OK, more depressing news

The news has been so depressing lately for journalism (and, yes, the decline of print journalism is hurtful for all journalism) that I've been ignoring the drip, drip, drip bad news stories. But MediaPost (online, of course) does a nice job of wrapping up this week's bad news here. There are some dramatic charts showing the decline since 2000 -- with the cut in employees being constant followed by the decline in stock price. Could they be tied together with a decline in quality hurting the bottom line? Yes, advertising is fleeing, but I would argue that some of the decline in advertising is because print media isn't aggressively seeking it out. I hear, anecdotally, that one of the problems at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is that they've cut so many advertising salespeople that they don't have enough bodies to service existing customers, much less drum up new business. I don't think that's any different than the rest of the industry.

By the way, I'd suggest a third chart just to compare: How has CEO compensation fared over this period? Do you think it declined with the number of employees and stock price? I'd do it myself, but the end of the semester rush is hitting.

Why copy editors matter

Calling it "A primer in news credibility," the American Copy Editors Society "fills in the holes" in Tribune Co. owner Sam Zell's conception of the work done by copy editors. It's one of the best explanations of what copy editors do and why they are important that I've read. This is highly recommended, especially for bloggers and would-be "citizen journalists." Zell said what happens online is that a reporter calls a "copywriter" with a story, and it's on the web in 10 minutes. Unfortunately, that's all too true, which is why the Internet is filled with a lot of garbage (sure, there is a lot of good material, but there's also a lot of inaccuracies, copyright violations, and libel). Basically, ACES calls for more eyes on every story. That's what professionals do, and a story vetted by many eyes has a much better chance of meeting journalistic standards. Frankly, bloggers can do the same (I have someone who reads my copy before it goes up, and others quick to let me know if something is slightly off).

Today's warning on newspaper future: 'Several cities may be without newspapers next year'

A financial group, assigning negatives to just about every media form's business, predicts that "several cities will be without newspapers." The country's terrible business outlook, coupled with incredibly short-sighted media ownership, has left a large number of companies at financial risk, including Tribune Co. and McClatchy Co., both of whose debt it lists as "junk."

It's all part of a worldwide economic hit, Fitch Ratings says, predicting a "global depression" next year. A few years ago, a Pentagon analysis predicted such an event in the case oil prices topped $90 a share. They were, as we all know, well above that for much of the past year, and analysts are predicting they'll go back soon. Unfortunately, it looks like this is one thing the Pentagon got right, and media companies are in the line of fire economically.

Outsourcing sourcing

Fun little Gawker.com piece on the two-source rule as applied on the Internet. It's not journalism that would be accepted by Kovach and Rosenstiel, but it is what's happening today.

And for another view . . .

Unfortunately, Steve Outing's view is one that I'd sum up as "print readers are old, stodgy, and just going to die, so forget them already and put all your eggs in digital, even though you're losing money at it." Even though that's basically what Outing is saying, I wonder why he thinks print managers should just concede the future? Remember how radio killed newspapers, and television killed radio and movies?

Frankly, I strongly believe in the future of digital and online media (not so sure about some of the less content-rich forms). However, I can't believe in just forgetting print. People are still buying lots and lots of magazines and books as well as newspapers, which still are selling a lot better than the Outings of the world would have you believe. So why is it good business to just give up?

Mr. Outing comments (be sure to follow the link at the bottom of this to his comments) that I'm misinterpreting his views. I agree on the need for newspapers to build a digital presence, my concern is that too many newspapers are simply sitting around waiting for their print edition to fail. As a holder of far more stock in media companies than I wish I had (that $16 a share for Journal Co. stock a year and a half ago seems awfully good right now when it's hovering around $2), I want to see them at least go kicking. That said, Mr. Outing's comments are important -- which is one reason why I regularly read his columns on the Editor & Publisher site, and recommend that you do, too.

A question for newspaper executives

Not news, especially, but good comments about how newspaper executives seem to believe their critics and are dumbing down their product. They come from a layed-off journalist and, surprise, surprise, were spiked by his former publication.  The question that should be asked repeatedly of newspaper folks: What's your game plan for your most valuable -- and profitable product -- the printed newspaper? Do you have any?

