Results matching “some more advic”

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have extensively studied The New York Times list of most e-mailed articles, checking every 15 minutes for more than six months, analyzing the content of thousands of articles, and controlling for factors like the placement in the paper or on the Web home page, The New York Times reports.

Results from the study show that NYTimes readers have exalted tastes - seeking to inspire awe in their friends, colleagues, and family by choosing to e-mail positive articles over negative ones, and long, intellectually challenging articles over short and shocking ones.

Editor of The Guardian Alan Rusbridger ruled out erecting paywalls around The Guardian's website, expressing optimism about the future of the newspaper, Journalism.co.uk reported.

Speaking as part of the Coventry Conversation series, run by the Coventry University journalism department, he said the newspaper had no plans to put up paywalls, as Rupert Murdoch has planned to do for News International titles. "It would be crazy if we were to all jump behind a pay wall and imagine that would solve things," Rusbridger said. He did agree, though, that it was good that journalism was "trying different things".

The report is quite detailed, and includes various examples and covers many topics, but focuses on local news and the value of quality journalism. Beginning with a history of the newspaper industry that culminates in its weakness in the face of internet news, Downie and Schudson explain the importance of investigative and accountability journalism for a democracy, holding it as a public good. 

Twitter asks its users one question: "What are you doing right now?" It is a simple enough concept; 'tweeters' answer this question and their response enters the real time feeds of those who follow them, but it is becoming increasingly useful for reporters and papers as the social network attracts more and more users. Essentially, journalists can use Twitter in three ways: to find stories and other information and to track events, to publicise their work, and to connect with readers.

A real time feed of breaking news and thought

Twitter is an extremely useful journalistic resource: reporters can use it to watch for breaking news, follow sources and search for information. "It's like monitoring another wire service," said Robb Montgomery, CEO of Visual Editors. It can be used to get an idea of which topics are attracting interest and what people are talking about right now. There is a list of top 'trending topics' on the Twitter home page. It is a real time search, ahead of even Google in terms of timeliness.

The useful information can sometimes be hard to find amongst multiple messages about what users had for breakfast, or what they thought about last night's TV show, but as Noam Cohen said in Global Journalist "it turns out that when a million people stare at their navels, more than a few of them will also notice that the ground is shaking, the plane is nosediving, the police are shooting." Twitter is particularly relevant during events that involve large numbers of members of the public, and a shining example of its effectiveness arose after a US Airways flight landed on the Hudson River and the first picture of the plane was posted to Twitter by an observer. Online news editor at Sky News Jon Gripton, discussing his reasons for appointing a Twitter correspondent, said "it is effectively another news feed. It helps us source eyewitnesses and photos and other people who are on the scene of an event." It is also crucial for following conferences, for example.

Applications such as Tweetdeck allow users to sort their contacts into groups and to search more and more easily for Tweets on specific topics. The custom of adopting hash-tags to make searching easier has been widely adopted: if a user is tweeting about a particular subject they can add a tag into their tweet, such as #IranElection, #Mumbai, #Gaza. The hash or pound symbol distinguishes the tag from random mentions of the same word, and is a custom developed by Twitter users.

Twitter's fame as a news source grew curing the terrorist attacks on Mumbai last November, and during the ongoing conflict in Iran following the election on June 12, Twitter has come into its own, with those inside Iran using the social network to stay in touch and communicate with the outside world while phone networks are down and many websites are blocked. News outlets turned to the service for the latest updates, as they were forced to abandon the principle of only relying on their trusted sources for information due to what the New York Times described as a "news vacuum."

Questions about the reliability of Twitter have also been highlighted by events in Iran. Clearly, it is impossible to judge the authenticity of Tweets from a non-trusted source. During 'normal' circumstances, a journalist would be able to contact the 'Tweeter' for more details and verification, but that is currently overwhelmingly difficult. Journalists who incorporate news obtained by Twitter into their reporting should always be careful to stress their uncertainty about the source.

Publishing: one-to-many

According to a Harvard Business study, there is a small group of very active Twitter users: it found that "the top 10% of prolific Twitter users accounted for over 90% of tweets."  Researchers Bill Heil and Mikolaj Piskorski concluded that "Twitter resembles more of a one-way, one-to-many publishing service more than a two-way, peer-to-peer communication network": in other words, perfect for journalists looking to publicise their work. It is simple enough to use as a publicising tool: send a link to the story with a Twitter-friendly headline, which should generally be casual and chatty, even more so than web headlines.

It is without doubt a good way to attract extra readers. One of the advantages of Twitter to spread the word is that it is viral, users frequently "re-tweet" the links that they have enjoyed. A CNN breaking news feed, not actually started by CNN but purchased by the news outlet when it gained substantial recognition, was the second Twitter feed to reach one million followers and now has well over 2 million. The New York Times main feed has 1,238,673 followers at time of publishing, and the Guardian has 25,009 on its main feed, though far more on its Guardian Tech account: 782,662. Many news organisations now have multiple Twitter feeds for their different sections. Montgomery stressed the need to "explore" the best policy for your newsroom when deciding whether to stick to one or split them

Some feeds are generated automatically, and for many journalists and bloggers it has become second nature to 'tweet' an article immediately after publishing. Robb Montgomery believes that the "more successful Twitterers have moved beyond auto-tweeting their RSS feed" to make their tweets more personal. "You want to show that there's a real person there."

A social tool for branding

As well as using Twitter as a one-to-many publishing mechanism, journalists can also take advantage of the social element of Twitter, using it to connect with their readers and to receive feedback on articles. It is a contact point between reporter and reader, making the journalist more accessible. "You can run quick polls, get a pulse, get some ideas," said Montgomery. Twitter can be used as part of a journalist's own personal branding, to develop their own network of followers, depending on their personality as well as their reputation as a journalist. This could be particularly helpful for freelance journalists and bloggers.

Newspapers' advice to staff

Many news outlets have become concerned about the way that their employees use social networks such as Twitter. New York Times executive editor Bill Keller called for a "zone of trust" after reporters Jennifer 8. Lee, Michael Luo and Brian Stelter sent 'tweets' on what executives were saying about the how the paper might charge for online content, amongst other things during a staff strategy meeting. Shortly after, the New York Times announced the appointment of social media editor Jen Preston via Twitter. She is to concentrate "full-time on expanding the use of social media networks and publishing platforms to improve New York Times journalism and deliver it to readers," including, it seems, policing Twitter use.

The Wall Street Journal's advice on Twitter in a staff memo is that "business and pleasure should not be mixed" and although "common sense should prevail," staff meetings should not be discussed on social networks. The Washington Post's guidelines also mentions its reliance on reporters' common sense. The AP's new rules tell reporters "Don't report things or break news that we haven't published, no matter the format, and that includes retweeting unconfirmed information not fit for AP's wires."

Embracing Twitter seems to be essential for journalists and newsrooms in today's media landscape. This does not mean that all reporters should be tweeting all day long, and certainly does not mean that they should believe everything they read, but they should familiarise themselves with the site and work out how they want to use it. A newsroom policy might be necessary to encourage or warn journalists with regards to how the paper would like to see it used, and if possible, a social media expert could monitor and coordinate the paper's efforts. It is not necessary for journalists to embrace every aspect of Twitter, but most who try it find something beneficial.

On Tuesday 30 June at 15.00 London time, Robb Montgomery, CEO of Visual Editors will be speaking at a WEF webinar on "How the real time web can improve your newspaper's journalism." More details here.

