Results matching “of online shift in”

Helium is an online company that describes itself as, "the online spot to learn what you need to know and share what you know." It combines citizen journalism with peer rating in order to provide a plethora of articles on just about any topic.

Helium brings together a system of news and information combined with a place to submit articles. It even has a "marketplace" where publishers can post topics for people to write about - sort of like a publishers à la carte classified space.

It is a place for readers to find articles that interest them, writers to write about topics that they know and understand, publishers to find articles and non-profits to voice their issues.

It is a unique system of sharing content, ideas and knowledge. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for Helium, if the current system will hold up and retain its credibility.

The Editors Weblog interviewed Peter Newton, the VP of business development at Helium.com to get a better idea of how the site works and what their goals are for the future. Newton has worked at Monster.com and The Boston Globe where he was the vice president of advertising.

EW: What is your selection process for articles and writers?

PN: Helium represents the first true meritocracy in the publishing industry. Helium welcomes anyone and everyone to join its community of writers.

We don't select writers; they naturally come to the site and write to areas in which they have an interest (in many cases, a passion) in sharing their knowledge or opinion. Once members join, their work is evaluated by other members though our peer-review rating system.  In essence, Helium brings order to the chaos of user generated content. Its patented peer review rating engine elevates the best quality articles.

After a writer submits an article, he/she is presented with two anonymous articles in the same topic area to rate in an "A versus B" comparison. Through the wisdom of the crowds, the best articles rise to the top, resulting in a rank-ordered list for every topic.

The end result is that the best writers are promoted, recognized and rewarded for their work.

New titles are introduced onto the Helium site through members, partners and directly by Helium staff.

EW: Where do you draw the line between journalist and citizen journalist?  What about between citizen journalist and blogger?

PN: Citizen Journalism is a very awkward term. Quality journalism demands its participants to be objective, ethical and methodical. Research, fact checking and skillful interviewing techniques are critical to the art. It's not obvious that what we are starting to call citizen journalism possesses any of these traits. I'm certain that the Columbia School of Journalism doesn't teach that the art of being a world class journalist is to be in the right place at the right time. Citizen Journalism seems to be migrating to each individual's "15 minutes of fame" and further and further away from journalism. It might be fun to watch - but so were the lions and Christians in the Roman Coliseum.

With that said, Helium is not really concerned with categorizing or labeling different types of writers.  We have created a platform for people to express themselves in writing across a wide variety of topics in a civilized and substantive way, and then have the community sort for quality.

Helium is a site for writers that fills a unique role in the publishing industry. In doing so, we are representing a new classification of online writers.

Our community of members includes professional writers, freelancers, subject matter experts, students and the expert next-door.

We are not attempting to replace investigative journalism or time sensitive reporting. Instead, Helium attracts and produces individuals who have the skill and insight on specific topics that they wish to share with others.

EW: Do you feel that the status of being an "expert" or a "professional journalist" is becoming less important?

PN: No, there will always be a need for professional journalists, especially in covering breaking news or conducting investigative journalism, and Helium is definitely not out to undermine established journalists or copywriters.

Instead, we are trying to expand the ranks of paid writers to include part-time talent that otherwise would be sitting fallow.

Our media solutions product offers newspapers a way for them to supplement what remains of their editorial staff, but is in effect driving down their content-creation costs. We are merely tapping into the notion of "social publishing," in which publishers ask their readership to contribute content.

EW: Do you apply any regulations for topics? style? content? etc...

PN: Yes, Helium has established regulations for topics, style, and acceptable content.

Beyond providing clarity to our members, the community is self moderating. Every new article submitted to Helium is rated by other members. The best content rises to the top. Our members often message each other with advice as to how to improve articles and items that don't fit the standards of the site are removed.

EW: Do you see a shift towards more citizen journalism in news reporting? Both online and print?  How will this affect the future of professional freelancers? Is it going to put a dent in the freelance market?

PN: When you say "news reporting", let's be clear that our focus is not breaking news or conducting investigative journalism.  With that said, there is a growing paradigm shift in content creation; publishers are increasingly sourcing content, not writers. As for how this will impact freelancers no one can say for sure but one thing is for sure-there will always be demand for quality writing.

EW: Can a person make a living from putting material on Helium the same way a freelance gains income?

