40% of Internet users visit newspaper sites

A new study shows that 40 percent of Internet users visit newspaper web sites. That figure has stayed the same in recent years, and reflects the continuing interest in news among the Internet users.

Of course, there's a downside as well. There always seems to be a downside these days. This one is that the study reflects the continuing inability of newspapers to make money from their web sites. Free doesn't pay the bills.

Dan Rather says newspaper are a must for America

     Dan Rather comes to the defense of newspapers, saying they are vital to America. “When we speak of the future of journalism, let us fully understand that quality journalism of integrity is currently in decline and in peril,” he said. 

     “Press serves as a reminder of the constitutional protections and responsibilities of journalism in our democratic republic,” Rather said. “It was not for nothing that this nation’s founding fathers placed freedom of the press right alongside freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the very First Amendment of the Constitution up at the top of the Bill of Rights.”

Newsday prepares to limit online views

    Newsday prepares to close its Internet site to all but subscribers. This observer sees it as a colossal failure. Be interesting to see how everything works out.

     Here's a different view.  And check out the comments on the Tribune's Eric Zorn's blog.

Crowdsourcing with real journalists

As to good journalism, Advertising Age talks with the editors of Mother Jones magazine about, among other things, it's foray into crowdsourcing using real journalists. Crowdsourcing is the theory, popular with new media types, that a mass of people reporting on a story will give a more complete version with participants correcting each other. Co-editor Clara Jefferies says the project on global warming will be discussed at a meeting soon: "participants at the initial meeting will likely include Slate, Grist, The Atlantic, Wired, Pro Publica, the Center for Investigative Reporting, MoJo of course, and maybe one or two others."

This is more evidence of maturing in new media, and a dedication to getting things right. This, frankly, is an exciting project, and I hope it does well. I'm currently setting up a journalism project for a graduate class with input from at least the Journal Sentinel and WISN-TV. While Marquette students will do the reporting, they'll do it with guidance and advice from the other professionals.

Gawker post takes on Chicago Tribune's former management

Speaking of new media, interesting post on gawker.com by a former Chicago Tribune staffer attacking its previous management based on plans by the New York Times to hire several of them to create a Chicago insert for the Times.

Be sure to read through to the comments, though. I think the poster, John Cook, hurts his case by painting the Tribune in over-broad strokes. Yes, it was stuffy, and its local reporting wasn't as great as it could be (in large part because of the City News Bureau, which Cook dismisses, but which did good reporting), but -- especially at times -- the newspaper produced great reporting. I never worked for the Tribune, but I always read it, and consistently found good reporting included.

And, before I leave the subject, this Gawker post is almost exactly what's wrong with much of the new media. It has the germ of a good idea, but overstates its case with no attempt to provide any other side than that of a disgruntled former Tribune staffer. It is primarily an opinion piece with a few, very few, facts included, and almost none to support Cook's basic argument. It would have been much stronger with some effort to provide a complete story. It might still have made the same argument, but would give us readers more than just one writer's opinion.

What's ahead for journalism schools? Two views

With the U.S. projecting growth in journalism jobs (2% increase in jobs for journalism graduates and 10% for experienced journalists) and increases in journalism school enrollments, what can we expect from schools and future journalists? Here, two leaders of Eastern schools give their opinions.

Their observations show a realistic appraisal of what's happening today, I believe, and a maturing of understanding of the roles of new media and "citizen journalism." While delivery systems are continuing to change, the need for professional journalism increases as "citizen journalists" (read: bloggers and other opinion vehicles, which fills the Internet). These whet consumers' appetites for verified news, and the search for truth has never gotten more important.

Wall Street Journal becomes US's largest circulation newspaper

It's now official that the Wall Street Journal has passed USA Today as the nation's largest newspaper. Interestingly, it resulted from not only a big drop by USA Today (reasons include a price increase but more important is a change in the distribution agreement with Marriott Hotels), but also an increase by the Wall Street Journal.

I'll make a prediction now: Conventional wisdom says that Rupert Murdoch is making a big mistake with his plans to take more of the WSJ online material behind a pay barrier. I predict it'll be a big success, adding greatly to the newspaper's profitability and sparking a flock of followers. The increase in its circulation shows that consumers will pay for content, if they're offered content worth paying for.

