Newspaper online revenues hitting roadblock

A New York Times story today reports that newspaper online advertising revenues have flattened after several years of nice gains. It shows that no one has yet found a good replacement for the old media ad/circulation revenue models.

A must-read from London

Some of the best comments on America come from foreigners. Think back to de Tocqueville's Democracy in America in the 1830s. And, today, a truly outstanding assessment of what's happening to media in America comes from Lionel Barber, editor of London's Financial Times. He correctly assesses the state of our media, and traces some of its causes and potential effects. This should be required reading for anyone even thinking of our business. He's both pessimistic and optimistic at the same time.

I'm sooo tempted . . .

. . . to link to a lurid New York Post Page Six item on TV folks spatting in Philadelphia, but I can't think of a way to make it relevant unless . . . student editors, pandering to the audience like this is just, plain wrong.

Flash, newspapers shedding sections

Of course it's not news that the daily newspaper industry is cutting sections right and left. Ironically, the Chicago Tribune is dropping its books section in favor of a books and media section (with few books). I guess they were afraid their subscribers might be readers. Wouldn't want that, would we? Meanwhile, I hear the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is dropping its TV listings unless they are specifically asked for. Not that I use them, but there are people who do. Dropping them will give subscribers yet another reason to become former subscribers.

False "Jobs heart attack" story comment swirls

The fake story posted by a "citizen journalist" on CNN's site last week has prompted a swarm of comments throughout the Internet. Some point to it as proof that the concept is flawed.  I think this comment by Ben Amoldy of the Christian Science Monitor points to yet another redefinition of journalism: verification can by the traditional method or a new process.

"Citizen journalism, or user-generated content, has proved successful enough to argue against abandoning it over snafus like this, say new media experts. Rather, the episode serves as a public reminder that 'news' now includes both traditional journalism and a crowd-sourced model that treats verification as a public process, not a prerequisite for publishing."

All aspects of journalism are changing. 

Facebook COO offers advice to magazines

A thought: after writing that line above, I have to wonder if there is any difference between magazines and newspapers in our brave new world. Anyway, Sheryl Sandberg offered a lot of observations, especially about content, pointing out that "not all content is created equal." Not a lot of great new stuff here, but it's still worth reading to put our knowledge into context.

Doonesbury tackles journalism job declines

We in Milwaukee don't see it since the Journal Sentinel, in the midst of taking away reasons to buy the newspaper, dropped the comic strip Doonesbury, but that strip is in the middle of a very on-target story arc involving newspapers cutting staff and content (which, of course, is what the Journal Sentinel is doing). It's prompted strip creator Garry Trudeau to says this on the Washington Post comics blog: "I can't get beyond the hand-wringing stage -- I see nothing that will save our beloved industry. . . ." 

And since our local media moguls have decided you should go onto the Internet for features like Doonesbury, you can find it at this address on Slate. By the way, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel advertisers; we won't see you on Slate. Too bad for my Journal Communications stock.

Gawker.com cuts jobs; what's it mean?

Just like old media companies, gawker.com cuts staff. Some thoughts from AppScout, the blog of editors and writers at PC magazine. Basically, they wonder (as their post heading says) if new media is just old media without a press.

"Citizen journalist" hoax ramifications continue to roil

Last week, a so-called "citizen journalist" planted a false story on CNN's iReport site that Apple's Steve Jobs had suffered a heart attack. The market responded immediately, dropping Apple stock. Now the SEC is investigating, and many are assessing the fallout, which, I think, hurts the entire movement. A thoughtful comment on the IT site, daniweb.com, suggests that, perhaps, "citizen journalists" may need a filter.  I'm old fashioned enough to think that all journalists need a filter. That's what verification and editing is all about. Frankly, comments and gossip posted by just anyone is just that, comments and gossip. It's not journalism.

"Citizen Journalism" loses big (so does CNN)

The problem was an absolutely false report filed by a "citizen journalist" on CNN that Apple's Steve Jobs had a heart attack. It was taken down by CNN after it was found to be false. 

That's one of my problems with the term, "citizen journalist." I think journalism means checking and verifying -- before you run a story. That's where CNN went wrong. Sure, it wasn't filed by a CNN reporter, but the network's name was on the line.

Sure it's stupid, but. . .

A radio reporter in Detroit was fired for wearing an Obama shirt while covering an event. Of course, it's stupid and unethical. But it's a reminder to us all not to let ourselves get carried away. This, of course, is something student media reporters and editors must remember, especially on campus politics.

Some thoughts on redefining news

Editor & Publisher's Steve Outing has some interesting thoughts on just what should constitute news today and in the future. One though, melding the social networking experience into your website. It's not that I agree with everything he proposes, it's that he is looking at the problem the correct way -- from the audience back toward the publisher. Define what news should be, then figure out how to create it.

As someone who regularly uses both old and new media (it's fascinating to see that one niece just finished a long visit to Australia while working on a cruise ship), I understand the appeal. Perhaps better (easier, less porous) filtering will halt the outpouring of excess information (not just spam, but too much information) that is brought to us by the Internet. As I teach, I talk about one role of journalists is to put facts into perspective. Another is to select which facts are most relevant to the story. New media delivers a lot of facts. As someone with 67 unread emails awaiting action as I speak (I've already dealt with at least 50 this morning), I know that keeping ahead of facts on new media is hard. Maybe that's an area for old media.