As the Boston Newspaper Guild and Boston Globe management take a break in negotiations until next week, speculation has been mounting on possible buyers for the paper and what its future might be. The union and owner the New York Times Co are trying to come to an agreement on how to make $10 million of savings following the union's narrow rejection of a deal and the Times Co's subsequent imposition of a 23% pay cut for all staff. The company is also looking at selling the paper.

The Financial Times reported that one of the interested buyers is understood to be willing to work with the union to structure a buy-out. Stephen Pagliuca, listed by the Globe last week as one of three potential buyers, is a managing partner at Bain Capital private equity firm and an owner of the Boston Celtics basketball team. Union officials appear willing to work with a prospective buyer.

It is becoming increasingly clear that a proportion of general news content is going to be put behind some kind of a pay wall in upcoming months. Several publishers have expressed their intentions to start charging, and several third parties want to help them do it. Journalists don't seem to want it, it seems pretty unlikely that readers would want it, so how are publishers going to succeed? Can it restore value to good journalism which is increasingly becoming a commodity? The Editors Weblog takes a look at some of the different services on offer and strategies being considered.

Journalism Online

First, Journalism Online, a start-up founded in April by industry experts Steve Brill, Gordon Crovitz and Leo Hindery, has taken facilitating charging for online content as one of its core goals. Brill made a presentation at the NAA-organised newspaper executives' meeting in Chicago on May 28 at which Journalism Online's mission was stated as enabling "news organizations to restore the optimal mix of circulation and advertising revenue necessary to finance original reporting and editing" hence giving them the chance to "realize the revenue they deserve--and can command--from readers and distributors for their digital content."

Journalism Online is marketing its proposal as an e-commerce platform. The idea is that it would make premium content from multiple publishers easily accessible to readers and allow annual, monthly subscriptions, day passes or single articles. There will also be all-you-can-read bundling options. Publishers will decide what content they want to charge for, how much to charge (though it is unclear how all-you-can-read prices will be decided) and how to charge. In the presentation, Brill suggests $50-60 a year and $5-6 a month for small to large city papers, but he stressed that this was an arbitrary choice and clearly the price would depend on how much content the publisher put behind the pay wall. He had previously suggested $15 a month for an all-you-can-read subscription.

The company maintains that implementing its system will not lead to a substantial loss in traffic or ad revenue, claiming that papers would be able to keep 88% of page views and 91% of ad revenue, as any paid content would be part of a hybrid model. In his examples, Brill demonstrates how he believes a paper could essentially double its income. Brill has also stressed that Journalism Online will incorporate lots of sampling. He told Nieman Lab's Zachery Seward that Journalism Online's assumptions are that 5-10% of current monthly unique visitors will be willing to pay for content; that 95 percent of those paying customers will choose subscriptions over micropayments; and that after subscribing, those readers will view 30-40 percent more pages than non-paying readers.

Overall, the company seems to be presenting its service as a chance for newspapers to focus on their best customers, offering a premium service to those who are prepared to pay. At the Chicago meeting, Journalism Online also emphasised the advantages of paid online content in terms of preserving the print product: it is "about the value proposition of print... about print subscriber acquisition and retention costs."

ViewPass

Another third party service was presented at the NAA-organised meeting in Chicago: ViewPass. It is the brainchild of Alan Mutter and Ridgely Evers, and could be implemented in 9 months at a cost of $6 million. The idea is that newspaper readers would be required to register once with ViewPass and it would then track their activity across participating websites.

Like Journalism Online, it would aim to offer readers the chance to purchase premium online content from multiple sources, with potential for subscriptions, micropayments and bundling. Essentially, the ways in which it differs is that ViewPass would be industry-owned, giving publishers the chance to (hopefully) share profits in the business itself, and it most crucially it would allow users to 'pay' for their content with their time or their information instead of with cash, because of their increased value to advertisers. In fact, ViewPass would focus on presenting readers that were attractive to advertisers for highly targeted ads. Mutter himself is not enthusiastic about charging for much online content, suggesting to Nieman Lab that it would only work for specialist content.

Circlabs

The creation of another start up was announced the day before the Chicago meeting: CircLabs, founded by Bill Densmore, Jeffrey Vander Clute, Martin Langeveld and Joe Bergeron. Its first product, code-named Circulate, aims to "offer a solution" to publishers who are experimenting with micropayments and subscriptions, suggesting that they should charge for content which is "both scarce in nature and of high utility to a segment of the audience." CircLabs is also focussed on developing opportunities for "high-value" advertising revenue, and plans to incorporate personalised news services. Further details are yet to appear.

Efforts of individual publishers

News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch has announced that all the company's newspapers would be charging within a year. It is looking at bundling content, according to chief digital officer Jonathan Miller, such as putting all the media conglomerate's New York-based content into one subscription package. One of the company's prime assets, the Wall Street Journal, is proof that paid premium content does work, although of a specifically financial nature. The paper is to expand its paid online options, with plans to introduce micropayments later this year along with a further level of premium subscriptions. Murdoch suggested that the company wants to "test" a pay model on some of its stronger properties first, and there has been speculation that the Sunday Times will be among these. The paid online content debate, although definitely present in the UK, has not been as strong as across the Atlantic, and it would be interesting to see what sort of reaction such a move would provoke.

MediaNews Group is planning to charge online under the belief that "we continue to do an injustice to our print subscribers and create perceptions that our content has no value by putting all of our print content online for free." A memo to staff from CEO Dean Singleton and president Jody Lodovic suggested that a part-paid strategy is in the works, and made it clear that the company is intending to charge for existing content rather than for new products or services.

The New York Times is apparently looking at two different ways in which it could charge for online content. The first would be somewhat similar to the Financial Times' model, whereby readers could surf the site without charge until a page-view or word limit were reached, when a 'metre' would start running and it would charge a user for the rest of their time spent. (The FT allows 10 free articles per user per month, then demands a subscription.) This would have the advantage of not putting specific content behind a paywall, and therefore not angering journalists.

The other option is a 'membership' scheme: readers would donate money and subsequently be invited into a "New York Times community," which would offer them free merchandise and other benefits. Possibly a tiered membership scheme could be implemented. When these proposals were discussed, Bill Keller told staff that a decision would be made by the end of June. The NYT is wary following its failed TimesSelect experience back in 2007 and seems determined to find a solution that will not damage its significant ad revenue.

Potential obstacles: search and antitrust

Currently many people find their news through search engines such as Google, and for articles to get good Google rankings and appear higher up in search results, they cannot be behind a paywall. Newspapers must strive to find an appropriate solution to this when they start charging: the Wall Street Journal's tactic of allowing its paid content to be accessed free via Google is clearly not fair to its paying customers, and is a definite deterrent to potential subscribers.

Antitrust regulations in the US effectively prevent publishers from coming to a joint agreement on when and how they should start charging for content. At the newspaper executives' meeting in Chicago on May 28, an antitrust lawyer was present to make sure all the discussion was legal. Poynter analyst Rick Edmonds suggested that the use of a third party "vendor" such as Journalism Online could be the solution to these concerns. Journalism Online has taken on David Boies and Ted Olson for antitrust advice.

So, is it going to work? And how?

Undoubtedly, implementing paid content is going to be a considerable challenge and is likely to involve substantial experimentation. Newspapers need to consider what exactly they would want to charge for, for example whether they could create a new paid service or put what is currently free behind a pay wall. It seems as if it would be easier to persuade people to pay for something new, rather than telling them they have to start paying for something previously free. But then people might decide that they are happy with what they get now and that they do not want to pay for anything extra. A paper with a highly developed website such as the New York Times could possibly offer basic news free but keep its interactive graphics and other more innovative content for its premium customers.

