Results matching “times co go private”

The Washington Post has decided to cancel its plans to host private, off-the-record dinner parties for political lobbyists at the home of its publisher after criticism from the newsroom at the suggestion that their services were effectively been sold. Publisher Katharine Weymouth was to host dinners that would give paying lobbyists and business leaders access to officials from the Obama administration and Congress, as well as Post journalists.

Politico first reported the story yesterday after obtaining a flier promoting the events that had been given to a healthcare lobbyist. The flier was entitled "Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate" and advertised events with a maximum of 20 guests to discuss major White House policy initiatives, which participating firms could co-sponsor for $25,000 per event, with up to two sponsors per session. There was also an offer for 11 for the price of 10. The theme of the first July dinner was to be health care reform, and WaPo guaranteed the attendance of Obama administration officials and members of Congress as well as reporters.

The deal was 18 months in the making, but Richard Connor has finally succeeded in buying up the Maine-based properties of the Seattle Times Co. Connor's acquisitions include the dailies the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, the Kennebec Journal and the Morning Sentinel, as well as MaineToday.com, the Coastal Journal and The Maine Switch.

As part of his new role as editor and publisher of the three dailies, Connor will write a weekly column, although he said he's not going to "foist" his opinions on the newspapers. Connor aims to make the group profitable by the end of the year - in part by slashing jobs. This week, 31 non-union workers were let go, and up to 100 more could meet the same fate.

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.

Yesterday's meeting between Boston Globe management and the Boston Newspaper Guild continued until past midnight and talks are set to resume this afternoon after the parties failed to come to an agreement. The meeting was purportedly about how to implement the 23% pay cut which was imposed last week following the guild's narrow rejection of a package of concessions which had been proposed by parent company the New York Times, but seems to have turned into a negotiation session.

The Globe reported that president of the Boston Newspaper Guild Daniel Totten and other guild leaders brought an offer of resolution to management, which sparked deep discussions over the mix of wage and benefit cuts needed to save the $10 million that the Times company has demanded. Today also sees the start of a hearing before the National Labor Relations Board after the union filed an unfair labour practice charge against management following the announcement of the 23% cut.

Pess freedom in Italy has come under international scrutiny in recent weeks as a down-grading of the press's freedom status by US non-profit Freedom House has coincided with an increase in prime minister Silvio Berlusconi's aggression towards media outlets which oppose him. Leading left-leaning daily La Repubblica has even attempted to take on the premier directly, publishing a list of questions concerning his relationship with a young girl, to which it believes he owes answers. A Dutch politician has threatened to take action in the European parliament against the Italian leader because of journalistic constraints. Should a newspaper be demanding such information which concerns a politician's private life? Is the press freedom situation as bad as it seems?

The La Repubblica crusade

On May 14 La Repubblica journalist Giuseppe D'Avanzo published ten questions directed at the prime minister concerning his involvement with 18-year-old Noemi Letizia. Berlusconi's relationship with the girl gained mass media attention when, four days after the prime minister dropped in on the girl's 18th birthday party in Naples, his wife issued a press release accusing him of "consorting with minors" and pressing for a divorce. Berlusconi promptly went on a late-night political chat show to defend himself, but the holes in his story which have gradually emerged have attracted even more attention than the original incident. D'Avanzo's questions address these holes and ask the premier to come clean about the nature of his encounters with the girl. Berlusconi has not yet answered the questions and has given no indication that he intends to. The paper has put a timer on its website to indicate the days, hours, minutes and seconds since the questions were issued, and even offers them in English.

Berlusconi himself has tried to present the left-leaning paper's campaign as a left-wing plot to undermine his authority, accusing the paper of lying and adding in an interview on TV-channel Sky that he believes many readers will abandon the paper because of this. His office issued a statement saying referring to the "campaign of denigration" and saying that the paper is driven by "jealousy and hatred."  The prime minister has fought back as the story developed, with his lawyers applying for the seizure of photos taken at his Sardinian villa (where Letizia reportedly attended parties with other young women) before they could be published, and a journalist from Berlusconi's brother's Milan-based daily Il Giornale posing as a member of the foreign press to get an interview with Ms Letizia's former boyfriend in an attempt to discredit him.
 
