US: WSJ lukewarm about editorial independence agreement
"It gives you a good starting point," says John Huey, editor in chief of Time Warner Inc.'s Time Inc. "But that document isn't what all this hinges on. It hinges on the good will, intelligence and backbone of the people involved."
Elements that are unfortunately unpredictable given a set of challenging or conflicting circumstances.
One of the main points of the agreement is the creation of a special committee that would protect three top editors (namely the Journal’s managing editor and editorial page editor, as well as managing editor of Dow Jones Newswires) from News Corp. interference. “Members of the special committee wouldn't be connected with either Dow Jones or News Corp. and would be chosen by mutual agreement between the two,” reports the Journal.
The aforementioned editor would have control of allocation of resources, but News Corp. would have the final say on deciding the budget in the first place.
After thanking both sides for creating the document, the three top editors named in the editorial agreement also acknowledged its limitations.
Click here for the link the text agreement between Dow Jones and News Corp.
Source: Wall Street Journal through Poynter Institute
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: US: WSJ lukewarm about editorial independence agreement.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.editorsweblog.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5212
It seems that a lot of print magazines, newspapers, and even books are going to an online format. There are a couple of reasons for this, one of which is cost, pure and simple, but the other has a lot to do with reaching a wider audience worldwide. It is one thing if you can get a circulation and readership of a couple hundred thousand with a print newspaper, but, if by merely putting that paper online you increase your readership ten fold at a lesser cost of production, then why not go to an online version. Just a few years ago it seemed that online publications didn’t have the esteem or respect of printed publications, but gradually that view is changing and I don’t think it will be very long at all before we see a whole lot more publications streamlining their printed versions and expanding their online versions. Besides being cost efficient it is also good business practice.
Personally, one of the biggest weaknesses of intranet-based communications (also known as online publications) is that people don’t read online publications. It’s hard on the eyes, they don’t go to the intranet to read, and surfing through a corporate publication online is like talking to an accountant. Because of the problems with reading stories online, most campus online publications serve as complements to the print version, rather than stand-alone entities.
Now here’s my question: Given the fact that online newspapers are supposed to attract huge numbers of readers and ad consumers, why is it that almost all of them are examples of the worst the web has to offer in the way of readability, design, layout, usability and information architecture?
"Almost all of them are examples of the worst the web has to offer in the way of readability, design, layout, usability and information architecture" because almost all of them either aren't taking the web seriously or aren't employing the people who can really make it sing.
As someone who works in the online section of a paper, the argument against radical change is its ability to make money. The tried and tested method of print advertising dollars is comfortable and safe for newspapers. Taking risks with imaginative and brilliant online content is neither comfortable nor safe for the old guard.
And rightly so, online advertising is the only thing that's going to pay, just as print advertising is the only thing that pays, and at the moment there's not enough dollars in online advertising for the number counters to consider it a 'safe bet'. I don't like it, but I think that's the answer to your question, for now.