As yet, Journalism Online seems to be ahead of the pack with regards to third party services. No papers have publicly signed on but Brill told Seward that he had already spoken to about half of those at the Chicago meeting. In terms of connections and credibility of its founders, Journalism Online has a head start. ViewPass and CircLabs do seem to be onto something, however, with their focus on offering consumers as targets for higher-revenue advertising and effectively allowing them to pay for their news by looking at ads. Could these companies coexist, or is there only room for one?

A crucial factor which should not be underestimated in any attempt to charge online is ease of use for the consumer. People will be far more likely to part with their cash if doing so is simple and straightforward. For this reason, sign-in-once and all-you-can-read offers are likely to appeal. And once people are paying, the level of service should reflect this: good journalism presented attractively and accessibly. An element of personalisation would also seem worth paying for.

Can paid online content 'save' newspapers? If Journalism Online's figures are correct, it looks like it could make a significant difference to a newspaper's fortunes. The next few months will be telling in terms of experimentation and competition between proposals, but it will take some years for the definitive answer to this question to be realised.

New start-up company Journalism Online LLC has caused a significant stir in the media industry, and probably more behind the scenes. Founders Steven Brill, Gordon Crovitz and Leo Hindery have put together a proposal including promises to facilitate payment for online news, making it simple for publications to offer joint subscriptions as well as articles on a single basis using micropayment. They are also offering to negotiate on behalf of its members for licensing fees from search engines and other websites, and to provide member publishers with information on what tactics are working best in terms of building circulation and revenue.

In conversation with the start-up's consultant Merrill Brown, what stands out is that despite its distinguished founders, this company really is a new start-up, and although its members are in discussion with many big publishers and technology firms, details about how the business will actually operate are not yet clear. Brown stressed that Journalism Online is talking to publishers about "precisely what they want to see in this system, so that we get the specs right first:" it wants, sensibly, to have a good idea of the direction in which it is heading before proceeding. Details of which publishers the company has talked to have not yet been released, but Brown said "there's nobody on the list that you would be surprised at." It is clear that they are aiming high: "we all believe that getting some globally significant, influential publications or TV outlets or anybody who's in web publishing to come on board and embrace new strategy initiatives is going to be very important to our long term success."

Paid online content: all you can read

The decision to push paid online content is arguably the most ground-breaking element of the company's proposals. Journalism Online will create a system whereby consumers will be able to purchase "annual or monthly subscriptions, day passes, and single articles from multiple publishers" all through one website. Brill told PaidContent that the site will have "a fair amount of complexity, including, for example, publishers who want to make sure their print subscribers get a discount or don't pay for the online subscription."

"We argue that very few high quality products have ever been delivered for free, and neither should news" 

Pushing joint subscriptions would seem to be more effective than single paper offers, which have not had much success in the past for general interest papers such as the New York Times. Brill in fact proposed that the New York Times single handedly start charging for content in a memo to the paper written in October 2008, leaked to the press early this year, but it seems that the Times did not take this advice on board. Brown said he believes that it was a "natural evolution of Brill's thinking to try to create a larger solution involving more people." In fact, "we argue that very few high quality products have ever been delivered for free, and neither should this," Brown explained. And even if the income brought in from charging consumers is not vast, he added that "we think that over time, page circulation will bump up CPM and make advertising more valuable so that people will be a position to win on both sides of the coin." It is not just a US-based plan, Brown confirmed that they would like to have English language publishers from outside the US relatively early.

Publishers decide pricing

Pricing would be decided by the publishers, Brown explained. Steve Brill has suggested a figure of $15 a month for an all-you-can-read subscription, but Brown was clear that this was just something that Brill was "throwing out there." In reality, he continued, such a price would have to be decided on by the consortium of publishers. Equally, it will be up to the different publishers to decide exactly what content they want to charge for or not. They could, Brown suggested, create "web premium products," or "some may choose to have certain vertical categories such as sports behind a wall." In fact, he commented, "that's not really up to us." Others have suggested that it is far easier to charge for new content than that which is already free. And a part free, part paid model has been widely advocated, for example, maybe unsurprisingly, by Wall Street Journal Online executive editor Alan Murray.

Investigating what works and what doesn't

A crucial part of the project that has been given less attention is the company's plan to aggregate knowledge and gather data about "what works and what doesn't" with the aim of providing consulting services to struggling publishers. With this in mind, Brown said that "we are trying to encourage our partners to try lots of different things in an effort to build data." He hopes that within a year, Journalism Online will have "the collective experience of many different publishers which offer many different kinds of products." He expressed surprise at the current lack of this kind of data: "not much has been done."

Negotiating with search engines

The company will also be pursuing a copyright initiative to "negotiate wholesale licensing and royalty fees with intermediaries such as search engines and other websites that currently base much of their business models on referrals of readers to the original content on newspaper, magazine and online news websites." Brown was clear that set decisions of what this will entail have not yet been made, but explained that the goal was to "bring the industry together under appropriate pricing schemes and distribution schemes. We think there is strength in numbers in negotiations with search engines aggregators and others." Incidentally, another organisation planning to offer a similar service based on sharing ad revenue, the Fair Syndication Consortium, has just come into existence and the Associated Press recently announced plans to track its content more thoroughly and address offences more aggressively.

"We think there is strength in numbers in negotiations with search engines aggregators and others"

The project should be off the ground in the autumn, with "some partners in place," specified Brown. "The magnitude of the experiment that we will put in place is not entirely mapped out," he added, but "we will be running a piece of our programme." Seed funding is being provided by one of the founders, Leo Hindery, and his private equity firm InterMedia Advisors. A call for a first round of funding will be a natural progression, commented Brown, "this will look like a real company before too long!" He also added that once the company has more funding, it plans to do "a lot of marketing on behalf of the publisher participants."

Inspired by iTunes?

Steve Brill suggested in the interview with PaidContent that he was inspired by the iTunes model, and indeed the parallels between the initiatives are striking: both involving the intervention of an unrelated third party into an industry struggling to make consumers pay for their work. Brown explained that "we are taking broad strategic solace" from the iTunes model and learning what they can: "there are a lot of things about it that are encouraging and instructive." One of the main ways in which iTunes is instructive, he pointed out, is for "ease of use, which is something we always have to keep our eye on." And indeed with this kind of venture, making it as easy as possible for the consumer is crucial, as many people have little patience with complex payment procedures. Another encouraging point is that iTunes managed to bring together many different contributing producers of music and entertainment: just as Journalism Online hopes to do with publishers.

Steve Jobs succeeded, overwhelmingly. Will Brill and co?

The project sounds like quite an undertaking, and media coverage has been mixed over its chances of success. It will involve an unprecedented amount of collaboration between publishers to decide on rates and other aspects of such a system, which will be a considerable challenge. Previous micropayment schemes, including one started by Brill himself in 2000, have failed, but Brown believes that the time is right, due to the "predicament" in which publishers find themselves today: "I think that there's a very clear consensus that projects like this are extremely timely right now." And indeed, many different ideas about whether to and how to charge for content have been proposed in recent months, although this has been coupled with significant opposition from those who continue to favour an ad-based model and much reticence to put content behind a pay wall.

