of interest, but, given the Times is in New York, Yankees conflicts of interest as well.

But, it’s not just MLB. The Dallas Morning News at one time owned a share of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks.

If major professional sports leagues, above all MLB, had any guts at all, they would ban media ownership of sports teams, period.

Yes, Ted Rall IS hopeful about print media

2007-12-10T23:27:00.001-06:00

In fact, and perhaps surprisingly after the first two parts of his series on print’s status today,, he’s actually kind of bullish:

some types of papers are prospering and growing. I believe that the business of printing news on dead trees will emerge from the current shakeout more profitable than ever. This will be thanks to three emerging trends:
• Big National Newspapers
• More Small Local Papers
• Freebie Dailies

At present, the biggest 50 dailies (“A” papers, in industry jargon) dominate the landscape. Below them is a swath of dailies in midsize cities (Akron, Austin, Albuquerque). Small town, suburban and rural dailies, weeklies and bi-weeklies, whose focus is highly localized (“New Stop Sign Stirs Controversy”) —the “C”s — bring up the rear.

During the 20th century, most newspaper profits were generated by "B" papers. This is the market segment that has been hit hardest by the Web. Free online classifieds has decimated advertising revenues. Neither beast nor fowl, the midsize dailies’ attempt to balance local, national and international coverage pleases no one in an environment where highly customized news consumption is available to readers online--for free. (Publishers were idiots for giving away their content, but that's another column.) MyYahoo feeds me the latest headlines from Itar-Tass and Agence France-Press every morning; how could the Dayton Daily News, the paper of my childhood, do as well for this half-Frenchman with a Central Asia obsession?

Rall expects the future American newspaper market to look a lot more like Europe and Japan — a smaller group of definite “A” or even “Super-A” papers, and then a bunch of “C”, or maybe, in my view “B-lite,” papers. A two-tiered, not a three-tiered, market.
The Wall Street Journal and USA Today already print multiple national issues. In the era of “Super-A” papers, sure, you could see a few others joining them, and perhaps co-opting some of the traditional “B” papers with new versions of old-time joint operating agreements (Detroit News/Free Press, Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News, the Seattle and Salt Lake City papers are among those that have JOAs).

But, will this be a good thing?

Well, there, the answer is No, according to Rall:

None of this will improve the quality of journalism. “Ultimately [free dailies] will breed in people the idea that news shouldn't cost anything, even that news is cheap,” points out media commentator Roy Greenslade. “But in fact, news, done well and properly, requires investment and money. They will no doubt tell us what happened —but news should also tell us how and why things happen. I fear that approach will be lost.”

It will. It’s a trend that began decades ago, when newspapers closed overseas news bureaus and eliminated long-term investigative journalism to cut costs, and started embracing elites rather than exposing them. And it’s terrible for our society, culture and politics. Government and business will face even less accountability than they do today. Democracy will lie in ruins. The print newspaper business, however, will be going gangbusters.

I don’t doubt Rall is right. That said, I found this third part of his series a letdown, in several ways.

First, he’s by no means the only columnist to analyze the shakeout of the news business in a similar way.

Second, after talking about how the Internet would affect privacy issues in the future, and how this might affect media, in parts 1 and 2, we didn’t hear a single thing about that in this third part.

Ted, you can do better than that… that’s not like you to start an idea and let it dangle.

Ted Rall on the future of online news, Part II

2007-12-04T21:23:00.000-06:00

Having blogged about Part I of Rall’s three-part series last week, I wanted to tackle Part II now, to see how he would describe more of the problem, and if he saw any answers.

Would you pay for Mapquest? I’d pay a quarter or a dollar for reliable directions from the airport to my hotel in a new city. Sometimes, while researching this column, I encounter a link to an archived newspaper article that I could use, but it charges a $2 or $3 download fee. The cost isn’t the problem — it’s a miniscule, and in my case tax deductible, expense to make my work better. But I don’t bother. I don’t pay for Mapquest, either.

I don’t care about the money. I just can’t stand filling out all those fields.

