A print challenge to the Times-Picayune

In an interesting twist as major media companies pull back, offering fewer and smaller print editions, today marks the day the Baton Rouge Advocate begins selling its New Orleans edition daily in the Crescent City. It comes on the day the New Orleans Times-Picayune dropped its daily editions to three a week, relying instead on its website.

The Advocate also offers New Orleans residents some familiar bylines, having hired seven staffers let go (or accepting buyouts) from the Times-Picayune, a long-time respected daily newspaper.

What will be interesting to see is if enough readers miss a daily paper so much they buy the Advocate. It also comes, coincidentally, the day after the Packers beat the New Orleans Saints in a very tight ballgame, which I suspect drove up interest in New Orleans.

Journalist-based news is most trusted on the web

A few years ago, the Diederich College of Communication brought in a futurist to speak about the future of newspapers. Surprisingly, she was optimistic, building an argument that media consumers preferred news produced by professional journalists, and that newspapers' digital sites were considered the best place for them to find that news.

We've see that happen with rising viewership of virtually all newspaper sites despite a rise in alternatives to find professional journalism. It's proof that journalist-based content has a high value.

Now comes a survey reported on the Poynter site that indicates the same thing, only more starkly. Note on the charts that 61.8 percent of users prefer journalists' news while only 19.6 percent prefer getting news from friends. The survey, actual results found here, goes into much more detail. But the results are the same. Journalism is a valuable commodity, which is why a survey by Georgetown University (see earlier post) indicated that journalism graduates have a much lower rate of unemployment than average college students.

Is the University of Georgia student newspaper "misunderstanding" over? I doubt it

Why do I get the feeling that we haven't read the end of the story about the University of Georgia's independent newspaper, the Red & Black?

As you'll remember from a couple of days ago, the newspaper's board decided to shift power from students to a professional. Students walked out and quickly created their own website and began posting to Twitter.. The board quickly apologized, calling the contretemps a "misunderstanding," and invited the former staff members to apply for their old jobs. Stories, including a nice roundup by the Associated Press, said the problems seemed to be "resolved" with the board's apology and discussions with students.

It's clear there were misunderstandings but they were all over the place. The board attempted to change the way the newspaper was run, apparently without consulting the students. The students resisted by walking out. The ensuing furor continued, including the board's head and a student journalist for the university's television station physically clashing.

I still don't think the board gets it. Students value their publications, and will demand their views be considered. At the same time, students sometimes are quite short-sighted about issues, and the board's duty is to think long-term. Stay tuned.

Is the Journal Sentinel for sale?

Blogger Bruce Murphy says that it might be, based on the company's buyback of all shares owned by the family of its long-time publisher, Harry Grant. The stock price has risen to a yearly high and at least one corporate raider has been purchasing shares. As could have been expected, Warren Buffet's name has been mentioned. He's said that he is is the market for more newspapers like the Journal Sentinel. There is some sentiment for selling the newspaper part of Journal Communications, Inc. but the company's retaining its other holdings, mostly in television and radio. Murphy's blog is here, and Jim Romenesko's is here.

Students, welcome to the real world

A few years ago one of my nieces was an intern at Teen People when the magazine abruptly closed. It was an awakening to the dark side of media these days. She since has switched to public relations, which has it's own dark side.

This came to mind while reading about the University of Georgia's student newspaper, the Red & Black, where all student staffers walked out after the independent newspaper's board took over operations, installing its former adviser as "editorial director," and said he would approve all stories before publication.

The Red & Black is independent of the university. The action was taken by its board.

These students are also getting, as publisher Harry Montevideo says, "experience which mirrors the real world." Even setting aside the fact the newspaper's publisher doesn't know when to use "which" and when to use "that," it's indicative of the real world in that staffers -- even the newspaper's editor who says he wasn't told about this change until he asked -- have no power, and, often, no voice.  Welcome to the "real world," students, and I hope that Marquette's student media never comes to this state. Some lessons are better left unlearned.

As the media world turns . . .

Beware of anyone who claims to know what is happening in the media world today. A good example comes from a story today about how the merger of Newsweek and The Daily Beast is working out.

The story, in digiday.com, begins under the headline: "The Daily Beast's Digital Challenge." It tells us that the merger resulted in "a publication that has crafted a model that is, by all appearances, caught between the analog and digital worlds. It goes on to say that it's not a sustainable business model, quoting Barry Lowenthal, president of Media Kitchen, saying: "Newsweek's not going to exist anymore. It will go away."

But then it quotes Stephen Colvin, CEO of The Daily Beast and Newsweek, talking about "impressive internal growth numbers," up 20 percent over last year with ad volume up 50 percent, with ad revenue at Newsweek up 13 percent.

It's interesting in part because media figures keep talking about synergy, which appears to be what's happening here, but the digital folks keep saying "It's not a sustainable model," and that the print half of the merged publication (I treat them as one) will just "go away."

The experience with college and professional newspapers is that if the print publication folds, the online version loses a whale of a lot of readers soon after.

