Results matching “newspaper lost its newsro”

We live in a world, not a village

The directors of international journalism courses talked about the importance of internationalisation and giving students a chance to interact with other students from around the world in a bid to understand the effects of global media in a local context.

According to Eric Scherer at AFP, the future of journalism will lie in enterprising journalists and their efforts to come up with journalistic solutions that will facilitate the communication process and continuously revise the business models in place. He also believes that a new mindset will eventually need to replace the typical journalist's attitude of today, as well as in the value of a broad general knowledge base - something that internationalisation makes possible.

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger and Labour MP Tom Watson go head-to-head on Twitter, as Watson and the Daily Mail accuse the centre-left paper of going too far. Last week, the newspaper went ahead with a front-page editorial urging the British PM Gordon Brown to resign.

Daily Mail obsessed with idea of Guardian 'putsch' (in collusion with BBC?). A question of media ethics, apparently. http://tiny.cc/7Wp3M"

And so went the tweet that started it all, with Rusbridger linking to the Daily Mail article, in which Stephen Glover asks "Was it [the Guardian] trying to orchestrate events so as to secure the resignation which it had called for in its editorial?"

Poynter Media Business Analyst Rick Edmonds questions the growing movement of print papers to online-only, saying that moving readers to a publication's online version may not work while papers close or stop printing on some days of the week. He suggests that the daily print edition actually promotes the online edition and vice versa. "Maybe that better pumps up Web traffic than trying to force-feed the print audience an online substitute," he wrote.

To say the least, 2008 proved a difficult year for newspapers in many nations. Rising printing and distribution costs, waning circulations and fragmented audiences continued to challenge a business model that seems increasingly outdated. And despite many promising advancements made by newspaper companies in Internet and mobile, revenues remain far behind those of print.

But the news is far from all negative. Below is some food for thought for newsroom executives everywhere, ways in which newspapers began adapting to the modern media landscape in 2008 that will continue through 2009.

INTERNET TRENDS BECOMING NEW TOOLS FOR JOURNALISM
2008 saw the continued proliferation of social and professional networking sites Facebook and LinkedIn, with newspapers and journalists, with newspapers and journalists, such as the New York Times well-known columnist Nicholas Kristof, creating their own profiles, applications and connecting with new audiences. User-Generated Content (UGC) continued to gather speed as well, with CNN's iReport in the US and LePost in France among many others around the world. A December report by the Bivings Group also noted that 58% of US newspapers now use some form of UGC.

But the biggest social media revelation to journalists came in the form of 140 characters. The social site, Twitter, which allows users to post short messages for all to see, officially became a widespread tool for journalists in 2008. For example, journalists covering the US Presidential Elections took live notes from conventions and rallies that readers could follow and that also helped to shape those journalists' main story. During the Mumbai terrorist attacks, "tweets", or Twitter messages, appeared as the first news of the attacks. Twitter feeds can also be aggregated, bringing all angles of those covering a certain event into one, comprehensible, instantly-updated record.

Another Internet trend is the "Personalized Web", evoked by newspaper experiments such as MyTimes and start-ups such as Netvibes that provide customizable pages based on RSS feeds and widgets. Arguably the boldest example of personalized news is the BBC's revamped homepage, released in March 2008, which allows users to create their own page based on the BBC information they use most. But personalized news seems to be picking up more slowly than social media. For one thing, Internet users are used to getting the information they seek from many Web pages and may not yet be ready to create their own pages. Secondly, search engines still rule, meaning that traffic to most news sites continues to come through Google, its competitors and their various news and alerts functions. So a customizable homepage like the BBC created, which could ultimately prove a competitor to search engines, remains to become a habit of the general Internet public.  

Personalized news and social media are just two examples of all of the innovation that is occurring in digital media. As technologies continue to rapidly develop, how are journalists and publishers going to keep up? Is it worth learning to use all of these tools if six months down the line they prove to be a fad? Are these technologies hurting or helping newsrooms gather and report news?

Chances are, in 2009 journalists everywhere will continue to experiment with the latest digital fads, and smart newsrooms will set aside R&D funds to play around with new ideas. Who knows? Despite predictions that 2009 will be a difficult year for newspapers, with a lot of hard work, calculated risk and a bit of luck, the industry could find the online golden egg that it has been seeking.