"I think the publishing industry gets how important this is. We're really inspired by the enthusiasm"

However, the response from publishers has been positive, according to Brown. "I think the publishing industry gets how important this is. We're really inspired by the enthusiasm from lots of important publishers across different sectors who have welcomed this." One major factor in Journalism Online's favour is its founders' experience and reputation. To embark on this sort of venture with any hope of succeeding requires good contacts and much influence, as well as in-depth knowledge of the industry: all of which these men have. It seems essential that a third party should step in to organise and implement this kind of scheme, hopefully uniting publishers, and this effort has as good a chance as any. It is impossible to say whether such a project could save newspapers, but without doubt, any additional income would be more than welcome, and establishing a firm precedent for paying for news could be highly beneficial in the future.

The Associated Press' recent announcement of its intention to crack down on misappropriation of its content online and to create new search "landing pages" has been met with much commentary and criticism, with many interpreting it as a direct attack on search engines, Google in particular. The not-for-profit cooperative, whose ownership base is US daily newspapers and which has recently been faced with warnings from members that want to drop the service, also announced rate cuts at its annual meeting in San Diego but these did not attract nearly as much interest. The Editors Weblog spoke to the AP's director of strategic planning Jim Kennedy to find out more clearly what the AP's plans entail and what their implications are.

Search landing pages: creating a map that will direct readers to local sources

There are two main aspects to the AP's current new strategy. One is to start creating pages of aggregated content based around news stories and topics, which would allow readers to find the most authoritative local sources for the news they are searching for. The pages will contain some content and links to other stories from both the AP and its member newspapers, and although it will not actually be a 'wiki,' (a source of information that can be updated by users), Kennedy explained that Wikipedia's design is a "rough model for it," with pages driven by topics or keywords. Such a page will be a "map for the user to access other links," commented Kennedy.

He emphasised that the plan is all about giving the user "an improved news experience," as the AP believes that currently, the mechanisms provided to consumers for news searching are inadequate. Kennedy asserted that "people are using search as a remote control for news and it's not working," as it is like a device with only "a couple of buttons; it's a remote with directional arrows and no channels." If a user does not find the information they want on their first search, they usually reach a dead end and just go back to the search homepage and try again. Also, he asserted, search engines "point people indiscriminately" towards sources, rather than towards the news' local paper which should have the most authoritative article. The AP hopes instead to offer more of a guide to a topic, with sources that are more intelligently chosen.

Pages will be largely automatically produced, a necessary tactic as the organisation plans to have hundreds, even thousands of them, but there will be a certain degree of human editing for big stories. They will have URLs so that they can be 'tweeted' or linked to on social networking sites but they will not be a destination in themselves: "This is a distribution strategy, not a destination strategy," Kennedy confirmed.

Tracking content to stop misappropriation

The second aspect is the AP's mission to "keep up the fight to protect content from misappropriation and protecting it from those who don't pay." He clarified that the he was not talking about "small time bloggers who post a link to a story," rather "people and entities who come along and scrape content systematically and have no intention of licensing it." He claimed that the AP has already been fighting this successfully for many years, and this new strategy is a continuation of that in conjunction with its members. The new mechanisms that the AP plans to put in place include new formats for news content which would carry rights information, and tracking services that follow each piece of content. "Ultimately," Kennedy explained, "we'll get better and better at tracking where the content goes, and that will help us enforce the terms and conditions of its use."

So how will this affect its relationship with Google and other aggregators?

Kennedy was clear that these moves are not being made as an attack on Google or any other specific aggregator, despite widespread reports to the contrary. He said that the AP will continue to license its content to Google, Yahoo and others, but that it wants to "introduce new ideas into the relationships over time and try to influence their search mechanisms, in particular to help us point to authoritative sources." Essentially, the AP wants to discuss search optimisation in order to know how to ensure that their landing pages appear high up on users' search results, and "may want to talk to them about having some kind of advertising relationship." The organisation has accepted that widespread use of portals and is not hoping to turn the clocks back, he clarified, rather the AP's goal is to "harness the traffic that goes through them and use the portals to move traffic to more in-depth coverage."

Selling content to open portals is old news

American Journalism Review's Paul Farhi recently argued that the AP may well be partly to blame for the industry's current difficulties in finding a way to charge for online content, as by selling its content to portals such as Yahoo, the organisation helped to make news a commodity. Kennedy responded that the decision to sell content to commercial websites was justifiable from a competitive and financial point of view, as the AP was being "outpaced by Reuters in the Internet space" and "we weren't realising any significant new revenue from the web." The board of directors hired the Boston Consulting Group to assess the situation, and it was concluded that licensing some AP content, national and international coverage rather than local, to commercial customers on the web would be an appropriate response to both issues. And indeed, it has "accomplished both goals," Kennedy affirmed: "it has put us in the position of major news wire service on the web and it has brought in hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue over the course of that decade." That has meant that the members have had to pay less to support the cooperative's newsgathering, and that the AP has been able to increase its presence worldwide, "grow our video operation and expand employment around the world."


The future of news: mobile and paid-for premiums?

Currently, Kennedy insists, the AP is not trying to dramatically alter the news landscape. "This doesn't affect the current eco-system at all, it adds to it," he stressed. But he believes that the situation will be different in the future, and that "many different models will evolve," as well as the current ad-supported model which has dominated media across the board for so long. He suggested that in the future, the AP will definitely be looking to charge consumers for some services, but not all, explaining that this is what CEO Tom Curley meant when he said that "Free is not a business model."  Rather than being defeatist about the way that the Internet has changed news, Kennedy insisted that "we believe that there is still a frontier and there is still opportunity to create new models, new experiences and attract new advertising and new spending from the consumer because we can offer them something that they want."

"We are not going to put up pay walls around existing content but we are going to go forward and try to look at opportunities for premium content," he explained. "It's about creating something new:" words that echoed advice given by Wall Street Journal Online executive editor Alan Murray to papers considering charging online. "We are trying to look for new ways to build our revenue base beyond strict licensing," added Kennedy.

He cited the AP's mobile efforts as an example of moves that the organisation has been taking to diversify its revenue streams. The AP created a free application for the iPhone, which aggregates its own and its members' content and organises it by postal code, so Americans have an efficient, accessible source of local news. The iPhone app is ad-supported, with local ads sold by the members and national sold by hired agencies, and a Blackberry application was recently launched, which phone owners must pay to download. "It's really a model for the kind of activity we want to do in the future," he explained, "where as an industry we aggregate our content and put it where the users are, and build a model around it."

Kennedy was clear that the two projects will be pursued "very urgently" and that both efforts will be launching within the next three to four months. With its new search pages, the AP is trying to take a far more active role in a consumer's news reading experience, a big step for a news organisation which, due to its lack of a commercial website, has always been somewhat distanced from its audience. It is proposing a solution which it feels will benefit the reader, and which will evidently benefit the AP and its members, if they have more control over directing traffic and can make extra advertising revenue on these pages. The intellectual property initiative seems to be similarly motivated: becoming more directly involved with where and how readers find AP news, while seeking further income to which the cooperative feels it is entitled, as the producer of such ubiquitous news content. Regardless of motivation, any effort to address the discrepancies in the relationship between content generators and search engines will be closely followed by the rest of the industry in light of recently growing controversy, and any initiative that does indeed improve the news reading experience should be welcomed.

Michael Wolff, the founder of Newser, had a lot to say about his Website, the future of news, Google, The Daily Beast and more...

In case you haven't (already) heard of Newser...

