An obit for the Rocky Mountain News . . . and maybe for newspapers

One of the better columnists -- Mike Littwin -- writes an obituary for his newspaper, the Rocky Mountain News. It's not maudalin or sappy or even all that sad. It also sums up the feelings of lots of "newspapermen," as he calls them. I hope he's not writing the obituary for all newspapers; his reference to "suits" just seeming to watch newspapers die as they cut and hack up the product without seemingly any plan other than to just cut content (again, why should I buy the paper?)  looks way too familiar.

Starting today, Denver is a one newspaper town.

Online advertising appears ready to decline this year

In a big surprise, it looks like online advertising will decline this year, not continue to increase. It reflects the weakness in advertising in general since non-online advertising is also expected to decline. But it should make some who are saying that "advertising is fleeing print and broadcast for online" think a bit if that's true.  I'm still waiting proof that online advertising works for non-specific sales. Image advertising? I don't see how that works online.

EXTRA, EXTRA -- A post that's not about the sad state of media economics

For a change of pace, here's some comment that's not economic gloom and doom -- instead it's criticism of the media in handling race matters this month. The blog, on the New Republic site, criticises handling of both Eric Holder's confrontational speech and the New York Post's controversial cartoon, which led to Rupert Murdoch's apology. It's a good change of subject.

The post says that the media, in general, blew both stories by letting overcoverage of the Post story overshadow the tough speech by our new attorney general. My personal problems in the media virtually always come when I think stories are underplayed or ignored, especially when they're overshadowed by what Kovach and Rosensteil call "info-tainment."

A balanced look at media business plans

There's been so much written about media business plans lately that I've grown weary of even posting to them. However, Advertising Age (long one of my favorite places) weighs in with a nice, balanced look at the world we live in now. It presents a balance in arguments for various models, and includes some details on the successful Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that successfully charges for online access, adding to this nagging sense I have that newspapers really blew it by not charging for online.

Missing the point, again.

A Google executive posts a long, often thoughtful, comment on news in the new era. Sure he falls into the trap so many new media folks do of deciding that just because Google can do something (like choose my news based on past views) it should do something (like show me more of the same).  This comes just before he so correctly indicates that one reason newspapers have done well over the years because "browsing a newspaper is rewarding and serendipitous." Frankly, one of the problems of today's newspapers, I believe, is too much "old news" that I already know.  Sure, Jonathan Rosenberg was suggesting that the news sites offer "only updates and new material," but it's still the same old stories.

Does American media misunderstand race?

A new study of journalists of color think American news media are missing the boat on race in America. Frankly, it's hard to disagree, especially on a day in which the New York Post apologizes, sort of, for a cartoon some think portray President Obama as a chimpanzee (see cartoon at right). 

Depressing, but interesting take on future of news

The news has been so depressing lately (and I've been so busy) that I haven't posted much in recent days. I'm still busy and the news is still depressing, but I wanted to call your attention to this Salon article. Headlined "The Death of News," the column Gary Kamyia paints a bleak future not only of newspapers, but of news itself. It's the kind of "big" thinking that we seldom see in new media, but the kind that gives me some hope that the future isn't going to be nothing but Drudge, Fox and Keith Olbermann.

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.