Dallas newspaper tries another revenue strategy -- raising prices and adding staff and content

Another newspaper strategy to survive is having success, although it's early yet. The Dallas Morning News' new strategy is to hire more reporters, add pages back to the newspaper -- and charge more for it with the extra circulation revenue making up for lost advertising. This story does a nice job of outlining all the various elements that are in play here, including some specialty publications. It's good to see another organization fighting back.

Continuing another strategy, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel once again is holding its lead print story away from its online unit until Monday. Co-author Crocker Stephenson also used Twitter to promote it with tweets Friday and Saturday. My only problem with this strategy is that while the story, part of the newspaper's series on what it calls a "fractured" child care system, is excellent and important, I don't think its pull is important enough to make people buy the Sunday paper just to read it a day early. Nor do I think that it will draw significant new viewers on Monday. So why put it online at all? Why not use your online operation as a news-driven unit with teases to the print publication? We tease the other way all the time. I believe people use print media differently than they do online. So why not capitalize on that difference.

New York Times looks at the future of newspapers

       For those (oh so many) people out there who say that newspapers are dead, I offer proof not that they'll live forever, but that intelligent newspaper management still lives.  Editor & Publisher reports on the New York Times' Research & Development unit, which is approaching the future the right way -- by looking not only at how news is delivered (paper or digital) but how it's used. 

       I'll give you one example. One morning my wife and I were discussing what we would do if the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel were to go online-only.  Sure, we expect the Wall Street Journal and Times to continue in print, which would give us a nice roundup of what happened the day before, but, my wife asked, "where would I get my sudoku and word games?" Each morning, after reading the news, she take a short break and does all the games in the newspaper (I do the crosswords). I also make sure I read the comics every morning. In short, the way we use the news includes more than just looking at the news. By the way, both my wife and I live on computers, probably putting in from six to 10 hours a day at a minimum. And both of use check multiple news sites throughout the day.

       The good news is that the Times, and other media sources, are looking at the future and fighting back. Can I tell you what the media future will be? Not at all, but I can assure you that there will be one.

FTC blogging rule continue to draw fire

I've been looking, but I haven't found anyone who likes the latest FTC attempt to rein in Internet abuses. One of the most devastating comes from Slate's Jack Shafer who sees the potential for intimidation as greater than anything else he's seen. For example, he writes, "If you received a gratis novel from the publicity department of a publisher and posted a tweet about it without disclosing that the book was a freebie, you become an "endorser" in the FTC's view."

Furthermore, Shafer says, "The guidelines have to be read to be believed. They are written so broadly that if you blog about a good and service in such a way that the FTC construes as an endorsement, the commission has a predicate to investigate."

Frankly, I think the case is a bit overstated, but he's correct that the rules could be abused, just as free speech laws have been abused at the last four major political conventions (thousands of demonstrators arrested, but never charged and released after the conventions were over). We Americans do seem to write broad laws (this is just a rule, but it works like a law) that can be abused, and, alas, someone always seems to go too far.

If you want to read more on this subject, there's lots more out there. Simple searches of news aggregater sites will find plenty.

Operation impossible, courtesy of the FTC

FTC moves to limit online endorsements with what, frankly, are confusing and totally workable rules calling on new media bloggers, et al., to disclose any free merchandise from manufacturers being endorsed. Some are concerned that the rules could be used to limit journalists.

Vanity Fair looks at Rupert Mudoch and his "war on the Internet"

     Nice piece in Vanity Fair about Rupert Murdoch's "war on the Internet." Writer Michael Wolff says Murdoch will be taking his newspapers off free Internet just because he wants to; that it's not practical.  Wolff covers Murdoch's history of imposing his will, then finishes by suggesting that the 78-year-old Murdoch might just be trying to stretch out newspapers until he retires.  Wolff clearly believes that newspapers can't put the pay genie back in the bottle.

     As usual, Wolff doesn't say who is going to pay for news on the Internet after newspapers are gone.