Each website requires you to enter personal data — your name, address, credit card number, expiration date, that stupid security code next to the signature on your card, and the billing address (as opposed to the shipping address). Frequently, website interfaces are buggy; make a mistake and you have to start all over again. I’ll suffer through the ordeal if it's a site, like Amazon or Expedia, that I’ll use repeatedly. But an archived article? Ain’t worth my time to figure out how to get them my two bucks.

There is a solution to the online payment problem, says Simson Garfinkel, a fellow at the Harvard University Center for Research on Computation and Society and the author of “Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century.” (Disclosure: We’re friends.)

“If content is appropriately priced, of an appropriately high quality, and easy to access, people will pay for it,” asserts Garfinkel. “What is required is a system that is easy to use and licensing terms that are not onerous.”

A universal single-click payment system won't work, he says, because it would be vulnerable to hackers. We could overlay a national ID card or credit card system over the existing Internet. One of several competing micropayment systems may become dominant, creating a market-based solution. You'd register your debit or credit card info at one place. Then, when you wanted to download a song or read an electronic book or order shoes, you’d go to the vendor's website and click one button: “Buy.”

Amazon sort of does this. After you’ve registered, you can buy a book by clicking one button. Just like that, it’s on its way. We need something similar for vendors we’ve never dealt with before.

That said, Rall is still optimistic newspapers will muddle through, if not more. Now, that said, as should be evident by the title of Garfinkel’s book, he thinks notions of online privacy will have to change for that to happen.

Newspaper editors and publishers could reverse their decline by agreeing, en masse, to charge a substantial fee for their online editions — at least as much as for print. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Avoidance of long-term thinking is what’s gotten the news biz where it is today.

In the long run, despite their suicidal tendencies, I suspect newspapers will survive, and even thrive, after the current shakeout. When radio was introduced in the 1930s, many analysts predicted the death of the record industry. Instead, radio promotion increased record sales. When television became popular in the 1950s, people said radio was doomed. The radio business is bigger than ever. The Internet was supposed to kill TV.

The newspaper business will change. Three major trends ensure that. They will also make it bigger than ever.

Next Week: The bright (sic!) future of newspapers.

Stay tuned!

Meanwhile, I'll add a few observations about the industry.

Weeklies and semiweeklies, especially, not being AP members, have suffered less from the Internet. Their news is available from that newspaper, or that newspaper’s website, if it has one, and that’s it. That said, too many weeklies launched websites in the last five years or so without thinking about charging for subscriptions. They believed what the major dailies were already trying to brainwash themselves into believing, that an ad-based model would pay the bills.

For small-town dailies, the situation is somewhat the same.

That said, these papers tend to be even more conservative than the seven-day daily MSM. They are conservative in the Main Street/Chamber of Commerce, good-for-business sense, in one respect of conservativism. And, in much of the South and Midwest, it’s going to be small-town Babbitt-type religious conservativism, too.

There is one option, in larger cities: the alt-weekly. These papers are usually progressive to some, if not a fairly large degree, especially in a libertarian sense on social issues. They’re still weeklies, and especially with their long-form journalism as well, wouldn’t have a big desire to be AP members anyway.

But, they’re being affected by the Internet, too.

Alt-weeklies, like Internet sites, generally run on an ad-only model. And, personal ads of the sort that don’t appear in traditional daily papers make up a fair chunk of both classified and display ads there.

But, Craigslist is gutting alt-weekly classifieds in these areas. Personals websites are doing some of the damage, too.

Anyway, Rall is always thought-provoking to me, even when I disagree with him. I’m interested in what Part III will say.

How today’s Web journalism world still makes no financial sense

2007-11-26T23:48:00.000-06:00

Ted Rall sis right as usual. Double of nothing (doubling your online visitors even as Internet ad rates stay near zero) doesn’t make sense.

And, it’s “liberal” blogs as well as “conservative” traditional media that aren’t getting it.

Wanna blog for Huffington Post? As Rall points out, they’ll pay you plenty of prestige, but zero dollars.

And, as long as you the publicity-hungry blogger make that sucker’s bet, Huff Post, including its charming ~~Dragon~~ First Lady, Ms. Arianna herself, will continue to double down on you. As Rall says, also, try using “prestige” to pay the mortgage or rent.