Yet again, an old media man is trying to reinvent his craft with new media thinking. Wolff, who has been covering the media for quite a while as a contributor to Vanity Fair came up with the idea for Newser as a response to what he calls a "revolution in how people get their news."  Newser is a news aggregation website that launched one year ago and is based on the concept of more news in less time, by adding human intelligence to machine-driven aggregation.  According to Wolff, the idea is that Newser "searches the web, reads the stories and delivers concise and sharp summaries - along with links to the full text."

The Starting Point

Wolff is sure that newspapers and traditional broadcast media will fall to an imminent death.  So as a means feed the enormous demand for news he created the online news aggregation site.

Even though there are huge advantages to using technology in the media industry, Wolff argues that "nobody has really developed the user-friendly way for getting news," that is, until he created Newser. The idea behind Newser was to create something that could be fun, entertaining, interesting and all the while make sense - something that was essentially, user-friendly. With this in mind, combined with what he calls "an absolute place in the market" - he designed and launched the news platform, giving editors and writers the opportunity to use the technological tools at hand to produce news that would be both efficient and entertaining.

The News According to Newser: Its Visual, and General

The news aggregation system is set up in a visual grid format so that readers can see the day's happenings pass before their eyes.  He describes it as a real-time visual for the day's events, a "kind of narrative through which you can literally watch the day go by."

When asked if visuals take away from the content  -  Wolff was quick to state his position: visuals are essentially the life force of news.  "I think the visual presentation of news is the business we are in. Newspapers are visual media; obviously television is visual media. News is visual, if news is not visual (i.e., Google, or YahooNews) it's a lesser form."  Wolff believes that if you can't visualize (or have it visualized for you), then you are missing out on the world.  To him, Newser is a "window to an incredible experience of the moment...", and he believes this is part of what people want.  The other part that people want is drama.

If there exists a trend towards more niche news, as many media pundits postulate, Wolff feels that the trend is backward. In his opinion, general news, news that embraces everyone, is in demand.  As a result, Newser does not target a certain age group or demographic. In Wolff's words, "We are one of the few sites that target general interest news audiences. We are not serving up left wing news. We are not serving up right wing news. We're not serving up special interest news." He views it as an "old fashioned idea," something that works because, essentially, the audience wants "the news that everyone else wants -it doesn't want it to be specialized - they want that sort of pure view into the world."

The Newser System

Newser's system is somewhere between human and Googlebot. An algorithm searches sources for the news, then the editors and writers make the final decisions as to what to summarize and publish, summarizing being the site's primary purpose. Wolff sees Newser as a way to bring an "enormous amount of information" to readers, "which is significantly more consumable because we are the ones who are preparing, digesting it, summarizing it, condensing it."

Newser has 20 editors working rotating shifts so that hands are on deck 24/7. Outside of the main offices in Chicago and New York City, Wolff employs people throughout the world to keep up the pace. News has to be instantaneous, so his staff policy is, "if you are out of bed, we use you."  

Wolff also describes Newser as being in the business of sources; "If we are an expert on anything; its on sources."   Although many traditional publisher esteem that news aggregation sites are "stealing" content, Wolff does not view it that way.  He points out that Newser is sending readers back to the original source and "the world depends on directories and aggregators to locate and point original content...to present a literal infinity of information in a manageable form."  He sees Newser as doing a "more valuable act, or at least as valuable as the creators themselves."

Wolff"s categorizes sites that post purely original content as "relics of the past" because "nobody wants news from just one source." But he also doesn't see the point in purely automated aggregators that just produce headlines (such as Google or Yahoo) - he views them as "lesser forms."

Not Such a Beast After All

When asked how he compared Newser to other sites such as the Huffington Post, Drudge, or Tina Brown's recently launched The Daily Beast, Wolff highlighted the fact that his site is "pure news aggregation, we are not producing other content." In addition, Newser remains "agnostic to orientation" in order to present the news in "everybody's point of view."

When asked about his thoughts on The Daily Beast, he was quick to offer his apocalyptic view of yet another "relic"; "The Daily Beast...which I think is a complete error and hash and mismatch - is just trying to produce an old idea of a magazine, Tina Brown's old idea of a magazine online. So it's not even a new idea of a magazine - its Tina Brown's old idea, and in my view has no chance of success at all."  Wolff continued, opining that both the Huffington Post and The Daily Beast are spending more money that they can ever make back; "Someone is going to end up eating that," he said.

News Today Gone Tomorrow

As for hindsight, he is pleased with the outcome of Newser - but stated that as with any business dealing with the development of technology - there are always things that could have been done differently, but described it as a learning experience - with technology sometimes you don't know what the outcome will be of certain efforts. It's trial and error. He cites one of the "main management challenges (as) deciding where to focus and allocate brain resources."

Obviously he wants Newser's audience to grow and for them to become "a significant and possibly dominant news brand online." He has no plans to develop a print version of aggregated news and leaves it for the most part up to users' demands.  

Wolff imagines the future news landscape as being purely electronic-centric and sees the main challenge as figuring out what works. Opposed to those traditionalists that laud the power of traditional media, he believes that consumer behavior does change - people have always sought their news in the most efficient way possible.

As for print: "The advice is probably not to get up for work today, sleep in and, you know, hope your retirement account will take care of you."

With the World's financial markets nose-diving and talk of an imminent deep recession, people are turning to newspapers to cut through the jargon and market turmoil and to tell them the truth. However, some newspapers stand accused of sensationalising the crisis in the pursuit of a dramatic front page and of being ill informed on the subject matter. General sentiment in the City of London, for instance, ranged from financial workers accusing the press of creating "complete hysteria" to "fanning the flames of the crisis". These severe reactions in the City, combined with an utterly confused public, sparks the question: how should a newspaper cover a global financial crisis?

The Financial Times has proved to be a port in the storm of screamer headlines and misinformed commentary. The Editors Weblog spoke to the Managing Editor of the FT, Daniel Bogler (left), about his views on the coverage and how his newspaper reacted as the crisis unfolded.

Firstly, Bogler agreed with the City's negative view on some of the mainstream media's coverage, saying, "It's unfortunate that the financial literacy and understanding of how things work in the City and of basic accounting and so on, is actually very thin in financial journalism. The FT, because we are a financial newspaper, take the stuff a lot more seriously. We hire people from the City... and also spend a lot of time, effort and money on training our people."

Rethinking the layout

Bogler reported that one of the key things the FT did when the magnitude of the story unfolding became clear was rethink the entire layout of the paper. To ensure that the FT provided enough space to deliver comprehensive coverage, it cleared the first four pages of previously planned stories and bumped them further inside. This shift in focus did result in other key news getting squeezed, but this highlights the newspapers keen news judgement on the significance of what was unfolding on trading screens throughout the world. The bar for a story to get onto the front page was suddenly raised.

Bogler said that not only did the FT clear the first four pages, but it also redesigned the front page to emphasise and reflect the newspaper's focused coverage. The FT's template for its front page is usually three or four stories and a taster section (long column down the side) for stories within (left). However, with its decision to provide focused coverage on the rapidly changing story, it now featured two stories on the financial meltdown and leads to the rest of its coverage.

To further provide space for reporting the story, it reorganised the letters page and also largely cleared its flagship Markets pages at the back.

Since the story broke, half of the Financial Times coverage in print and online has been entirely focused on the credit crisis. The paper is not only featuring pieces to assist and inform investment bankers, but also pieces that will be useful for the average individual. The Personal Finance section last Saturday did a special on how to manage your finances during the credit crash, with practical advice for everyone, from savers to those seeking information on their mortgage.
 
