Welcome to the fact-free zone

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post writes perceptively about the new realities of media: facts don't matter, attacks bring viewers and everybody loses. Not a lot of new stuff, but he brings together a number of the stories that have depressed many of us lately. I can't wait for school to start so I can bring reality to some new journalism students -- and tell them how to keep their standards among the rush by others toward the lowest common denominator.

Interesting thoughts on a 'post-print' world

Meanwhile, BBC offers an essay on what it calls news in a "post-print" world. The gist of the essay by Andrew Marr is that new media offers two different revolutionary changes. The first is that he observes that he is spending a lot purchasing media online (ebook, etc.) so maybe, he writes, Murdock isn't all wrong with his pay wall. The second is that Internet journalism will fall into Internet aggregators but under them "we will have large numbers of specialist news sites," which will offer details on areas of interest.

As if to prove his point about the vigor of the Internet, BBC offers "a selection of your comments" afterward, including ones that both agree and dispute his thesis, but does offer lively takes on Marr's musings. One, from a man in Texas, is worth repeating in whole, it implies we might be more discriminating in news than many think:

"Used to believe the better news will be on the web, but not anymore. I will take known journalists, with good reputations, over the spread of trash opinionators any day. Here in the US, consolidation of news agencies has been a disaster for the public. I get my best news from the BBC, then look beyond for supporting articles. OK, I use the web, but if they don't have printed copy, or television shows, I don't read, nor waste my time." -- Wallace Parnel, Texas.

From O.J. to Sherrod, Halperin traces the spiral

Mark Halperin in Time traces the "spiral" in new media from O.J. Simpson to Shirley Sherrod. Speaking of its inception with the Simpson coverage, he writes: "By dominating the nation's attention through 1995 and beyond, the tale established a template in which the media is triggered and overwhelmed by any storyline that has basic elements of culture, controversy and polemic."

He marks the "three pillars of new media" as cable TV news, the Internet and talk radio. Of them, Halperin writes: "What all three of these mediums crave is content that is driven by contretemps, gripping video, factual disputes, logistics, and compelling dramatic personae." It's the kind of essay that makes reading any form of media worthwhile.

PBS looks at online journalism

PBS's MediaShift has started what it promises will be a weeklong online series (with links) on the emerging media landscape. It promises to be well worth reading (there's that word again, reading; just doesn't seem to go away no matter how often its demise is predicted).

Better times ahead for media?

Agencies predict better times ahead for media -- except for newspapers.

The analysis, from two leading marketing firms, predict growth in advertising and revenues for media as the worldwide economy stabilizes. Print advertising is projected to continue to decline, but stabilize by 2012. Newspapers, while doing very well in developing countries, are seen as in a deep downward spiral.

Burnout hurting new media

I've felt for some time that the biggest threat to newspapers was their own managers. I watched as newspapers cut deeply into content in search of ever-more "savings," often while raising the prices they charged at the same time (see Milwaukee Journal Sentinel). Let's see, hummm, less content for a higher price. Yep, sounds like a winning strategy to me. (Note to newspaper managers: the preceding two sentences are satire.)

Now comes a story that indicates new media are just as stupid. It's a New York Times story already behind its pay wall, but available easily by searching Nexus or just Googling key words. Its first page is here. The story describes about how various new media sites -- especially Politico -- are pressuring writers to constantly add material to their stories so Google bots will update the stories and the site will get more hits. Quality? Don't worry about it. Added value? No problem. Writer burnout? We'll just hire more.

I love journalism, and I believe new media tools are adding greatly to journalism. But I've yet to see any sign that the media industry really has a clue. Sure, it will eventually settle down to a profitable model based on actually providing information. But I worry about the incredibly-poor judgement in newsrooms and what will happen to the greater public good before the industry managers get a clue.

