Cross-platform magazine readers growing

In the magazine world, cross-platforms are gaining a bit of traction. Time, Inc. magazines lead the list compiled in Folio with 30% of its readers using both print and digital platforms to read its magazines. Reader's Digest, which includes the former Reiman publications here, is at the bottom of the list percentage-wise with 85% of its readers print-only (9% both print and digital).

Should we all follow Warren Buffett's example?

The rule in the financial markets is to buy whatever Warren Buffett buys. So does his purchase of the Omaha World-Herald mean we should all buy newspapers? The Christian Science Monitor suggests that's not what his purchase of his hometown newspaper says. But it still is instructive for the rest of us.

Buffett himself was quoted as telling the World-Herald: ""I think newspapers ... have a decent future." But, he went on, in terms of profits, "it won't be like the past. But there are still a lot of things newspapers can do better than any other media. They not only can be sustained, but are important.''

I suspect that the purchase was for one of the oldest reasons in the book: power. Controlling newspapers means taking control of local agenda-setting, and rich people have done that since America was a tad. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see others follow his example. After all, we don't have to look far to find rich guys who want more power.

New York Times opens a conversation for readers

When the New York Times selected Jill Abramson as its executive editor, we knew that the Internet-savvy new editor would move the Times farther along into the digital world. She announced another step today in turning journalism at the Times from what we stuffy academics call "lecture" mode into a "conversation." Specifically, the Times made several changes to its comment system to, as Abramson put it, "improve the community experience" at the Times.

It'll be interesting to see how this whole "conversation" thing plays out. I remember my extreme pleasure years ago when I first read the letters in the Times of London. They were a conversation, and the changes Abramson announced will help with the New York Times.

Could Pulitzer Changes Mean an Award for Live-Tweeting?

I loved the headline the Nieman Journalism Lab put on its item about the Pulitzers changing rules that I used it on this item. That's reducing the changes to their minimum, but it's not totally farfetched.

What the board did was change the emphasis on its rules for the Breaking News Category: "For a distinguished example of local reporting of breaking news that, as quickly as possible, captures events accurately as they occur, and, as times passes, illuminates, provides context and expands upon the initial coverage." As the Nieman Lab folks said, "In other words, the new language seems to ask for multiple snapshots of the active, in-the-moment, messy-at-times reporting outlets are giving their readers."

The times, they are a'changing.

Internet privacy issue boils again

The Internet has exploded with stories about a major privacy issue with Android phones. Apparently a company is installing a program that tracks each keystroke. The company, Carrier IQ, claims, according to a Forbes story, that it's only aggregating data and isn't passing along anything but "anonymized" data, it still would be violating a host of wiretap laws, according to Paul Ohm, a former Justice Department prosecutor and law professor at the University of Colorado Law School.

Unfortunately, it's only the tip of the privacy iceberg, I'm afraid. I don't have any expectation that anything I do on the Internet is really private. This story shows that I may be paranoid, but I'm not wrong.

Update: Social Media Insider recounts the story with author Steve Smith adding "As the debate over digital data tracking moves from online behavioral targeting to cell phones, the stakes over the issue get higher for all sides. This is not going to go away."

TV blog says social media doesn't drive audience to shows

While I've wondered aloud for quite a while about the lack of research showing online advertising works, I've found some on social media that casts doubt on it's effectiveness. A MediaPost blog -- TVBlog -- had some disappointing words for those looking to the Internet, especially social media as a way to cut costs, saying "Despite the hoopla about social media driving interest in new fall shows, network marketers probably shouldn’t abandon thick inserts in entertainment magazines or planes tugging banners over beaches. Not to mention cut back on their on-air promos. Which is a bummer considering using Facebook and Twitter is a lot cheaper than buying glossy pages or hiring pilots."

Sometimes you get what you pay for.

British hacking scandal reaches new heights

The news from the British phone hacking scandal revolving around Rupert Murdoch's empire (although it's far from the only offender) has been so disgusting to journalists that we've become inured to the drip, drip, drip of scandal.

But Tuesday's testimony is so openly offensive that we should all read it just to give our ethic brain nodes s a jolt. The New York Times called some of the testimony "jaw-droppingly brazen," a phrase that I've never heard about alleged journalists (and I'll not dignify those in this scandal by calling them journalists).

The Times said that after Paul McMullan, a former deputy features editor at the now-shuttered News of the World tabloid, "had finished his jaw-droppingly brazen remarks at a judicial inquiry on Tuesday, it was hard to think of any dubious news-gathering technique he had not confessed to, short of pistol-whipping sources for information."

British hearing tars tabloids

A New York Times story sums up the British hearing into tabloid media excesses, and more than just Rupert Murdoch's empire is getting hammered in public.

It's the seamy side of journalism, and, no matter how much he protests, Murdoch is tarred by the brush his journalists used in very disgusting -- and I would maintain, unethical -- ways.

Nothing really new here, but lots of details.

Women journalists harassed for their views

Jeff Soderman at Poynter explores the issue of female journalists being harassed when they use social media. It's not a new subject, but he does a good job of exploring the issue.

It seems they are especially attacked if they have opinions. It's interesting since writing with attitude and opinions seems to be the growing trend on the Internet. But sexist criticism won't surprise any female journalist; they've faced it before.

A future without daily print newspapers?

The American Journalism Review questions whether newspapers will continue daily print publication. The story, looking at the experience of the Detroit papers, which cut back three years ago, explores a future in which newspapers are only printed on certain days of the week -- with their websites becoming the platform for daily news.

Reminds me of when the Christian Science Monitor changed its focus from covering news to explaining news. It's a future that might work, although I believe that newspapers provide a lot more than just news, and, although I am perfectly happy to do crossword puzzles online, a lot of the other features -- including the comics -- would take a lot longer to find and read in online-only operations.

Cutting through the brush, print magazine still most popular

Trying to justify a position using solid figures sometimes can lead to incredibly confusing stories. We get that a lot with companies trying to show that digital advertising work.

In this Eric Sass piece in the digital MediaDailyNews, we find a bewildering mass of figures and interpretations (sample: "Out of 187 million American adults who interacted with magazine content and ads in the period covered by the AMS, 54% did so via the Web or mobile platforms, including smartphones, eReaders, tablets and other mobile devices. However, 95% of the total magazine audience still consumes magazine content and advertising in print form, according to Affinity, and almost half of the audience overlapped, with 48% consuming via both print and digital channels.").

Cutting through all the underbrush, we find Sass summing up the numbers (I'm guessing "exposures" = readers or pages read) "1.278 billion exposures were print-only, involving no digital component; 135 million involved both print and digital components; and 166 million, or 11% of the total, involved only digital components." In other words, the vast majority of magazine readers still look at "dead tree technology."

Beck, Olbermann prove audience matters

In my Journalism 1964 class, I teach about what is called "the lure of infotainment" and how catering to special interests can hurt journalism. It may not be journalism, but I give you Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann.

Both left popular platforms (Fox and MSNBC) to take the money and run for restricted, lesser-viewed formats. According to The Wrap, they're both "richer but not relevant." They traded popular, widely-viewed platforms for much smaller audiences, and have lost their power.

Content matters, but so does reaching an audience.