This flexibility in terms of layout is another key reason for its success in its treatment of the story; templates and layout do not dictate to the newspaper when a big story breaks.

Refocusing the team

Layout flexibility followed into the newsroom itself. From what Bogler reports, it appears that three key teams spearheaded the newspapers response to the global financial crisis. The teams were the Crisis Counsel (Chief Editors and senior editors), The Leader Conference (meeting for in-depth coverage) and, specifically, the Hit Team (the financial services (banks) reporters).

Crisis Counsel
As the story hit, a Crisis Counsel was called at around 10am with the Editor Lionel Barber, News Editor Robert Shrimsley and other senior editorial staff. It was here that the decision to clear the first four pages of the newspaper to focus on the meltdown was taken and a senior news editor was appointed to manage the pages. Furthermore, the decision to make this story the focal point for the newspaper was made, with the senior team then notifying the rest of the staffers.

Leader Conference
The team then moved on to the Leader Conference to inform them that in depth and "Leader" stories would now be on the market meltdown. Previously planned articles on the UK's Conservative political party were shelved and resources shifted for optimal reporting.

The Hit Team
The Hit Team strategy had previously been utilised by the FT during the Iraq War. The Hit Team - which consists of reporters and editors from the relevant beat for a story - co-ordinate the entire newsroom: deploying reporters, co-ordinating news flow, writing the front-page splash and managing the opening pages. The Team can also pull reporters off their beat to boost coverage of a topic, ie, an autos journalist can be drafted in to aid coverage of a banks story. The core of this unit for the crisis was, and still is - as this rapidly developing story still has legs - made up of ten financial services reporters in London and six or seven in New York. Staffers around the world also called in with their regions' story and any new angles developing. Bogler reported that the news editor and reporters around the world "shaped these pages relatively quickly."

The highly respected "Lex Column" was also given priority. It is a column that features widely read analysis and commentary from a group of reporters who previously worked in hedge funds and investment banks.

The payoff

As a result of its dedicated focus and clear and comprehensible content, FT.com's traffic has exploded. Page views have risen 300 per cent. Unique users are also up by 250 per cent.

When asked about the FT's competition, Bogler said, "Its unfortunate perhaps for the Wall Street Journal, having just been bought by Murdoch, that they have switched their interest to general news, political news and focusing on US politics at a time when US politics is just not the story. We have looked a bit more nimble."

Responsibility and ethics

Reflecting on this fast-changing story, the media coverage it has received, and the perceived "sensationalist" angle taken by other papers, Bogler said he is aware of the added pressure on the FT, "We do have an extra responsibility and we take it very seriously.  We do not 'fan the flames' of the crisis."

He went on to say, "It is in the nature of newspapers to write the most dramatic headline, the most dramatic copy and have the most dramatic picture, so you have impact on your readers.... this irresponsibility is kind of bred into the industry. You have to be very careful, you have to take a step back. A picture of someone with their head in their hands in front of a trading screen, is that the right picture?"
 

Since 2004, the number of new, "citizen-generated" media and reporters at the US political conventions has significantly increased. It has become more difficult to differentiate between independent bloggers and traditional ones as traditional media is adopting a "multi-platform" method, according to Media Shift's Mark Glaser.

Chances are you've heard all about the now-'resolved' dispute that opposed the Associated Press to social news sharing site Drudge Retort, over the fair - or unfair - use of AP quotes. Even more likely is the possibility that you've heard emotion-filled - and perhaps inaccurate - coverage of the affair. So this is an attempt to untangle some of the knots.

The four-point recap, clarifications
Lesson one: The blogosphere's outcry is heard
Lesson two: but the winner is?
Lesson three: AP - "Whither" or "Adapt"? Change the DMCA or set a legal precedent?


The four-point recap, clarifications

If you haven't followed the story, here's a four-point recap (or skip to next):

- Earlier this month, AP demanded that the Drudge Retort take down seven entries, which were in its view violating policies of fair use of content and the agency's copyright (AP wants to charge outside sources for using for excerpts longer than four words).
- Drudge Retort Web host Rogers Cadenhead consequently blogged about the takedown notice, and this created a ##-storm in the blogosphere, with many influential bloggers including TechCrunch's Michael Arrington and BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis calling on the boycott of AP content.
- Shortly after, on June 16, AP retreated, but didn't recant: it admitted that its request had been "heavy-handed" but didn't withdraw the takedown notices.
- Then, on June 19, AP issued a statement to say its conflict with Cadenhead had been resolved, after AP lawyers gave him guidelines to make the postings suitable, and that "both parties consider the matter closed." This really meant that Cadenhead agreed to modify the contested items and ended up not reposting them.

The guidelines discussed with Cadenhead have yet to be made public though, and the AP is working on a new set of guidelines for "fair use" of its content in general. "If AP's guidelines end up like the ones they shared with me, we're headed for a Napster-style battle on the issue of fair use," Cadenhead wrote on his blog. He told the New York Times' Saul Hansell that some of the key issues for AP related to protecting headlines and first paragraphs of stories.

First clarification: unlike what has been widely echoed on the Web and suggested by another New York Times article on June 16, AP was never supposed to meet the Media Bloggers Association (MBA) in order to draft guidelines for all bloggers, according to MBA President Robert Cox.

Another clarification: the blogosphere went ablaze when it learned that AP had filed a lawsuit against Cadenhead in June, seemingly out of the blue. According to Cox though, "Drudge Retort got on AP's radar due to the posting of entire articles with exact headlines which all parties agreed constituted copyright violations two months BEFORE the most recent spate of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Take Down Notices."

Lesson one: The blogosphere's outcry is heard

News of the Associated Press' June take-down notices was met with severe criticism, calls for boycott - and many profanities - by the blogosphere.

In one of his posts, entitled "FU AP," Jarvis wrote: "Bloggers, unless the AP recants and apologizes to Cadenhead, I urge you to avoid linking to the AP and to link to reporting at its source." Jarvis also encouraged bloggers to copy-paste full AP stories.

In a self-admittedly "ridiculous" post, after being quoted in an AP story, Harrington announced that "I've called my lawyers (really) and have asked them to deliver a DMCA takedown demand to the A.P. And I will also be sending them a bill for $12.50." According to Harrington this "is exactly what the A.P. would have charged me if I published a 22 word quote from one of their articles."

That short posting alone generated more than 230 comments - most of which were harshly critical of AP's stance at the time. The wildfire that spread in the blogosphere and the seemingly rapid turn-about of AP once again illustrated a known fact: blogs have gained enough traction and buzz-generating capacity to concretely influence and shape the media landscape.

Lesson two: but the winner is?    

One - erroneous - interpretation is to say that bloggers - won their battle against the traditional media Goliath, which was trying "to impose some guidelines on the free-wheeling blogosphere, where extensive quoting and even copying of entire news articles is common," - a quote from a New York Times story. (The Times' coverage of the affair was, according to Harrington, hindered by a conflict of interest, considering that the Times is one of AP's members and sits on its board of directors.)

But this isn't a victory for bloggers. "The A.P. is going to assert a much stricter interpretation of fair use than most people on the Internet are used to," reported Hansell on the Bits blog.

As mentioned above, Cadenhead had to agree to AP's proposed modifications, and ended up not reposting the material. Furthermore, this case is really a microcosm for the bigger issue of how to adapt "fair use" policies and copyright to the digital age in general.