End result, says Rall:

Print media is dragging content providers into the abyss. First comes downsizing. Writers, cartoonists, and photographers are losing their jobs to peers willing to do the work for less or, in the case of readers invited to submit their comments and images for the thrill of appearing in the local rag, nothing. Then they squeeze those who remain for pay cuts. A cartoon that runs today in Time, Newsweek, USA Today, The New York Times or The Washington Post — the most prestigious and widely disseminated forums in the United States — brings its creator less than The Village Voice would have paid for it in the 1980s. Some print venues offer no payment at all.

What happens if we don’t do anything?

Unless something changes soon, deprofessionalization will further erode journalistic quality. The resulting dumbing down of our politics and culture will accelerate. We can’t get the toothpaste back into the tube. The Internet is here to stay. Unfortunately, the best way to make it more profitable — to stimulate all e-commerce, not just journalism--will require us to give up something dear to our rugged individualist American hearts: the illusion of Internet privacy.

Yes, it is an eye-opener, if disconcerting in a way, to hear Rall, an ardent civil libertarian, say that. But, between spyware that is logging keystrokes on infected computers to ISP providers being leaky sieves to the government even before 9/11, Net privacy, in many ways, went the way of the dodo long ago. Besides, your financial information went even more the way of the dodo even earlier, every time you zipped a debit card at the grocery store.

This is the first of a three-part series by Rall. I’m interested in hearing what he offers in the way of a solution.

Why do conservative columnists dominate the newspaper op-ed pages in most the country?

2007-09-12T17:05:00.000-05:00

Kevn Drum notes that they do, in a “dog bites man” blog post about an in-depth survey of newspaper commentary over at Media Matters.

I offer my observations from someone with a slice of life inside the industry, at least right now.

I’ve worked at one small daily, and a variety of non-dailies, for about 13 years. Aside from the “name” columnists at “name” syndicates, you have a variety of smaller syndicates putting out B-side/AAA minor league columnists.

These, even more than at the Major League level, tend to tilt small town/Chamber of Commerce/down on the farm right; a fair subset of them tilt religious right, also.

In other words, if you think the situation is skewed at your typical seven-day daily, you ain’t seen nothing.

Then, amongst freebie columnists, you have some conservative think tanks, plus state chapters of conservative organizations, floating their columns everywhere.

For instance, I, at a weekly paper of about 4,500-5,000 circulation, get columns every week from folks like the Conservative Values Coalition and Texas chapters of several national coalitions. I’d estimate I get six-seven a week like this.

Then, there are organizations that are officially apolitical, such as the Texas Medical Association, but that may take conservative positions on issues near and dear to their hearts, such as national healthcare, in this case.

Also, Senators and many Representatives send “their” columns out every week; of course, they’re all staff-written, not by the MCs themselves. But, my off-the-cuff guess is that conservative Congressmen reinforced conservative newspapers here in a sort of closed feedback loop.

The solutions? Well, given that liberals are generally more idealistic, and thus interested in editorial positions, speaking up on an op-ed page wherever possible is a start. Liberal public policy groups, etc. churning out more op-eds would also help. And professional groups that have a more liberal take on issues, like state trial lawyers’ groups on tort reform, have done some writing in the past, but need to be joined by others.

Take labor issues; if someone from the AFL-CIO would crank out some well-crafted op-eds on a variety of labor matters, and pitch them with a smaller-town angle, it would be water in the desert.

Given that smaller-town newspaper readership is not declining as much as at seven-day dailies, this is a fertile field.

A rhetorical question about a newspaper company and hiring practices between its left and right hands

2007-08-28T17:20:00.000-05:00

Why would anyone want to work at a newspaper company where an employee of the company owner’s ranch is put on the payroll of one of the newspapers? Not only does it punish the bottom line of that newspaper (and any profit-based bonuses to which its publisher might be entitled), it makes a skeptical mind wonder if there might not also be legal or tax reasons for this being done, and then wondering what such reasons might be.

How NOT to do a Progress edition

2007-08-21T14:27:00.000-05:00

I’m just a lowly editor, not a publisher or general manager, but I know you never give away a larger editorial hole than the purchased ad space.