 
The international reaction 
La Repubblica has defended its actions, with editor Ezio Mauro saying that "There are contradictions here and when the powers that be don't explain something, journalism has a job to do." And foreign journalists seem to agree. The paper also featured an interview with Bill Emmott, former editor of the Economist, who said that "for a newspaper, asking a political leader questions is not only legitimate, but part of its mission to inform the people." According to the International Herald Tribune, "for the first time in recent memory, the Italian press is shining a bright light into the dark recesses of a politician's personal life." The Times wrote that the premier's campaign against La Repubblica "looks ominously like an attempt to cow dissent rather than protect a private reputation" and that "his newspaper critics are performing a public service for a badly governed populace." A Financial Times editorial criticised the way that Berlusconi turned on La Repubblica following the questions, and stressed that part of the "danger of Berlusconi... is that of the media sapping the serious content of politics, and replacing it with entertainment."

Berlusconi has reacted with anger and scepticism to such foreign criticism. He seems to refuse to believe that papers might be acting of their own accord, announcing that "the international press's campaign is being orchestrated by an Italian group" and referring to it as a left-wing "plot." He insists that the foreign press is misrepresenting the Italian situation, and a rift in his relationship with Rupert Murdoch seems to be further deteriorating following the Times' article and others. He has accused the Times of writing critical editorials about him because his government is in dispute with News Corp. Il Giornale, owned by the prime minister's brother Paolo, ran a story discussing the FT editorial entitled "The left has also enlisted the Financial Times."

One of a newspaper's main goals should be to act as a watchdog over the government, but it is unusual for a paper to take on a country's leader so directly, particularly over a matter which is largely private. In the UK, the Daily Telegraph's recent campaign over MPs' expenses was firmly in the public interest, as it dealt with public money being used by members of parliament for personal gain. Berlusconi has been derisive of the media discussing what he says is his private life. Should a paper be putting so much focus on an issue that is arguably unrelated to the prime minister's ability to govern the country? Is this indicative of media trivialisation?

The Times editorial does not see the questions as intrusive, as they relate to Berlusconi's "public roles as politician and media magnate". The Independent's Peter Popham said that the media "cannot be accused of muck-raking on the issue because it was Mr Berlusconi himself who drew attention to the relationship" by attending the 18-year-old's party and not only posing for photographs but publicly giving the girl a 6000euro gold necklace. And the fact that a politician might have lied to the public is probably enough of an incentive to investigate.
 
Press freedom in Italy
 
Italy has a fairly unique media situation, which makes confrontation between a newspaper and the prime minister even more pertinent. The country's press freedom status is clearly in question. A Dutch politician who is leader of the Green Left party in the European Parliament, Judith Sargentini, has said that her party is considering taking legal action against Berlusconi because of the press freedom constraints in his country. Amongst her complaints is the fact that the premier blocks critical questions at press conferences. If a majority of the European Parliament were to agree to the initiation of legal proceedings, then the matter would come before the European Court of Justice.

US-based nonprofit Freedom House recently downgraded Italy's press freedom status from 'free' to 'partly free' for 2008. In conversation with Karin Karlekar, editor of the report, she explained that the main reasons given for this were the unusually high level of media concentration, particularly in broadcasting, threats from organised crime and others, and attacks on journalists, mainly from far right groups. During Berlusconi's former term as prime minister, the country was also given partly free ratings, and Karlekar added that the media concentration was "one of the highest levels anywhere in the world."

Daria Gorodisky, a veteran Corriere della Sera journalist who is also a union representative for the paper, told the Editors Weblog that she believes there is a "truly enormous press freedom problem in Italy" which will be "extremely difficult to resolve." She does not place blame for this directly on the government but on the fact that there are no "pure" newspaper owners, rather, those who publish newspapers also run other businesses and therefore have aims and interests aside from their papers. She also believes that the quality of Italy's journalism schools have deteriorated as more and more have sprung up. She did, however, point out that this is not the first time that Berlusconi has threatened the press.