"I'm glad that my personal legal dispute with the AP is resolved, thanks to the help of the Media Bloggers Association, but it does nothing to resolve the larger conflict between how AP interprets fair use and how thousands of people are sharing news on the web," wrote Cadenhead, following his two-hour conversation and settlement with the AP.

"I think AP and other media organizations should focus on how to encourage bloggers to link their stories in the manner they like, rather than hoping their lawyers can rebottle the genie of social news."

While Cadenhead may be right in terms of global news consumption trends on the Web, the AP was clearly in its own right under the US DMCA, at least regarding the stories posted in their entirety with the same headline. But the legal provisions concerning "fair use" of content for smaller excerpts have remained vague - simply undefined - until now, something the AP hopes to reform by setting guidelines.

"I think it would be helpful for bloggers and users of social news sites to know what the AP believes to be fair use of their copyrighted work," said Cadenhead's lawyer. But "I hope that any guidelines that are issued are not interpreted as an agreed definition of fair use" under copyright law.

Lesson three: AP - "Whither" or "Adapt"? Change the DMCA or set a legal precedent?

The Associated Press versus Drudge Retort - blogosphere - affair throws light onto two main issues:

- Does this case exemplify the 'old media' versus 'new media' divide? Is the AP's stance representative of its inability to adapt to a new context?

Yes, in the eyes of new media guru Jarvis: "I value the AP and don't want it to die. I want it to morph to a new model and a new future. But I am afraid that in its fights, we are seeing its inability to adapt."

On the other hand, few bloggers have pondered the more controversial view that the AP's approach may actually be a sign of its willingness to adapt - granted, not yet to the 'utopian' world copyright-lessness. But the AP, in its own way and after being "heavy-handed," is now attempting to define new standards that are adapted to the digital age. (Read this note on June 13 by Jim Kennedy, VP and Director of Strategy for AP.) No doubt some of the outspoken bloggers mentioned previously could be quick to shatter this argument.

- As is often the case, the law doesn't evolve as rapidly as the context it seeks to protect. The blurry wordings of the current DMCA must either be reformed quickly, after multilateral consultation, or the issue of "fair use" of content will eventually be settled in court and set a precedent, costing either news organizations or bloggers - presumably both.

This is the real issue at stake: how fast can the law be adapted to the reality of the Web, in order to avoid costly conflicts over subjective interpretations of "fair use" of content? As Hansell concluded in the Bits blog, "the unsettled state of the law makes it a gamble to take the matter to court."

A costly gamble, whether it ends in a loss for the AP or for bloggers. Or both.

Note that, just in case, no AP material longer than four words was excerpted in the above.

Bloggers: you can also watch this video by DigitalJournal.com for advice from Harvard Citizen Media Law Project Director David Ardia.



Source: Buzzmachine (here and here) - Techcrunch (here and here) - Associated Press - New York Times - New York Times Bits blog - Mediabloggers.org - The Moderate Voice - paidcontent.org

The Editors Weblog is running a series of exclusive interviews about the future of journalism with top editors at leading newspapers around the world. Here is the latest installment with  Jaroslaw Kurski, first deputy editor-in-chief, Gazeta Wyborcza in Poland.

The list of upcoming interviews will be updated as they are published (click here to view all interviews in this series). Among the other titles that have been asked to participate in these interviews are:

- The New York Times - Jonathan Landman (US)
- Financial Times (UK)
- Guardian (UK)
- Washington Post - Jim Brady (US)
- Globe & Mail - Ed Greenspon (Canada)
- The Times (UK)
- The Economist (UK)
- Gazeta Wyborcza - Jaroslaw Kurski (Poland)
- Le Monde (France)
- Die Welt (Germany)
- The Hindustan Times - Pankaj Paul (India)
- Asahi Shimbun (Japan)
- JoongAng Ilbo (South Korea)
- The Age / Fairfax - Mike van Niekerk (Australia)
- The Nation - Pana Janviroj (Thailand)
- Punch (Nigeria)
- El Tiempo (Colombia)
- Clarin (Argentina)
- Gulf News - Abdul Hamid Ahmad (UAE)


Questions: "News, journalism, newspapers: same past, different futures?"

1. How long do you think you will define your company as a newspaper company or a print company?

We stopped being a newspaper-only company in 1993 when we launched our first internet discussion board. Today we have millions of boards. Our web portal website Gazeta.pl reaches now 6 million unique users per month. It is a magic figure, as it is also the total number of readers of the printed edition of Gazeta Wyborcza.

We started our company in 1989 with a newspaper, but today we are one of the leading multimedia companies in Central and Eastern Europe. We publish newspapers, magazines and books, we run networks of radio stations and an outdoor company.

And we strongly invest in digital media. Our board has an ambition that in three years time more than half of our revenues will come from other sources than print. Until now all our websites reach 44 per cent of internet users in Poland. This is an extraordinary outcome for a newspaper publisher like us.

2. At this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, a panel of futurists claimed that print newspapers wouldn't exist by 2014. To what extent do you agree with this?

Futurists like bold predictions, but as a journalist I prefer to look at facts.

Since 2003 there have been seven new national printed daily newspapers launched in Poland. So we faced a new competitor every single year. Is this rush any sign of weakness of the printed medium?

I believe that as long as we have something important to say and people here care to listen to us and talk with us, Gazeta Wyborcza will exist. The message is important, and the dialogue; and not the channel.

If print becomes irrelevant, we will spread our ideas in any other way. Newspapers will not die, they will change.

Last but not least: a Polish word for a newspaper - "gazeta" - does not have any "paper" in it. So even if futurists are right and print newspapers will disappear, Gazeta will remain.

3. In journalism's multi-centennial history, do you view the emergence of digital journalism as part of the continuity, or as a complete breakaway with previous forms of journalism?

Journalism is about intelligible conveying of news and about telling stories of importance that move the community. I appreciate digital tools, they are great and helpful, but they are tools only. You still need a story, a teller and a community. So has anything really changed in journalism?

4. Do you believe in the increasingly active role of the user in the news process, and is it a threat or an opportunity for professional journalists?

This active role is more than welcome. Let me give you some recent examples from Gazeta Wyborcza.

Since 1996 we have been reviewing maternity wards in Polish hospitals; we wished to improve a quality of healthcare in our country. We could have sent there 100 journalists, but a single mother - who really gave birth in any hospital - can tell you more than reporters. So we asked young mothers for help. In 1996 we got 2000 (two thousand) letters by post. In 2006, thanks to the internet, we gathered 40 000 (forty thousand) personal reviews. We were able to review 423 or 96 % of all hospitals in Poland. We would not be able to do this without our readers.

When we recently reported a huge migration of Poles to the Western European countries after Poland joined the EU in 2004 - we asked readers for help. Hundreds joined our reporting effort.
When we called for saving Rospuda, a wild river in North-Eastern Poland that was sentenced to death by the government - we asked readers for support and thousands marched in the streets, hundreds protested on the spot.

When we discussed a crisis in pensions system - we asked readers for advice and published the best investing guides ever.

We see interaction with readers not as a column of letters on page number 86. It is about inviting readers to play a crucial part in the editorial process.

5. Do you consider the Golden Age of investigative journalism is already past, or just beginning?

Investigative journalism is a core of our editorial practice and as our world and lives become more complex, I see the need for this kind of public service rising.

We live in the world flooded with information, but it is served in bites, so many bites, that it is getting harder and harder to see the whole picture. We need wise journalists to solve this puzzle.
We live in the world of instant news, but it is often reaching only the surface of problems and challenges that we face. We need great journalits to show what was NOT on TV and the net. We need to understand what really happened.