PROLIFERATION OF ONLINE-ONLY NEWS SITES
Perhaps filling in for the difficulties of the print product, more high-profile Internet-based sites began popping up in 2008. Perhaps most notably, The Huffington Post, launched in the summer of 2005, has already jumped to one of the US' top-30 news sites, bolstered by the US Presidential Elections, according to Nielsen Online. Media pundit, entrepreneur and Rupert Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff trumpeted the late-'07 launch of his news aggregator Newser as a "revolution in how people get their news." One year after Wolff's launch, he gained a competitor in Tina Brown, a former Vanity Fair and New Yorker editor, who launched her own, rapidly growing online-only site, The Daily Beast, a mixture of aggregated and original articles. And these are only the high-profile, American examples. The relatively low overhead costs of launching an online-based site combined with the ease of aggregating content and news commentary means that this trend will surely continue in 2009. But there is one problem with the sites mentioned above. Aggregation and commentary can only go so far: in an online environment, what happens to the investigative journalism that newspapers have provided for the past two centuries?

NOT-FOR-PROFIT JOURNALISM
Investigative journalism is expensive to produce. Money-wise, it has always been a loss-leader for newspapers. But with modern-day information ubiquity, investigative journalism is just a loss. Whereas once newspapers could claim ownership of a groundbreaking piece and sell papers and advertising around it, now readers are often unaware of the original source of the story they are reading on the Web. So what is going to happen to the type of watchdogging we need for democracy?

Several non-profit start-ups have begun to answer that question. In late 2007, former newspaper editor, Joel Kramer, took his print expertise and moved it online with the launch of the non-profit Minnpost.com. Former WSJ editor Paul Steiger did something similar with ProPublica. The Voice of San Diego, and other similar sites around the US, are making a name for themselves as "serious, original reporting by professional journalists," with the New York Times declaring the sites "stand out" amongst Internet news sites. Crowdsourcing site OfftheBus, a partnership between the Huffington Post and the non-profit NewAssignment.net, helped capture the 2008 Elections and the Knight News Challenge winner Spot.Us is collecting donations from the public to fund investigative stories. Even former Merrill Lynch newspaper analyst Lauren Rich Fine backed the non-profit model in 2008.

With this in mind, are the days of major metropolitan and national newspapers digging up the dirt on businessmen and politicians over? For the time being, no. But newsrooms everywhere are under extreme economic pressures and have been cutting core staff, making it even more difficult for newspapers to conduct the type of investigative journalism their communities need. Don't be surprised if more non-profit (no dividends to shareholders), Internet based (low operating costs) ventures spring up to fill the gaps.

COMPETING NEWSPAPERS PARTNERING UP
As many newspaper newsrooms are cutting staff, wire services should be in greater demand than ever. But 2008 saw a backlash against the world's biggest news agency, the Associated Press, by its members. Several publishers handed in their notice to the non-profit agency partially in response to price hikes and complaining of low value for their money.

In response to the AP mini-exodus, some papers, even those in competition with one another, began joining forces. Papers in Ohio and Florida whose geographical coverage overlaps are swapping stories and even combining bureaux. Not only will this help the papers save money, but it frees up time for reporters to cover issues not being covered elsewhere. In the current economic climate, this trend will continue, but not without its effects on the industry.

Some traditional news hounds would argue that two papers covering similar stories in a certain region add depth and uncover more facts that may otherwise be lost to readers. This may be true. But is it really worth having two reporters on the scene to gather one or two more different pieces of information when there may be other stories elsewhere? And what about the multitude of photojournalists that different organizations send to press conferences and like events where the story subjects don't move much? Is it really worth sending all of those photogs? Couldn't photos just be shared? Without a doubt, these are questions that cash-strapped publishers and editors are asking themselves right now. Expect to see more cross-corporation cooperation in 2009.

IS PRINT REALLY THREATENED?
We've said it before and we'll say it again: print is not going to die. But, considering the trend of the past year, print's reach will be considerably reduced, at least in Western nations.