Internet penetration is low in Italy in comparison to that of its Western European neighbours: about 48%, compared to 72% in the UK or 66% in France, for example. This low figure would suggest that many people are more likely to get their news from television and one or two newspapers, rather than the range of sources that online readers might visit. Despite this, however, Karlekar noted the country's "very vibrant and influential" blogosphere, particularly politically-orientated blogs.

Gorodisky commented that although some journalists were "very worried" by the situation, she did not think that there was enough widespread concern about Italy's press freedom status. Karlekar said that her organisation's report had sparked considerable debate and she had received both praise and hate mail from Italians. Niccolo Ghedini, lawyer to Berlusconi, dismissed the report on a TV show called Anno Zero, saying it was a private organisation and took its information from only two sources, La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera. Karlekar responded that she was "not sure where he got that" and was clear that "the range of sources is large and our authors would never just rely on one or two." She added that it was "interesting that the government felt compelled to respond in some way."
 
Karlekar did say that Berlusconi did not seem to be "exerting the same amount of influence over the broadcast media" as he did during his previous term as prime minister; there seems to be less "overt political manipulation." She was also clear that she did not think that the high media concentration had "stifled" the whole media, and drew attention to the diversity in terms of political opinion in the print sector.

Arguably there are far more important questions that the Italian press could be asking its country's leader, rather than focusing on the somewhat sordid details of his involvement with a teenage girl. But as a vital part of the press's role in a democracy is to play watchdog on the government, the fact that a paper is challenging the prime minister to clear up inconsistencies is something that must be welcomed. And even though the original issue may not be crucial in itself, the other questions it has brought up concerning use of government planes for private use, for example, are very pertinent. Given how much of the media the prime minister does control, and the fact that even the journalists who do not currently work for Berlusconi know that they may well some day, the press freedom situation could undoubtedly be worse than it is, and it is important that journalists keep fighting.

The New Yorker has published a profile of Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who recently made media headlines with his $250 million loan to the New York Times. The article, written by Lawrence Wright, offers insight into Slim's intentions toward the paper, as well as considerable biographical detail.

When asked about why he had invested in the paper, Slim responded that "We think it's the best newspaper... The best brand." He sees a successful online future for the Times, it seems, telling Wright that "we think the paper will disappear, but not the content. The content will be more important." Slim currently only reads the paper when he is in the US. Slim also holds a stake in the Independent, which is in serious financial difficulty. He told commented that his decision to take a £12-14 million stake in the Independent was "a bad one."

The New York Times is taking its use of social networks to whole new levels, and has announced the appointment of a social media editor for the publication. Jennifer Preston will 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."

Apt, then, that the news was revealed via Twitter by deputy managing editor of the NYT, Jonathan Landman - and ironic, therefore, that Preston's Twitter updates on her new account were set to private (although this has now been rectified, and @NYT_JenPreston is now tweeting freely). The NYT has been very much present on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook of late - the memo announcing Preston's appointment puts it in 2nd place on the Twitterholic rankings, although it is currently sitting in 14th.

Last Wednesday, May 6, the US Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing to review the plight of the newspaper industry, to better understand new media and the new model emerging, and to assess the role that government should play in the media as it evolves. The Future of Journalism hearing was presided over by Subcommittee chair Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who called the hearing in response to the threatened closure of his local paper, the Boston Globe, and the troubles facing newspapers across the country as advertising and circulation decline and the Internet replaces traditional media.

In his opening statement, Kerry says the committee has met to discuss not only the jolting condition of the newspaper, but also its implications for the future of journalism and the country. He believes it is important to "preserve the core society function served by independent and diverse media" and questions whether online journalism will "sustain the values of professional journalism the way the newspaper industry has." The committee invited five prominent representatives of various types of media to express their views about the Future of Journalism and offer their solutions.

"Why is the government interested?" asks Kerry. "We do have a responsibility for the licensing of broadcast. We have a responsibility for the regulatory oversight of ownership of cable, satellite, other issues with respect to communications; and needless to say, how the American people get their information--what the structure of ownership is--is of enormous interest to all of us because it is the foundation of our democracy." Is there even any government role at all, he wonders, or is this simply a normal transition in the marketplace?