We live in the world influenced more and more by professional public relations; it changes the way politics is done. We need clever journalists to see what's behind the curtain, to ask the hard questions, to watch hands of those in power.

We live in the world of global economy and large corporations that affect people's lifes and business. We need investigative journalists to provide us all with reliable information to make better decisions.

On Monday (March 10) we broke an exclusive news about a Catholic priest who reportedly sexually abused young boys and about three bishops who - although informed and alerted about the abuses - have been reluctant to investigate the case for 13 years! We publish Gazeta Wyborcza also to uncover stories like this.


Thanks to Kurski for sharing his views. And stay tuned for the next interviews in our series.

User-generated content websites have flourished and there is no question now that they are here to stay, and that ‘user’ content will increasingly pervade all media – ‘traditional’ media that is. Has the definition of ‘News’ changed, or deteriorated, with the Web 2.0 revolution?  Are UGC sites competitors or facilitators for newspapers transitioning to the online world? Martin Rogard, director of content for YouTube’s European alter ego, Daily Motion, answers some of these questions for the Weblog, to help newspapers that can be torn between opening to readers and keeping the old rules in place.

Launched two weeks ago, LePost.fr is not your typical online-only news site. With a resolutely ‘new media’ approach to news, the website fearlessly tackles new trends in news consumption, and caters to a younger public generally perceived as having deserted the arena. Its editorial content and processes have been adapted to this aim, which can also be seen as a traditional media publisher’s attempt to experiment with the future of online news.

Multimedia producer and former television photographer Regina McCombs recently compiled advice from video editors for print journalists looking to improve their multimedia storytelling.   The four editors all discussed pacing, transitions, and editing and how to best utilize these multimedia characteristics to effectively draw the “reader” into a story.

Avoiding legal liability for comments made on their website by users is one of the main reasons that the Guardian post-moderates and removes offending postings on its website.  With 3 million comments posted since 2004 this seems to be prudent.

Ten years ago, the Associated Press (AP) was a “collection of different companies.” The online and print teams were independent units, its video team was largely set apart in London, and its international branches all had different logos and cultures. Since then, AP has moved to become a fully digital multimedia platform, following the “one name, one logo, one story” precept. The Editors Weblog interviewed Tom Kent, AP’s deputy managing editor, who insisted on the importance of cultural change and communication for smooth newsroom integration. More than that though, Kent details the strategies put into place, explains the changes in the editorial process, and gives a preview of the future of the integrated newsroom.

Rafat Ali, founder, publisher, and editor of ContentNext, the parent company of his popular PaidContent.org blog, recently talked to Media Bistro’s Greg Lindsay about making the transition from journalist to entrepreneur.

At the 15th Congress of the National Press Federation, about 500 students – aged between primary school and high-school – gathered in the EU’s parliament to give their ideas on tomorrow’s newspapers. In general, “the students were mostly in line with current thinking by innovative newspaper executives all over the world,” said Aralynn McMane, director of youth readership development at WAN.

In the run-up to the US mid-term elections, many news organizations have been using interactives in their website coverage, and often taking advantage of Flash technology to do it.  Are these graphics effective?  Are they worth all the trouble?  Digital media experts Alberto Cairo, Mindy McAdams and Laura Ruel give their assessment, and offer tips for future news website content producers.

In response to this week’s cover story about the decline of newspapers from the best weekly in the world, The Economist, BBC Radio 4 chatted with Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger and his equal at the Independent, Simon Kelner to hear what they think about the future of the newspaper.

Advertising developments just keep on coming! Here's an update of our last three ad summaries (here, here and here).

Tracking the consumer: Wired News reports that the media company VNU is is working on Project Apollo, a program designed to document the relation between people's exposure to advertising and their consumption habits. 30,000 American households are to ultimately be involved in the project, each participant wearing a beeper-like device that will pick up an audio code in advertisements in various electronic media. Ultimately, the plan, which is estimated to cost USD 100 million, is to give advertisers a good idea of when, where, how and on whom they need to focus their advertising.

Local ads: Insider Pages, an internet alternative to yellow pages, is described on CNetNews as stealing advertisers from print. The online service provides a free telephone number for each local business that signs up. Each time the number is called, Insider Pages takes a USD 2 fee. The article says that local advertisers feel they lack the time and energy to establish their brand on the Internet, but that once they find out how easy it is through such services, as well as Yahoo's new local webage venture (see former posting), local business will soon catch on.

Targeted advertising: We've already discussed Google's experiment with RSS advertising which has raised some doubts in the industry. Lockergnome, on the other hand, calls it a "win-win-win situation for all parties involved. The marketer wants to see its advertising as targeted as possible. The publisher wants to generate revenue in anyway possible so that it can continue to produce quality material. The reader, who may not necessarily want to see advertising, craves quality content only fueled by advertising revenues and won't be annoyed by targeted ads that pander to their tastes.

Classifieds: Poynter puddle-jumps over to Holland where a popular online classifieds site, Speurders.nl, includes video. This is useful for people who want to let their potential buyers know that their product is in functioning order.

Did you notice one thing missing about this posting? You got it! Newspaper advertising. It seems more obvious every day that print is not going to satisfy the needs of the 21st century advertiser.

Sources: Wired News, CNetNews, Lockergnome, Poynter

Advertising developments just keep on coming! Here's an update of our last three ad summaries (here, here and here).

Tracking the consumer: Wired News reports that the media company VNU is is working on Project Apollo, a program designed to document the relation between people's exposure to advertising and their consumption habits. 30,000 American households are to ultimately be involved in the project, each participant wearing a beeper-like device that will pick up an audio code in advertisements in various electronic media. Ultimately, the plan, which is estimated to cost USD 100 million, is to give advertisers a good idea of when, where, how and on whom they need to focus their advertising.

Local ads: Insider Pages, an internet alternative to yellow pages, is described on CNetNews as stealing advertisers from print. The online service provides a free telephone number for each local business that signs up. Each time the number is called, Insider Pages takes a USD 2 fee. The article says that local advertisers feel they lack the time and energy to establish their brand on the Internet, but that once they find out how easy it is through such services, as well as Yahoo's new local webage venture (see former posting), local business will soon catch on.

Targeted advertising: We've already discussed Google's experiment with RSS advertising which has raised some doubts in the industry. Lockergnome, on the other hand, calls it a "win-win-win situation for all parties involved. The marketer wants to see its advertising as targeted as possible. The publisher wants to generate revenue in anyway possible so that it can continue to produce quality material. The reader, who may not necessarily want to see advertising, craves quality content only fueled by advertising revenues and won't be annoyed by targeted ads that pander to their tastes.

Classifieds: Poynter puddle-jumps over to Holland where a popular online classifieds site, Speurders.nl, includes video. This is useful for people who want to let their potential buyers know that their product is in functioning order.

Did you notice one thing missing about this posting? You got it! Newspaper advertising. It seems more obvious every day that print is not going to satisfy the needs of the 21st century advertiser.

Sources: Wired News, CNetNews, Lockergnome, Poynter

I haven't seen this study when it was published in November 2002, but it's still relevant. To the Pew Center for Civic Journalism "newspaper editors assert that their civic journalism increased public deliberation, civic problem solving, volunteerism and changed public policy." And at least one fifth of all U.S. daily newspapers practiced some form of civic journalism between 1994 and 2001.