PN: The short answer is no.  But with that said, there are thousands of Helium members who earn from $40-$100 each month, which is much more than chump change. In fact, some of Helium's highest earning members have made more than $3,000. It really depends on how much members use the site.

Earlier this month, Helium announced upfront payments for all new articles being written by starred writers on Helium.com. This change to Helium's Terms of Service is a move to reward the site's highest quality writers and to promote quality content at Helium.com.  In addition, the company's popular Marketplace product - used by publishers looking for top-notch content for their publications - now offers special access to the site's best writers. The move will improve content for Helium's publishing partners and help ensure that the site's best writers will be seen by those publishers.  

Many web 2.0 companies offer opportunity for incremental income. With these changes at Helium, highly-rated writers will have an opportunity to earn larger sums for sharing their expertise with the Helium community.

"Helium has grown by leaps and bounds these last two years; it has earned the respect of people and writers around the world," said Petra Newman, a 3-star writer on Helium.com "With the sky falling on our economy, Helium has again found a "pièce de résistance" for people who already have a passion for writing. Increasing the earnings for well-written articles is a win-win situation for both Helium and writers."

EW: What newspapers or websites do you work with?    

PN: Currently Helium is working with GateHouse Media's State Journal-Register(SJ-R) in Springfield, Ill. SJ-R recently begun using Helium's "Media Solutions" product to source writers for its op ed section-there are currently over 700 additional papers in the active funnel.

We also provide content for a wide a variety of other newspapers, magazines, online-only sites, etc.

EW: What about your competition? Who are they?

PN: As a producer of content and as a publisher of content, we compete with thousands of companies, yet in most ways, we have no competition.

That said, we really don't see anyone that directly competes with us, in terms of delivering a scalable solution to engage a community to produce high quality content.  

EW: Where do you see yourself in relation to news organizations such as the AP or the New York Times?

PN: The New York Times is the New York Times. Helium is not attempting to create a competitor to breaking news.  

EW: Where does a site like Helium envision itself in the future? How do you grow / expand ?

PN: Helium is rapidly building the world's largest community of writers. We plan to grow and expand the business in a number of ways over the next five years:

• Become the partner of choice to the publishing, non profit and broadcast industries for generating quality content at a low cost, while helping engage their audience in the process.

• Become the content source for any entity needing quality content.

• Expand internationally; international business represents 60% additional market opportunity

• Create a community of micro publishers

The 100-year old Pulitzer prize winning Christian Science Monitor has bravely announced that it is ending its daily print format and going fully digital: it will now only print a weekly "magazine" edition. The Editors Weblog caught up with the Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Science Monitor, John Yemma, and we discussed the thinking behind this move and how on earth a nationally distributed newspaper completely restructures itself for a digital future.

This story has been broken down into two parts. Part 1 focuses on why the CSM took this step and its initial steps down this path. Part 2 looks at the nuts and bolts: restructuring the newsroom, retraining, and managing staff through change.

The CSM's decision has sparked the inevitable debate about whether this is the beginning of the end for daily printed newspapers, a debate which will run and run in the years to come. However, the peculiar nature of the CSM's subsidised business model, its relatively small print distribution run and international readership base, make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions on industry trends from this move. Nevertheless, many in the industry will be watching closely to see how the CSM manages this move and whether it proves successful or not. If the CSM is successful, then this may lead to other newspapers pursuing this business model, but these papers will have to have a distinctive and loyal readership like the CSM if they have any hope of being successful.

Why the move away from print?

Yemma (left) states that there are two main reasons behind the CSM's controversial decision to move away from the daily print model. Firstly, the CSM's publishers, "saw the writing on the wall, they knew that the Internet user patterns and reader preferences and so forth were changing the business model of print. Print was becoming increasingly untenable, especially for the Monitor, which has an international audience. We just don't have enough reach with our print product, but we have great reach with our web product. That's not uncommon in the world of publishing right now to come to that conclusion, but for the Monitor we were able to make the change a little faster, because the Christian Science church wanted to move away from subsidising the Monitor within about three to five years."

The CSM is subsidised by the Christian Science church, with the church contributing approximately 50% ($13 million) of the newspapers revenue.  The newspaper itself makes about $12.5 million in terms of print advertising, circulation, web revenue and syndication. Therefore, the publishers of the CSM felt that, secondly, this level of subsidisation could not continue forever, so the team decided to look at the newspapers various options.