During the last few months of 2008, publishers' struggle to maintain the high costs of printing and distribution has become apparent. In October, The Christian Science Monitor, a beacon of quality American journalism, announced that it would stop printing its daily edition. In mid-December, the Detroit Free Press, which recently won a broadcast award, decided to limit home delivery to Friday's and weekends while trimming the daily single-copy sale paper to one section. Most recently, the American Society of Newspaper Editors is considering dropping "paper" from its name.

What do these cuts mean for the news"paper" industry? As circulations drop across the Western world, it could mean substantial savings. Weekday papers often make a loss to begin with, so cutting the costs of printing those papers should cover any lost advertising revenue in those same papers.

Perhaps the question publishers should be asking themselves is "Do cutbacks on the paper product matter to readers"? Well, cutbacks will certainly change the face of the newspaper industry. But in the end, media houses are in the news "distribution" business, not the news"paper" business. As long as their news is published, media houses will have completed their service to the public.

The media stands accused of failing to foresee the global financial crisis, of a lack of understanding of the issues, and even of having a hand in the problems we now face. The Editors Weblog has been following the debate, beginning with an interview with the Managing Editor of the Financial Times, Daniel Bogler, who highlighted the problem of the media "fanning the flames" of the crisis. Is the media responsible, or are these accusations merely a knee-jerk reaction?

Danny Schechter is a respected investigative journalist and the author of Plunder, a searing indictment of the modern banking system, the role of government in finance, and the greed-is-good mentality. Schechter's book was published one week before the collapse of Lehman Brothers on the 1st of September, and it examines the very problems that were about to unfold. The Editors Weblog spoke to Schechter about the media's failure, the ethics of advertising, responsible journalism, and the cult of the CEO.

Two key failures

Schechter believes that there were two key areas where the media failed. He says that there was little or no examination into the new breed of exotic financial products that caused many of the problems, such as CDO's, and that the media ignored the warnings from community housing organisations of the predatory lending practises in some of America's poorest communities. "This was a big media failure, we were not warned about it" says Schechter. If Schechter's assertion is correct, why did the media fail to fulfil its role? Newspapers, and the media in general, are supposed to be the fourth estate, a watchdog for citizens. Is it a lack of knowledge on the workings of high finance or has the media lost its way and become part of the problem?

Why did the media fail in its early warning role?

Schechter believes that the media failed in its role because of vested interests. He points out that one of the key sources of revenue for newspapers is real estate advertising in weekend supplements and classifieds, as well as advertisements for credit card and refinancing companies. As a result, he argues there is a connection between the real estate and newspaper industry, their future and success are intertwined. Schechter says, "The newspaper industry is the marketing arm of the real estate industry. In some cities you actually had newspapers getting a piece of the action of sales through the ads that they generated. So they were actually part of the corruption of this whole relationship. So of course there was little real scrutiny about what was actually happening in the neighbourhoods where houses were flipping, where people who couldn't afford to buy houses were buying them with bogus mortgages. Newspapers were making money on the sales of these homes."

Schechter argues that after the dot.com bubble burst back in 2000, all the advertisements from these new emerging businesses stopped, so the $3 billion in lost advertising revenue for the media industry had to be found somewhere. Schechter puts forth that credit card companies and refinancing firms stepped into the gap. He points out that the majority of people do not automatically spend money that they don't have, but it was marketed to them through the media in advertising and life-style supplements. Most of the money that the media makes in advertising is in the last quarter in the run up to Christmas, newspapers run articles on the best presents to buy, and so forth, all of it driving a concept of "buy and shop" which "stimulates consumption." Schechter says, "for me, on the consumer front newspaper's are a marketing instrument and on the investment front it's a confidence building instrument. The media was part of this whole sales machine, and it happened at the same time that newspapers were cutting back on investigative reporting, and ironically expanding business news targeted at the business world; not at the general public, not on the economy and how it affects you and me."

Has financial journalism lost its teeth?

Another criticism levelled at business reporters is that they are too close to Wall Street and the City, and have too much respect for the institutions they are supposed to be examining. John Friedman of MarketWatch was at the press conference announcing the Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch and wrote, "the media were so polite and deferential to the two CEOs; they behaved as if the press conference were a victory lap for the financial services industry." Schechter believes that "business men are seen as heroes" and it's all part of the "cult of masters of the universe"; he cites the endless sycophantic articles about Bill Gates of MicroSoft and Richard Branson of Virgin. He argues that there is a kind of "cultural embedding, as financial journalists cover business, they become part of the scene, they identify with the players, go to the parties, they are increasingly in a world of fewer and fewer people that is cut off from the mainstream of American life." He believes that many financial journalists want to be like these Masters of the Universe that they write about every day.

