Results matching “media and publishing dont”

Chris Anderson, editor of Wired and author of the recent "Free: The Future of a Radical Price," moderated the 'Free AND Paid Content: Business Models That Work' discussion on Tuesday night in the Condé Nast building in New York. The discussion, intended to focus on whether book and news consumers would pay for online content, quickly turned into a tense intellectual slugging match between John Sargent, CEO of Macmillan Publishing, and Anderson.

Anderson championed the future of free content, or 'freemiums,' explaining that free content could bring books and print back into 'cultural conversation' while emphasizing that consumers could not be expected to being paying for something they can get and have gotten for free. Anderson's 'new economy' of the freemium is based in the digital world where 90% of content is free and 10% is sold, and is a radical departure from the control of the "beneficiaries of a 20th century oligopoly" (speaking of himself and the panelists) for whom "what the Internet did is ruin our party."

While he received support from panelist Gary Hoenig, ESPN Publishing's general manager and editorial director, who offered the evidence of his own site's doubling subscriptions simply by "improving the quality of the content," Anderson was strongly opposed by Sargent, who consistently cast a grim outlook for publishers and was tepidly backed by Alan Murray, deputy managing editor and executive online editor of the Wall Street Journal. Citing the Journal's robust business coverage and successful charging for online content, Murray called the panel's central question of whether people will pay "silly." The problem he brought up is that newspapers prematurely decided they would give away content over a decade ago; readers got used to reading their papers for free, thus "devaluing their own content."

Mike Leary, Philadephia Inquirer's managing editor, announced last week that the paper would be publishing certain stories online only after they have been published in print, apart from breaking news stories.

Even though the new policy provoked some criticism from Steve Outing and Jeff Jarvis, it is meant to be a strategic leap towards formulating "complementary differentiation between the roles of the print and online operations", according to Poynter.org's Amy Gahran.

Differentiating between print and online operations may be the key to helping papers that are in financial trouble. One of the strengths of print may be feature stories, whereas the Web's immediacy allows for a possibly better environment for breaking news coverage.

The move may be seen as restricting bloggers by limiting the stories they may work on, so as not to publish content that is in progress for the print edition.

However, Chris Krewson, the paper's executive editor for online/news mentioned that it is blogging that is the "easiest" method for breaking news coverage. In fact, he pointed out that there was a 700% increase in traffic on Philly.com blogs.

"There's no quicker way to break news than on a blog, and no better way for us to leverage our staffing advantage over other local media. In addition, beat reporters with blogs say the process has helped them cultivate and nurture sources," said Krewson.

Gahran wrote that eventhough it would be "nice" to have news organizations reporting on breaking news, enterprise and feature stories as well as interacting with the community, financial difficulties may not permit that.

Source: Poynter Romenesko

See also:
US: Philadelphia Inquirer managing editor takes "backward step"?

Jody Rosen's recently Slate piece, Dude, You Stole My Article, has sparked renewed the debate in the blogosphere about plagiarism, fair use and the link economy.

Rosen recently chronicled the discovery that one of her articles had been plagiarized (four paragraphs nearly verbatim) in a small alt-weekly, The Bulletin, published outside of Houston, Texas. It turns out Rosen's Jimmy Buffet article was just the beginning - as Rosen dug through the Bulletin's archives, she quickly realized most, if not all of the articles, were mosaics of stolen prose, lifted from Slate, USA Today, The Dallas Observer, Rolling Stone, the Boston Globe, and more.  

Although the Bulletin seems a clear cut case - "the greatest plagiarism scandal in the annals of American journalism" writes Rosen - more often, bloggers and journalists are at odds when "Fair Use" borders on abuse.

Tammi Marcoullier of Publishing 2.0, recently wrote about having quotes lifted from her article without attribution, during her tenure as a Washington Post blogger. Nick Carr has been widely criticized for not including links in a recent Atlantic article, by critics who argue that mentioning an author or source (without a URL) isn't sufficient when a hyperlink is so easy. And it seems the AP controversy over Fair Use, which had the self-righteous of the blogosphere so enraged, has only just subsided.

So how can journalists and bloggers play "fair"?

ePluribus Media recommends the following:

-Summarize the article and attribute it to its original source, including title, date, publication, author and URL

-If you need to quote from an article and you're unsure if your use constitutes as Fair Use, contact the copyright owner and simply ask permission. For example, for the AP:

    E-mail: apdigital@ap.org
    Fax: +1-212-621-5488.

-If you are unable to find contact information for the copywright holder, post a disclaimer, citing "fair use" under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 with your contact information

-Last, if a copyright holder asks you to remove material, do so in a considerate and timely manner. If you don't? The copyright holder may contact the ISP the offending material is hosted by and the entire site can be disabled.

Sources: Publishing 2.0, Slate, ePluribus Media