How the move to digital began - where to begin?

Two years ago the CSM convened a task force to look at the possibility of dropping its daily print edition. The newspaper worked at it from all angles; from prototyping to financial analysis, and working with a consultant (newspaper consultant Chris Urban), marketing group (Kadence Associates - who organised focus groups and surveys), and a PR company (Shift Communications - who handled assisted the company in communicating this move). A former editor of the Christian Science Monitor, John Hughes, and newspaper consultant, Chris Urban, headed up this task force.

Surveying the core readership base - will they buy it?

Given the nature of the CSM and its relatively small daily print run, international appeal as a Christian newspaper and its worldwide reputation, the reasoning behind this move - no matter the financial calculations and industry trends - is sound. However, if the core CSM readership did not largely support the change, then all bets would be off. The CSM surveyed its core loyal readership base, taking sample groups to sound out their response. Yemma states that the CSM was most concerned with converting this core group as quickly as possible to reading the newspaper in a new way. Its focus groups revealed that 50% welcomed the idea of decreasing the frequency of the CSM and that of the 50% who were "on the fence" only half of these wanted to preserve it as it is now.

Once the decision to drop the daily print edition was announced, the CSM had a customer service team field all calls and emails about the decision from readers, which Yemma receives a daily report on. The accumulative report of this over the past few weeks is consistently running at just 14% negative. 35% are asking questions about this new model will work, such as price and so forth, with the rest being positive. Yemma feels the CSM has got a, "pretty good response. We expected worse."

Yemma is clear that the most important thing for them to find out is how many people will convert from buying the daily newspaper to the weekly magazine. This will not be known until the new format is marketed in the spring, and they begin selling the weekly in April. The CSM's marketing estimate is that they can covert about 80% of the people currently buying the daily to take up the weekly model. On this, Yemma says, "that is the best we can do at the moment without having perfect knowledge of the future."

Communicating with your reader

On the CSM website currently there is a web cast featuring John Yemma and the Managing Publishing, John Wells. Here they talk over the various changes and why they have come about for their reader. The site also has an in depth editorial on the changes ahead for the venerated newspaper.

"The Web is not just a paperless publishing medium, it is a totally new way of telling stories"

The move to a web focused future will, "unshackle the newsroom from print."  Yemma says "We will get to see what we can do online in a way that we have never been able to do before. I really believe that journalism in is the infancy of story telling online and that online story telling is about interactivity. I expect us to look more at intelligently moderated user generated content, crowd sourcing, and expanding the reach of CSM journalism.  We can look more at speaking to our readers, and asking them to send us their images and stories of the events hitting the headlines, and thus expand our eyes and ears. There is a non-linear way of telling stories on the web that I think has to be developed by journalists who want their stories to be told in the most appropriate way for the medium."

Yemma goes on to say, "The Web is not just a paperless publishing medium: it is a totally new way of telling stories. We can really start using the web for what it is really all about, which is this three dimensional medium getting information and providing it at whatever level you can convey it."

Part 2 - In our next article on the CSM, the Weblog talks to Yemma about reorganising the team and the newsroom for a weekly magazine and web future, retraining, and staff cuts.

After nearly four years of operation, Sound Publishing, Inc., is temporarily suspending publication of the Kitsap Free Daily in Washington state.

The paper was cancelled to shift the company's focus to "continued development of their online products" and other community newspapers.  Sound Publishing has six weeklies in the Kitsap area.

The paper has a circulation of 10,600, serving Kitsap County, west of Seattle.  

Source:  Free-daily.com

In what is being called a "marathon" of politics, UK newspapers are revving up their coverage for the 2008 US presidential election. The demand for both print and online coverage is resulting in non-stop coverage by the international media of this momentous election in the USA.

Compared with 2004, The Guardian has upped its video content from "the occasional video" to five per day, according to Harriet Sherwood, who has been directing The Guardian's election coverage from the US. The Guardian sent an additional 20 journalists to the 15 editorial and production staff already based in the US for the duration of the election, anticipating a 36-hour shift starting on Tuesday.