Considering the nonprofit model

Before it heard from the media representatives, Maryland Senator Ben Cardin spoke to the committee about his Newspaper Revitalization Act, which proposes a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status for newspapers. Cardin stresses that online journalism does not supply the in-depth reporting and investigative journalism provided by traditional newsrooms that are essential to a free and democratic society. His bill would provide an opportunity for local supporters--whether individuals, foundations, or educational institutions--to come together to preserve their community newspaper.

The major criticism of Cardin's bill is that it could threaten a newspaper's freedom of speech: 501(c)(3) status allows editorializing but prohibits a paper from endorsing political candidates. The independence of journalism from government is crucial to its role as watchdog, and it is undesirable for a newspaper to have the government involved in judging its content. However, in their addresses to the Committee, both Steve Coll, former managing editor of the Washington Post, and former newspaperman David Simon, say that while they seriously oppose government interference in newspapers, they are intrigued by the nonprofit model.

Newsrooms provide an important public service, so why shouldn't the government give them the tax exempt benefit of becoming non-profits? After all, the danger of government interference in content could be exaggerated. Any single politician or political party attempting to manipulate a publication would be immediately exposed through other media outlets, and the threat is not much greater than private ownership where powerful investors might maneuver the paper to serve their own interests. Nonetheless, the greatest issue faced by nonprofit newspapers and their investors will be where to draw the line between endorsing and editorializing. If a newspaper's responsibility is to provide the public with unbiased information, then blatant political endorsements seem in violation of that role anyway, but nonprofit status could limit criticism and commentary on politicians and legislation that might reduce the media's role as watchdog.

As Coll and Alberto Ibargüen, President of the Knight Foundation, point out, nonprofit is not a universal remedy nor will it solve newspapers' profit problems. The initiative could be viewed less as a savior of the newspaper entity and more as a bridge to preserve local journalism during a transitional period. Ibarguen says that relieving profit pressures with nonprofit status might help newspapers "extend their useful life until we figure out what's next and what online model can afford professional journalism."

Relaxing antitrust could help publishers charge for online content

The other great appeal for government intervention in newspapers has been the request for changes to media ownership and antitrust policy. Last month the Justice Department rejected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's request to change the boundaries of media antitrust to include all media in a geographic area--including radio, TV, and newspapers--when deciding whether a sale is anticompetitive.

Pelosi's antitrust proposal raised obvious criticism about the independence of newspapers and consolidation of ownership. However, at the Senate hearing, Simon and James Moroney, publisher and CEO of the Dallas Morning News, approached antitrust from a different angle: they urged the Committee to give newspapers an antitrust exemption so that industry leaders could convene to discuss copyrighting from aggregators and charging for content online.

Unable to foresee the digital future, at the advent of the Internet newspaper publishers made the mistake of offering content free online. Now readers are accessing that content for free, not through the publisher's site, but through aggregators like Google News, which also does not pay publishers for content. Marissa Mayer, vice president of Search Products and User Experience at Google Inc., defends Google to the committee, calling it a "conduit" for journalism that provides a free service to online newspapers by driving traffic to their sites.

However, Simon and Moroney argue that aggregators do not provide adequate compensation for the revenue generated from publishers' original content. They contend that as of now, the profits publishers make from online advertising are not enough to sustain the quality journalism newsrooms have been providing. There must be an industry wide initiative to charge for content online, says Simon, as no individual can swim against the tide. According to Moroney, under the current antitrust laws, publishers cannot even begin to have a conversation about possibilities for pricing or charging aggregators.

If the government does relax antitrust to allow for this industry wide "conversation," it could possibly lead to major publications placing a pay wall around content, charging users and aggregators, but does such a pay wall threaten the free market? One of the virtues of the Internet is the accessibility of information, so where do pay walls and content hoarding fit in? A generation of Internet users already views information as a free commodity, and charging online users for content will significantly reduce traffic, which will in turn reduce advertising revenue. Even if industry leaders can convene and discuss, they still might find themselves at a loss for a viable solution.

