Journalists moving product to the web

More journalists than ever before also contribute to the Internet, survey shows. One reason: the recession along with the industry's massive job cuts.

Interesting comments at social media summit

You're not going to agree with all the comments from the social media summit -- for example, that Fox TV and the Wall Street Journal are dead, but don't know it yet -- but it's interesting to hear some of the comments that are being passed around. Remember, a statement doesn't have to be reasoned or even accurate to have an impact.

8 suggestions for rethinking journalism

There's a nice discussion of journalism's future on the New York Times' "Room for Debate" page, with eight commentators offering their thoughts on ways for journalism to survive, ranging from rethinking print to totally new media. Amongst all the chaff, there are some grains of wisdom. The project is well worth thinking about.

Steven Brills' plan to save the NY Times, and journalism itself

That's the gist of a memo written by the founder of Court TV and published by Jim Romanesko's blog. The plan, boiled down to a Twitter post, Start charging for content; if you offer it free, then readers think it's not worth anything.

Meanwhile, new media folks are responding. Typical is Wendy Davis of MediaPost.com who says Brill's plan won't work for a number of reasons. She accuses old media of being inflexible while showing the inflexibility of new media.

Spot.us works -- but needs work.

A Los Angeles Times columnist looks at the success of spot.us and declares that the pay-for-reporters site actually is working, sort of. According to media columnist James Rainey, the site has posted six stories in its three months, with six more in the works. The way the site works is this: journalists propose a story and wait until enough contributions come in to pay the price the journalists ask to research and write it. Rainey likes the idea, but says the execution should have been better. The four stories he said he checked out "did not particularly engage, incite or entertain." Still, it's another media experiment.

British blogger predicts newspapers will survive

It's ironic that a prediction that newspaper will survive merits a headline, but it does. This blogger, Richard Webb, a former newspaper editor, is British, but I think his optimistic view is worth noting because the reasons he lists work just as well on this side of the Atlantic. Will all newspapers survive? Who knows? But Webb points to some adaptations being made as we watch, and the news is full of stories of changes. Getting newspapers to start shifting their thinking is the start of saving a future.

For example, this morning I was looking at Mark Savage's review of a Ford pickup truck in the Journal Sentinel's business page. It's now presented in print as a snapshot with a picture, truncated bullet points from the critique, and a URL for the full review on the newspaper's web site. Great idea, and I think newspapers should do even more of this style of journalism in which they drive readers to their web sites for longer versions. But then I thought (not for the first time), how are they trying to drive readers viewing only on the web to their print product? Print has some inherent advantages over the Internet, so why aren't they featuring them. The newspaper used to print an interesting column by one of its youthful writers each Friday with a box promoting the two other columns she wrote that ran only online. I thought at the time that it would drive readers to the print product to not including that in the Friday online paper, but to refer readers to the print version. Columns create fans. And fans will buy print products (look at the magazines and books being published). To me, it's worth trying.

Times sets up policy on new media use by staffers

It addresses ethical problems raised by social media, many are problems faced by academics. For example, one is being careful in "friending" people on facebook. Should a reporter accept a friend offer from a source or potential source? How about with a spokesperson for an entity the reporter covers? These questions are ones faced regularly and will become more important over time.

Is this the year for the e-book takeover?

That's the prediction of Mike Elgin at Computerworld. He lists six reasons why e-books will take over this year: the economy, the environment, changes in publishing, aggressive marketing, a rise in books written especially for electronic delivery, and, finally, the decline in print newspapers.

His prediction as well is that e-books will become fabulously successful because they are going to be marketed on cell phones. He describes the iPhone screen as "huge." He may well be correct on his other points, but the day I try reading books on cell phone screens is the day I quit reading books.

Nevertheless, it's worth following trends in e-books. When someone develops an effective, easily-read, decent sized screen (it doesn't have to be huge; I read paperbacks), I predict e-books will do well.

ESPN the Magazine considers charging for at least part of online content

ESPN the Magazine, which has always been a beast of both the online as well as print world, plans even more, executives tell Folio. The magazine blog reports that ESPN the Magazine executives are thinking about charging for at least part of its online content. Just about everyone is trying to figure out a way to make money online. The print magazine is due for a redesign, they say.

Copyright material, then sue the pants off them

That's the business model proposed by a Philadelphia News columnist.  Saying the mistake newspaper made is giving away its content, he proposes charging Internet subscribers and suing anyone who takes the newpaper's copyrighted content.  Sounds good to me.

The Internet's "stone age?"

That's the term used in this rather weird blog saying the Internet is going to change dramatically.  While I don't think the author poses much of a coherent argument, it's still interesting and true that it's early times for the Internet, and it will change -- news along with it.

Should newspapers charge for online content

Daily Gawker offers an analysis of Bill Keller's comments about the New York Times possibly charging for content here, saying it's a good idea -- especially if it were joined by other newspapers. I totally concur. It seems to me that a good business model could be constructed following the path of a couple of newspapers already (the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, for example) already has only some content online with the rest available only to print subscribers.

My business model would be the strongest local news presence possible online, including news blogs, but features, columns and the like available only to print subscribers (or, perhaps, by subscription only). Go for it guys.