Newspaper paywalls sprouting -- and working

The newspaper paywall trend is accelerating, a study finds, to such an extent that 84% of American newspapers now have some sort of paywall in place. A big part of the reason is that the paywall is working. Newspapers are retaining readers, and, linking free access to print circulation, has slowed down the decline in print.

The manner of paywalls range all over the place from newspapers with no stories free to ones with a few (the New York Times now allows 10 free stories) to ones with only limited material -- like sports or features -- behind the paywall.

All in all, it seems like the industry has figured out a strategy. Now they should start working on rebuilding content, which has been cut severely in most cases. 

Satire is a bad word in student newspapers

Here's a reason why satire is so hard to pull off in print -- especially in student newspapers. People take it seriously.

Study shows paywall revenue to be frontloaded, in one case

There's an interesting report from Poynter about revenues and paywalls. It finds that about half the first year's total revenue comes in the first three months. It's a study from a very small, local site so I don't know how this relates to mature sites like Milwaukee's jsonline.com or Chicago's chicagotribune.com. The report also includes the scary statistic that the average age of paid visitors rose to 59 after the paywall was erected. 

You don't need no stinkin' reporters to write stories

If number of stories counts (see previous post), then do we care whether they're written by a human, a community reporter, or someone in India writing to a formula. Yet more options are available to editors. For example, computers can string raw data into story form. Or a reporter far away from the actual story.

The problem with shortcuts is that they seldom produce good journalism. While I don't have a study to back it up, I strongly suspect that most people can tell the difference between the passionless words-strung-together by a machine or written-to-a-formula story and actual journalism. Yes, newspapers have cut their staffs way too far and they are offering way, way too little space for actual stories. But most consumers can tell the difference.

Yes, you don't need real reporters to write stories. But you need them to write good stories.

Once again. content pays off

This study finds a direct tie between number of stories on the website and more subscription revenue.

For those of us on the content bandwagon, it's yet more proof that we're right. The report in Poynter quoted Press+ cofound Steven Brill as saying, "“If you want to sell journalism, you have to do journalism." It's logical. It's a basic tenet of journalism. It's correct.


Unfortunately, given the vast amount of really bad journalism (see next post) out there, I'd caution that it should be good stories to really add up the numbers. 

Americans lose confidence in television

Americans' confidence in television news has hit a new low, according to a Gallup survey. Survey authors said, "It is not clear precisely why Americans soured so much on television news this year compared with last." Let me make a couple of suggestions. The first is the product is pretty weak, especially since cable television has gone so heavily toward opinion. The second is that this is a continuation of the almost 40-year long push by politicians to blame the messenger. Most of my adulthood has seen media vilified -- and that's taken a toll.

Younger people more willing to pay for news

Young people who disdain buying print media may well hold the key to the future for newspaper and magazine companies.

The reason? They're more willing to pay for digital services on tablets and smart phones, a study shows (see chart, above; other charts and the study here).  "The research suggests that, as more younger people buy tablet devices, willingness to pay money for the news products many publishers are delivering to them may grow," according to PaidContent.org. 


Perhaps most interesting is that while respondents said they weren't too interested in paying for news, they actually purchased news at a higher percentage. In other words, they don't way to consciously think about paying for news, but they will do so.

Can partisanship hurt American newspapers?

Sorry it's been so long, but this has been a very busy summer with lots of planning for major changes coming for Marquette student media.

However, this story illustrates the continuing experience of American newspapers in reverting to the past. In this case, it's further illustration that our rapidly segmenting news media is continuing a slide toward a partisan press, such as we had in America partisan press during the late 18th and first half of the 19th century when news outlets (generally newspapers) were openly affiliated with a party or political idea. That's where names like Waukesha Freeman, Manchester Union-Leader or any of the various newspapers called Republican or Democrat originated.

Erik Sass reports that purchases of newspapers by politically-oriented owners with open partisan leanings "threatens the editorial independence of some publications." He specifically cites the recent purchase of The San Diego Union-Tribune by a real estate developer who opens says, according to Sass, that the newspaper will be a cheerleader for a downtown stadium.  Frankly, the newspaper's previous owners were often accused of slanting the news so it's only changing the message, not the tone.


This trend, added to the increasing segmentation of the Internet and the open partisanship of cable television, allows us to only know all the news deemed important by likeminded media. It's interesting to see that issue being intelligently explored by Aaron Sorkin's HBO show, The Newsroom. And, yes, the show is highly partisan itself. Still, it is exploring some of the weaknesses of partisan media.

Ever heard of Journatic? You should

Journatic is the organization that largely uses algorithms and offshore "reporters" to write local news. The Chicago Tribune, in its continuing descent to irrelevance, has signed with the company to produce content for its TribLocal editions.

Building off that, NetNewsNet.com published an interview with Journatic CEO Brian Timpone, who does an excellent job of describing just what the Journatic produces for newspapers while not really describing how it does it.

