For newspapers, both good and bad news

The good news is that 57 percent of U.S. Internet users visited newspaper sites in May.
The bad news, according to Media Daily News' Eric Sass, is that it demonstrates how the industry has not yet figured out a way to monetize the sites. My view is that continues to demonstrate the industry's lack of imagination. We're living in an age of new forms of journalism. Too many newspaper companies seem to be just running out the string. Reminds me of how the owners of Pabst Brewing leeched off it for years (story about newest Pabst owner; story giving a bit of earlier history). Basically they cut and cut and cut, dropped R&D, dropped advertising, and just let the market die. Sounds familiar, huh?

Online paper turns to print

I'm teaching in Italy during June, but news that a San Francisco online news startup is turning to print wedged its way into my life of biscotti and chocolata at a cafe.

The San Francisco Public Press is printing a 20-page newspaper with an 8-page pullout. It says that this move will set the nonprofit publication apart. It's not sure about the future. Few of us are.

Media world watches Murdock move

It's getting to be fish or cut bait time for the newspaper industry, and it is paying a lot of attention to plans due to be announced in the next couple of days by the Murdock empire to erect a pay wall at the venerable Times of London. The Times is planning to announce prices and procedures for forcing online viewers to pay for content.

New media folks, of course, all say it will be an abysmal failure. Most newspaper publishers are hoping that it works since they'd like to get more income from their online product. It involves a balancing act: Will enough viewers pay to offset possible declines from advertising revenues. The bottom line, of course, is that online advertising revenues aren't high enough to pay for quality journalism.

New report mixed for newspaper advertising

Moody's, the financial firm, issued a private report about the future of newspapers. There are several stories available on the Internet, including from Media Post, that give parts of the report. It's interesting to see the emphasis since the Moody's report says that newspaper advertusing is stabilizing, but just for a year.

Dead as a mackerel

I'm sitting here having breakfast in an outdoor cafe in Cagli, Italy. Along comes this article on Techcrunch.com titled "Is Print Media Doomed Worldwide or Just in the US." Basically, as seemingly always at the new media sites, the conclusion is "You bet. Dead as a mackerel." Even here in Italy. So I look around the cafe tables. Twenty-two people. Seventeen reading newspapers and the others talking with newspapers laying in front of them. Dead as a mackerel, I guess.

Research shows differences between new and old media in coverage; not news but important

Fascinating and important new research released by Pew Research demonstrates the differences between new and old media in the sort of things they follow -- and they aren't what you might think they are.

Pew says it "has gathered a year of data on the top news stories discussed and linked to on blogs and social media pages and seven months’ worth on Twitter. We also have analyzed a year of the most viewed news-related videos on YouTube."

Top findings, Pew says, "Most broadly, the stories and issues that gain traction in social media differ substantially from those that lead in the mainstream press. But they also differ greatly from each other. Of the 29 weeks that we tracked all three social platforms, blogs, Twitter and YouTube shared the same top story just once. That was the week of June 15-19, when the protests that followed the Iranian elections led on all three."

Newspaper sites continue to grow

Want a tip on hot Internet sites? Try newspapers. Media Daily News is reporting a steady rise ("up 10% from March, 12% from February, and 15% from January") of unique visitors to newspaper sites this year. My take? It's trusted content, baby. The new media folks are always screaming about the latest "hot" site (which generally dies quickly), but newspaper sites offer trusted content, and that's worth a lot. It's a shame more newspaper managements can't see this.

Twitter and journalism

Interesting report of his assignment to profile Rep. Michelle Bachmann in 140-character tweets by Newsweek's Andrew Romano. Romano's bosses asked him to write a profile using Twitter. He was to spend time following her campaign, tweeting along the way, then sit down with her for a formal interview and everything would be summed up in a regular print magazine piece.

After the tweets turned out to be negative, Bachmann cancelled the interview and the print piece never happened. But what's interesting is Romano's reaction to the experience. At first, he writes, he was skeptical with the new style of coverage, but he was won over. It's a piece that will make you think about future journalism.

NY Times sets a date to begin charging for content

And that date is next January, at least according to Bill Keller.

News is how we see it

I'm probably like the rest of you in that I don't spend a lot of time thinking about screens, but if we're interested in media we should be thinking about screens. In fact, since we now think of "news" as "content," I suppose thinking of "newspapers," "television," etc. as "screens" on which to view content makes sense.

If that preceding paragraph seems overly obtuse, it's just what happens when we contemplate the media landscape today with news being delivered via far more media than in the past. And, frankly, the way it is perceived differs by the way in which we read/see/hear it.

To get an understanding of what the media landscape faces today, slog through Joe Mandese's column today. It's on the way different "screens" change the way we approach news. Some fascinating thoughts that really do have major implications for news delivery.

Should a journalist learn programming?

Ah, that's a crucial question, isn't it. Digital blogger Martin Belam (who you might want to follow) is tackling that question with two recent posts (one and two). Belam, who describes himself as "an Internet consultant, information architect and writer based in London" and works for the Guardian, thinks not, although some knowledge is helpful.

He offers some examples of how knowing a little HTML helps in doing some of the routine tasks of Internet posting. But it's clear from reading his posts that these are helpful shortcuts, but not essential. He suggests that thinking like a programmer is much more helpful than actually programming. In terms of curriculum, we're on the right track by emphasizing content, not programming (although we should be identifying options for those students who want programing).

Huffington Post actually wants money now

Speaking of advertising sales, Mediaweek says the Huffington Post blogsite is making needed moves to bring in serious advertising dollars. Despite the fact that the site doesn't pay contributors, it gets lots of free content (much of it worth exactly what it pays for it), but little advertising.

As I ponder the heavy losses in Wall Street late last week, I have to wonder about a financial system built on promises, but not on actual performance. That's unfortunately the situation for much of new media.