Another clash between mainstream and non-mainstream media

I suppose it's part of the big news picture but this entertainment story is more important for what it says about how mainstream media continues to miss the boat on how to use non-mainstream sources.

In short, Jay Leno's show ripped off an Internet video after promising credit (not the first time, by the way). It got called on it, and basically did the right thing in giving credit for the video (a funny montage of Taylor Swift winning awards) the next day. But why did it have to wait a day? We're in a more collaborative era now, and giving credit is easy, adds to a medium's credibility, and is ethical. So do it from the start.

Is the obit dead?

Upon the death of a daughter's friend who had been instrumental in building G.M.'s electric car, columnist James M. Naughton tried in vain to interest a couple of influential newspapers in commemorating the passing of this interesting man.

Their lack of interest caused him to wonder if newspapers' dire straits has caused them to eschew the feature obit -- even for worthy candidates -- in favor of the paid obituary, and he rightly bemoans the loss. Naughton's correct. Once again, the newspaper industry misjudges its audience, costing it yet another area that could be used to attract subscribers.

Times looks at digital distraction

The New York Times visits the problem -- and I think it's a major problem that is growing worse -- of digital distraction today with a nice story (you may have to activate a free account to view this site) about how educations are using technology to battle technology.

To me, the distractions of technology continue to grow -- and I teach the stuff. I find it is affecting me personally. I can barely watch television without a laptop also scanning the web. If I'm without my cell phone, I feel uncomfortable. If I don't check email for a few hours, I think I've lost touch.

However, there is a good side. If I don't check several news sites for a while, I feel out of touch. For those of us in the news business, that's a good thing. We need to redirect our youth from Facebook to the news (and, yes, Facebook is a form of communicating news). My problem with the digital world is that it's a real distraction from the real life going on around us. When I'm scanning sites on my laptop, I'm not really paying attention to the television. And, even worse, I'm not learning as much as when I read ink on paper. I haven't read research, but I'd bet that our retention is not as good. I know news sites are far less satisfying than newspapers or magazines, and I also know that I don't learn as much. More stories like the one today may prompt the research needed to validate my gut feeling, or show that my concerns are unwarranted.

Online copyright and ethics

Online copyright problems just continue to be sore spots. While still thinking of how the always-heavy handed Recording Industry Association of America smashing yet another teen stupid enough to be downloading music without paying (I'm not condoning it, just commenting on the huge settlements asked by the RIAA, which certainly seems to relish its role as bully), along comes a blog on how online editors continue to believe that they can just copy about anything that's been on the Internet without permission or payment. It included this comment by the editor of a cooking magazine called on the carpet by an author whose material it had ripped off: "But honestly Monica, the web is considered ‘public domain’ and you should be happy we just didn't ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else's name on it! …" I hate to dump on the ignorant, but the editor's comment fits with the rapidly-eroding ethics of the Internet, which seems to be following talk radio into irrelevancy. If only writers and photographers had stables of lawyers to threaten businesses.

Are media ethics passe?

Hamilton Nolan at the website gawker.com suggests that media ethics are outdated.

His proposal for replacements: 1) disclose, 2) vote, 3) realize the category "analyst" exists only in the mind of journalists themselves, 4) hire whomever you want, just don't let their investments color their coverage, 5) you can be friends with someone, or you can cover them, but not both, and 6) know that "opinion" is not a dirty word.

My view, as a journalist of many years who followed a strong ethics code: Hogwash!

A more reasoned approach is that, yes, it's very hard to remain objective, and I have nothing against most of his suggestions. I just would work harder. Journalism depends on verification, and that doesn't mean getting an extremist from both sides to weigh in on a subject and then calling it "balanced." It means finding out the facts as best you can, and presenting it in a fair manner. It means not mixing analysis with reporting without clearly labeling it. The problem comes, I believe, often with new media and television, both areas where analysis and commentary are often combined. That doesn't absolve print, but the problem is less there.

Journalism and Andrew Breitbart -- they shouldn't be used in the same sentence

Once again Jay Rosen has come up with a perceptive take on the media. This time, he looks at the fiasco that was ABC News' attempt to meld right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart, best known for deliberately airing a doctored video accusing a black federal official of racism, into it's election night coverage.

It's instructive because he deconstructs what seems to have happened in the frame of contemporary journalists attempting to show balance by using extremists on both sides, thinking that one's lies offset those of their opponents ("lies" may be a bit strong, but I'm awfully sick of the extreme lies of the last political advertising cycle, lies that any sentient being should know were falsehoods). By using the Breitbarts of the world (or even the James Carvilles or William Bennetts), television has ceded any authority of even claiming it was committed to the truth.

These are not journalists, folks out there in TV-land. Using them in a journalists' role means you are no better than Fox News, which left journalism behind long ago.

Is Washington Post looking hyperlocal?

A new Washington Post survey may presage a strong move into hyperlocal Internet sites. A similar survey earlier on business news was quickly followed by major changes in its business coverage. Hyperlocal seems to win again.

A peek behind a newspaper pay wall

The question of the millenium (at least this one) is this: Will online viewers actually pay for content that used to be free? There's an answer, of corts, from Great Britain but, of course, it comes with all sorts of further questions that need to be answered. The Guardian reports that the Rupert Murdoch paywall at the Times of London and the Sunday Times has cut sharply into online audience. "Total unique monthly UK visitors to the Times site went down from 3,096,000 to 1,782,000 when the wall went up, and that only 362,000 – about 20% – ventured on to pages beyond the wall," it says, but those viewers behind the wall are the most desirable by far, indicating that advertisers may well gravitate toward viewers behind the wall. Or maybe not. We'll find out.

Have media managers botched the iPad?

In what should be a surprise to no one, media managements have totally botched the iPad opportunity, according to MediaWeek. The APS are "clunky," the pricing is vastly inflated, and advertising tactics are unsustainable. Why should media managers (I know the story is about magazines, but the same holds true for all "old media") suddenly start getting smarter just because they are operating on a new platform? They should, of course, but as long as bonuses are based on short-term thinking (especially lucrative if you can sell your company) media executives will continue to insult their customers -- and their companies will pay.

Will video be atop the new media foodchain?

A video-oriented blog talks to an expert and finds, surprise, video will dominate new media. "REELSE, the Online Video Marketer's Guide," posts an interview with Rick Calvert, founder of the Blogworld conference, and quotes Calvert as saying that video is the top of the media foodchain so it will obviously be atop the new video foodchain. Interesting take, although as a word person I still think video is going to need lots of words. After all, there are lots of words on TV newscasts already, and I have yet to see video online without lots of words surrounding it. Is video a great tool? Sure. Maybe the best tool? Possibly. But, in a vacuum, video doesn't exist.

Media companies forming parnerships with universities

Coming soon to the news media near you -- the media company + university hyperlocal news site.

According to Emedia Vitals, an online newsletter, several media companies are forming partnerships with local universities. One of the more aggressive, AOL's Patch, is building its Milwaukee news site. Haven't heard of any attempts to tie up with a local university.

Behind newspaper circulation numbers

AdAge takes a look at newspaper circulation trends (decline is slowing, it says), but says you need to go below the easy numbers to figure out what's going on. The insight, I see, is a quote from John Strum, who heads the National Newspaper Association: "What counts is that newspaper companies continue to retain their most loyal and engaged readers even as they increase print circulation pricing to rebalance their revenue streams." That means that newspapers continue to raise prices, and are working to hold readership. They are are working to build new readership using targeted methods.