I see a lot of innovation in online and a lot of just cutting and slashing in print. Why not try to innovate in print as well? Do you really think you're going to get me to continue subscribing by cutting your quality staff, offering only long, often dull and even more often, of no interest to me at all, investigative stories but no good, innovative writing on things I care about.

Why not have your print newsrooms suggest some innovative coverage? Most newspapers have the staff to innovate. Why not try?

Mumbai and the media

Nice report in the Wall Street Journal summing up media coverage -- especially new media coverage -- of the chaos in Mumbai. Well worth reading to see the extent of diffusion of media use today. Two key points stuck out to me: 1) the instantness of much of the posting, 2) the incorrectness of much. Yes, we are getting our news instantly (and as someone planning to pass by Mumbia in less than a month, I was following along as the crisis exploded), but much of it is incorrect since there is no gatekeeper in much of new media. Everything's still evolving.

Meanwhile, Variety reports that some in India believe the saturation coverage helped the terrorists.

CNN to compete with AP for newspaper clients, prompting thoughts of convergence and local news

Years ago, I worked for the "legendary" City News Bureau of Chicago (legendary is in quotes because that's how it was referred to in Chicago media circles). It was a fabulous idea spawned in the days of very competitive business in Chicago with lots of newspapers competing. What City News did was cover the minutiae of police, courts and basic city coverage, then send its stories out on a wire to all the newspapers (by the time I joined, it had added TV, radio, even AP, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reuters). It covered the city, and, often, its reports were carried as is by the newspapers. Other times, they supplemented newspaper coverage.

In this era of convergence, I've been wondering when someone would move to replicate what City News has done for all the local web sites popping up. Nobody has yet, but they will, I predict.

Anyway, convergence is moving rapidly along even without local coverage as CNN is moving to compete with AP on wire stories, basically seeking to be the City New of America and the world. I think it's a good idea.

Media bias and the election discussed

Politico.com has an interesting discussion of media bias and the Obama-McCain election. Exceptional collection of voices from all over the spectrum with an awful lot of wheat amongst the chaff. It's a must-read for those contemplating politics and the media.

Can new, old media co-exist? Two say 'Yes'

A book by super-blogger Arianna Huffington and a conference in Indonesia both reach the conclusion that new and old media can co-exist, and even improve each other.

As could be expected, Huffington says that "journalists are blogging and bloggers are gaining credibility and stature." The first point goes without saying, and the second has more credibility to me when I think about how I received information during the recent national campaign. Most came from politico.com and from fivethirtyeight.com.

The conference, titled "New Media: The End of Conventional Media?" and sponsored by a group named the Alliance of Independent Journalists, called the current news situation a "blogosphere ecosystem" with each form of media informing the other. Despite all the inaccuracies and just plain untruths bandied about by bloggers, there are examples upon examples piling up of where mainstream journalists are picking up on information gathered by non-traditional journalists on the web.

One speaker cited the case of Situ Babakan in West Java as an example of the successful synergy between the social and mainstream media. Objecting to a local administration's plan to build a shopping mall on the lake, local environmentalists and the lake's supporters launched an online campaign to have the plan rejected. "They created a blog, informed web users about the blog and their cause through mailing lists, Facebook, online petitions and other social media. The web-based campaign generated a tremendous buzz that grabbed the mainstream media's attention. As the mainstream media picked up the issue the campaign attracted greater public support," he said.

The key was a mainstream media outlet picking up the issue, and spreading it. If I were editing a newspaper today, I'd have my staff reading over the local blogs for tidbits, just as we used to have beat reporters talk to secretaries at courthouses, then do the reporting necessary to see if the tip is worth a journalistically-sound story.

Do Pulitzers sell newspapers? A lively discussion

It's always interesting to read the letters on Jim Romenesko's blog of media news. Comments by Tribune owner Sam Zell that Pulitzers don't sell newspapers has sparked a lively discussion, well worth reading. Several comments seem to make a lot of sense while others are ridiculous. It's typical of the new media, you have to wade through a lot of chaff to find the wheat. This fact about the new media was graphically portrayed in the Luann comic strip yesterday.

State intervention sought for Connecticut newspapers

Two Connecticut legislators are seeking state intervention in hopes to save two newspapers planning to close. They aren't the first to suggest radical means to save community newspapers. Several nonprofit newspapers have been founded recently, both in print and online only editions. If the newspaper business model is broken, an alternative model may be the industry's hope.