Schechter also says that there is no real pressure at the top of media organisations to thoroughly investigate these companies. Thee reason being that they would be investigating their advertisers. As a result, there is no impetus behind financial reporting, no push for the truth and the heart of the story, not enough cynicism.

Furthermore, with the advent of multi-platform publishing and shrinking newsrooms, journalists are frequently, "fireman, going from one fire to the next. When you are doing that, there is very little time for reflective analytical reporting."

Where is the counter-narrative?

During an interview recently on the Editors Weblog, the FT's Managing Editor Daniel Bogler said, "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." Schechter agrees with Bogler's point saying, "You have people who are not really very well educated covering these issues. Hence they go to a briefing and a company gives them a story, and they don't really have a counter-narrative."

Reviewing his argument, Schechter's assessment of the media is damning indeed; but it is not unilateral. Schechter points out that many newspapers and bloggers are asking the right questions and searching for the truth in this financial crisis. He cites the UK's Telegraph and Guardian newspapers, saying they "have been way ahead. I find the coverage of the British media better, and increasingly much more critical of what is happening."
 
Omission and Commission

Looking back over the rapid collapse of the world's financial markets, and the uncertainty ahead, Schechter says it is, "a financial system failure, a regulatory failure and a media failure. Everyone is willing to talk about the first two, but they are not willing to discuss the last one. We are all in this. It's a media failure of omission and commission."
 

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

Last week, the Financial Times, which was named Newspaper of the Year at the British Press Awards, has a month on month and year on year increase in sales in spite of the financial woes in the newspaper industry, becoming somewhat of an "anomaly," says Businessweek's Jon Fine.

It lost over $60 million in 2003 and more than $17 million in 2004, but its circulation is up 1.47% to 454,937 and its six-month average is up 1.12% year on year to 448,540 copies.

With a total newsroom staff of around 500, the Financial Times may attribute its success to its targeted business model, according to Fine. Unlike the Wall Street Journal which is becoming more generalized, the Financial Times is a niche paper.

But will the Financial Times continue to see success even with the U.S. edition of the Wall Street Journal being printed in London?

"We are not going to be mesmerized by The Wall Street Journal," says Times' editor Lionel Barber. "I am not sure it's a huge advantage right now, in various parts of the world, to be an American newspaper."

Source: Brand Republic, BusinessWeek

Representatives of Europe’s top business papers gathered on April 16 and 17 in Paris for one of their tri-annual meetings at which they discuss the latest innovations and the future of their industry. It has been about a year now, commented one editor, that the presentations at the seminar have focused on nothing but digital concerns. The Paris meeting was no different.

Significantly smaller than its immediate rival and operating in a market that has been on a downturn for 20 years, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's plight is well known in the American newspaper industry. Some even predict that the daily will eventually die. But several reforms the paper is undergoing could prove these pessimists wrong.

One of the biggest and most influential Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda (The Prof-Media Holding) has lost its building in the Pravda street, 24 in Moscow. It was totally destroyed yesterday during a big fire. All the staff members were rescued except a waitress form the local restaurant who died.

Although the New York Times was virtually the only major American paper to post circulation gains, however modest, in the latest ABC figures, the New York Post reports that the Gray Lady lost nearly 20% of its New York City subscribers between 2001 and 2004. This news accompanies worries about NYT Co.'s sliding stock price and uneasiness in its newsrooms.

The Washington Post's newly appointed ombudsman, Deborah Howell, tipped off a serious debate about the differences in journalistic styles between the paper's print and online newsrooms. The spat illustrates that several predictions by media pundits about the future of the newspapers are being realized.

Last month in Moscow, the Russian Guild of Press Publishers held the First Russian Publishers Conference.  During the Press Freedom Seminar, President of the World Editors Forum and Saturday Editor of The Times (London), George Brock, gave a talk discussing the freedom of the press in Russia, whose text is posted below.