To be totally honest, I'm not dead-set against using outside providers like this for some of the excruciatingly-detailed obtaining content (though I refuse to call them stories) like bringing in agendas of city council meetings or other routine data collections. I just want journalists to be interpreting that data.

But clearly part of today's media management is in love with things like Journatic. It's flashy. It's new. It's digital. It's cheap. Therefore, it will be a success.

Is citizen journalism going mainstream?

Once again the question of citizen journalism is being  addressed. Frankly, it's a subject that won't go away, especially as traditional media is peeling away staff, leaving itself unable to cover much of its former territory. At the same time, others in the broader community are flowing into the vacuum. Some of these newcomers actually follow good journalistic practices (and I would include some of the advocacy bloggers in this camp; if they seek out truth, it doesn't have to be balanced).

What's prompted today's musings is a column posted on streetfightmag.com titled "Citizen journalism: Ready for a rewrite." Columnist Tom Grubisich uses the hyperlocal university newspaper the Columbia Missourian to frame his argument that citizen journalism is entering a new phase, paired with traditional journalism. It's an interesting concept.

What's the purpose of a newspaper?

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the possibility of some newspaper websites releasing information to some premium subscribers in advance of, or even in addition to, anything published in the paper. The proposal by a Reuters blogger suggested the New York Times might release sensitive business news early to those who paid for the serve.

As you can imagine, it's kicking up quite a fuss. Here's a nice discussion of the subject by Matthew Ingram on gigaom.com. His piece is titled "What is the purpose of a newspaper," which cuts to the heart of the idea. It's a piece that will stretch your mind a bit about what's going on in our business.

Rupert Murdoch on the future of print newspapers

What would a day be without word from or about Rupert Murdoch? Love him or hate him -- and there's little in between in our business -- Murdoch is probably the most important single figure in the media business.

So when he says print newspapers will die but it might take 20 years, it's worth reading.

Advertising Age reports his testimony during Britain's inquiry into telephone hacking where to talked about his believe in what lies ahead. While I might question his ethics and even his judgement, I've found Murdoch's predictions to be spot on. He also goes on at length about the situation caused by the digital explosion, including why newspapers should demand payment for access, in his opinion. As usual, well worth reading.

Kim Kardashian and the news of Osabama bin Laden's death

Fascinating story reported in the Times of India about how celebrities and opinion leaders spread the news of Osama bin Laden's death via Twitter. The conclusions drawn by researchers, the newspaper reported, found that celebrity equals followers, which meant that when an opinion leader, like a former aide to Donald Rumsfeld who was identified as the first to mention the death, or a celebrity, like Kim Kardashian, tweeted the news, it was widely spread.

Another finding was that by the time television first announced the news 21 minutes later than former Rumsfeld aide Keith Urbahn broke the news, 80 percent of the Twitter posts were reporting it as fact.

Perhaps most surprising was the role of celebrities who are mainly non-political in spreading the news of a serious subject. It demonstrates an aspect of crowdsourcing that we don't often talk about.

Newspaper website traffic rises 4.4%

Newspaper website traffic is up more than four percent in the first quarter, according to the National Newspaper Association. The report has lots of other statistics, but a key takeaway is the newspapers seem to have figured out a way to appeal to their audiences, one that I suspect is based on doing their job -- providing news.

Journalism graduates have lower unemployment rate than average college grads

Everybody knows journalism schools are turning out students who can't get a job, right?  Wrong. A new study from Georgetown University (which doesn't have a journalism school) says the unemployment rate for journalism school graduates is below the average of other recent college graduates as well as being lower than the general unemployment rate.

The survey said that recent college graduates with an undergraduate degree in journalism have a 7.7 percent unemployment rate; experienced grads have a 6 percent rate, and people with graduate degrees in journalism have only a 3.8 percent unemployment rate.

Murdock sweats; I enjoy watching

Speaking of journalism and ethics, is everyone enjoying watching James Murdock sweating it out in court over the hacking scandal as I am? The testimony over the past couple of years has demonstrated that everything people said about the Murdock empire was true (OK, not really everything, but an awful lot -- especially about its ethics). I've only linked to one story, and there are many, many more. It's all such fun.

Breivik's chilling testimony sparks an interesting discussion of journalim's duties

Years ago while covering a fire in southern Illinois I had a father come up to me crying, showing his blistered hands, and wanted to tell me the details of how he could hear his three children trying to get out of their blazing house and crying "Daddy, Daddy."

They died, and I remember every moment of that "interview" to this day. I also think about that night and his emotional story and question what was my duty: to tell his story, which he wanted, or not.

These memories of self-doubt are stirred by an interesting discussion in the Sidney Morning Herald of the merits of media censoring hateful testimony of Anders Bering Breivik in which he is dramatically describing how he shot his 77 victims last summer in Norway. It's the kind of question that editors wrestle with all the time. The paper reaches out to a variety of people for their views, including an attorney, a psychiatrist, and a woman whose father was one of Breivik's victims.

The rational discussion of journalism's duties shows once again that journalists have a great responsibility in deciding what to publish -- and the answers, like those I faced outside the burning house, aren't easy.