Charlie Beckett, director of the Polis journalism initiative in the UK, said it is "frustrating" that both traditional journalism and online content may not be seen as reliable, reported Journalism.co.uk. According to him, there was no "Golden Age" for reporters to be viewed as "impartial conveyors of reality" and that "trust was always conditional."

The Editors Weblog reported some sad news for the newspaper industry this morning: the closure of the Commonwealth Press Union (CPU) and its magazine CPQ.

For a lot of editors and journalists trained by the CPU, receiving its newsletter, or participating in its Editors Forum or the regular CPU conferences, this is painful news. It is painful not just because they have lost a partner (and frequently a sponsor), but also because the CPU was the oldest international press association in the world. The CPU would have celebrated its hundredth anniversary in 2009 - the Empire Press Union was founded in 1909 - but the board has scheduled the closure of almost all its activities on 31 December 2008.

What does the closure this historical institution mean and what will the consequences be for the current CPU members in almost fifty countries?

Who will take care of small newspapers and small organizations?

In the obituary of CPU, it is said that, very soon, a Commonwealth Press Training & Education Trust (CPTET), will take over some CPU activities, mainly focused on training. The CPU Foundation, which funds training, will be maintained, but at the moment the financing behind this structure is not yet set. But the basic idea of the CPU - through the unique and common language of English - was to create links and to network between publishers, editors and journalists from the 49 countries belonging to the CPU. The new trust will loose this ambition, even if the contrary is said on paper.

The most important challenge will be to ensure the balance between big countries/small countries, big newspapers/small organizations. Rationalization will focus on larger countries and newspapers. The real risk is if we forget the Salomon Islands, Fiji, the small African states and the Caribbean countries. Australia will take over for the Pacific, South Africa would like to support African English-speaking countries and the US and the British Foreign Office will certainly take care of the Caribbean, but the global picture will disappear.

It is true that a press association based on the Commonwealth souvenir and the thirties was maybe not the most up-to-date organization, but its death will break a worldwide community unified by common ideals and ethical views. I'm sure regional organizations will do their best for small organizations, but with very specific geopolitical interests. And for this reason, the disappearance of CPU and a global point of view on journalism is bad news.

What will be the future of international press organisations?

The death of a 100 year old association is a symbol and a signal for all other newspapers organisations. Two years ago, the IPI (International Press Institute), encountered significant problems but found a way to maintain its activities. But are IFRA in Germany or WAN in France (the World Association of Newspapers, including the World Editors Forum) not threatened by the evolution of the newspapers business model? Regional organizations are also potentially in trouble, such as the IAPA in the Americas, TAEF in Africa (organization for editors-in-chief) or Panpa in Oceania, and so on.

The closure of CPU and the difficulties faced by the IPI clearly demonstrate that the existing business model for these organizations is under threat: how long will they rely on state funds, sponsors' money, conference fees and memberships? For instance, more and more members want to consume business information as they consume music on their iPods: by just paying for the specific item they want, and no more.

The subscription business model is under attack and press organizations must anticipate this shift.

Another problem is the development of webinars and online conferences as competitors to the current "face-to-face conferences". Either traditional organizations grasp these new ideas and the opportunity they represent, or the new pure online players will. It will take time to define standards and to build up customers and partners, but it will happen.

See also:

End of the Commonwealth Press Union on December 31, 2008

News providers have recently begun linking to outside news sites on their web editions, this marks a significant shift in attitude towards recommending rival sites as alternative sources of information.

An example of the changing attitude towards linking to other sites is on the recently launched site, the Political Browser by The Washington Post.  The new section of their site aims to provide readers with the best in political news coverage - even if that means linking to stories by rival newspapers.  This move, according to executive editor at the Post, Jim Brady, will allow their site to become the front door to political coverage.

According to Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, there is a shift in the balance-of-power of journalism; the power is shifting in favor of new media. Barber believes the "mainstream press lost touch with its audience at the very moment when technology, via the Internet, was dramatically lowering the barriers to entry."

According to Barber, "the imperial status of the mainstream media - the television networks, big metropolitan dailies and lofty commentators - has been shaken.  The lay-offs of hundreds of US newspaper journalists this summer are a symptom of a wider malaise."

He continued, "we are witnessing a shift in the balance of power towards new media, with wholesale repercussions for the practice of journalism."

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?"