Gannett's announcement on centralizing design is unintentionally funny

Sometimes media news can make you laugh out loud. This morning's example came from reading a story about how Gannett will be consolidating design in five locations across the U.S. It's the typical story these days with a corporation using computers and the Internet to cut jobs by consolidating positions in a far-away location, and it's something that has been foreshadowed by other media companies consolidating design, including some who are outsourcing to India.

Gannett's announcement says it will locate the jobs in Louisville, Asbury Park, Nashville, Des Moines and Phoenix. OK so far. Actually design is one aspect that can easily be transferred to another area. Then the announcement, as reported by the Louisville Courier-Journal and that doesn't say how many jobs are going to be cut, goes on to report that "Some copy editing positions will remain at individual newspapers," indicating that at least some copy editing would be done locally where copy editors have a sense for the communities. This was followed by the "laugh out loud" statement: "The consolidation is intended to allow Gannett outlets 'to focus on - and protect - the creation of unique local content,' the memo said."

In other words, to focus on "the creation of unique local content," Gannett is transferring work away from local control to strangers who have only a vague idea of where, say, Green Bay is.

Magazine industry stabilizing?

In a sign of stability, MediaDailyPost reports that the magazine industry has reached some sort of equilibrium with a net gain of three magazine titles last year (measured by subtracting the 87 titles that folded from the 90 new ones). Significantly, those numbers are both way down from the previous year, which saw 187 new titles but 279 folding).

Meanwhile, magazine ad pages rose in the second quarter, a decided improvement over their big tumble a year earlier. Sure, it was only a 0.8 percent gain, but that beats the heck out of the 9.4 percent decline in the first quarter. This was the first increase in more than two years.

Are there too many journalists?

Are there too many journalists? That's the provocative question asked by this blog, which uses numbers to show no correlation between size of staff and newspapers sold. Even better are some of the points made in comments, especially one by Judy Sims of SimsBlog, who points out the importance (not mentioned in the analysis) of promotion and advertising. By the way, her blog is fast becoming one of my favorites. I'd especially recommend her current post, "If Newspapers Cease to Be, There Will be Two Causes of Death," in which she only gives one, promising the next in up upcoming post.

Good news: Paris Hilton no longers sells magazines

We're always looking out for "good" media news, a category I'd place this report that Paris Hilton is not only no longer a magazine cover "seller" but a negative. Unlike the recent past, this annual survey from GfK MRI, which looks at trends in magazine cover sales, found that Hilton was a negative, along with stories on "green" issues, negative feelings and most celebrity scandal. "Good" sellers include Barack Obama, George W. Bush, some celebrities (Jennifer Aniston, for example) and issues such as the economy, beach bodies and "best of . . ." stories.

Why 140 characters can be too few

Twitter can be deadly -- to careers. CNN has fired Octavia Nasr reportedly for a tweet praising the late Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, one of the founders of Hezbollah. According to the Guardian, she said she was praising his work for Muslim women, not actions many believe led to terrorism. The money quote from Nasr: "Reaction to my tweet was immediate, overwhelming and provides a good lesson on why 140 characters should not be used to comment on controversial or sensitive issues, especially those dealing with the Middle East."

What's Time charging for?

It looks like Time is going to be following an idea I have been espousing for some time. A brief quote from a Time spokesman on a blog called "All Things Considered" includes this description of the company's plans: "Our strategy is to use the web for breaking news and ‘commodity’ type of news; (news events of any type, stock prices, sports scores) and keep (most of) the features and longer analysis for the print publication and iPad versions."

In other words, the free Internet material will be the sort of "news" that can come from anywhere with exclusive material protected for purchase either from print or iPad versions. Of course, comments on the blog ask the usual "Why would I want to pay to get what I can get elsewhere" questions that proliferate among new media devotes, but the Time plan (and others, such as Murdoch's newspapers) isn't offering news you can get elsewhere behind a paywall. It's up to Time and the others to make us want to pay to get it (as we do now for all sorts of material, see my Internet and cable bills for examples).