Experimentation and innovation rather than government intervention

The hearing's last speaker, Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post, opposed antitrust exemptions, paywalls, or really any government intervention. In fact, she countered some speaker's doom and gloom position with the opening statement, "Journalism will not only survive, it will thrive." Her main point is that the industry has changed and moved forward and there is no going back.

Huffington says, "The future is to be found elsewhere: it's a linked economy, it's search engines, it's online advertising, it's citizen journalism, and the foundations supporting investigative journalism. That's where the future is, and if you can't find your way to that, then you just can't find your way."

Ibargüen, Mayer, and Huffington all support embracing new media and encouraging experimentation and business models that promote digital possibilities. For Ibargüen that means providing universal, affordable digital action and adoption in the US and more inclusive public media that reaches every American. Neither he nor Huffington mourn the decline of investigative journalism, and both praise the efforts of nonprofits like ProPublica and the Knight Foundation supported Voices of San Diego for providing quality journalism outside the traditional newsroom.

According to Mayer, "The structure of the web has caused the basic unit--the atom of consumption--to migrate from the newspaper to the individual article," and because of the Web's ability to operate in real time, this allows for "living" instead of "static" stories that are constantly changed and updated like Wikipedia or the New York Times' "Times Topics." These changes to the way information is viewed, insist Mayer and Huffington, mean a different approach to monetization is necessary, which requires innovation and creativity. The solution for newspaper publishers is not to appeal to the government for a handout to preserve the old ways, but to adapt quickly and direct their time and resources into experimenting with the monetization of traffic through advertising.

What will the Senate decide?

Despite Kerry and Cardin's concern for the American newspaper, more than one of the subcommittee's senators held up a Blackberry during the hearing, proving themselves a part of the new digital audience. The general consensus of both the senators and media representatives seemed to be that their priority is not to save newspapers but to promote policies that sustain journalism.

How enlightening were the testimonies of the media representatives? Though certainly thorough in unveiling all the problems facing the media today, they failed to provide the government with a cure-all solution as to how it should proceed.

It seems fairly likely that the Senate could pursue the nonprofit solution as it seems basically harmless and might help some local newspapers stay on their feet at least long enough to find another answer. Relaxing antitrust could prove more risky, giving industry leaders the occasion to consolidate prices and possibly restrict information in a move that could prove more harmful than helpful to their own purpose.

The testimonies may have encouraged the Senate to do nothing at all for the newspaper but instead to accept that the audience and the market is evolving and no legislation can hold it back. If this is the case, then publishers will be faced with only one choice: innovate or fail. Instead of resisting change, they must get a grasp on technology and the new audience, paying attention to the success of others, then find ways to provide creative content and advertising solutions. As a few of the speakers said, this is still a transitional period for old media and new media, and there is still immense possibility for originality and advances. Though certain publications might lament their own fate, it is too early to be mourning the future of journalism.  

New York Times Company chairman Arthur Sulzberger yesterday told shareholders that the group's papers will be "exploring a new online financial strategy" in coming months. He also was clear that there were no plans to take the company private.

"We continue to take a fresh, hard and deep look at various subscription, purchase and micropayment models," he said, according to a text of his prepared remarks seen by Editor & Publisher. "We will have more to say on this subject at a future date." Change does not seem to be coming in a hurry, however. He described how the company has analysed the business models of more than 30 different organisations to find those which are most effective at generating online revenue and concluded that "the advertising model we have used at NYTimes.com has generated more revenue than the vast majority of other organizations, including some that are much larger than our site."

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.

Personalisation is one of the many avenues that the Internet has opened up to readers of news: rather than buying one newspaper with everything in it, people now have the chance to easily choose what sort of news they want to read, and from where. Back in 1995 Nicholas Negroponte, founder of MIT's Media Lab project, coined the term 'Daily Me' to describe a virtual daily newspaper customized for an individual's tastes, and since then many services have been launched to make this concept of personalised news a reality. One such successful company, which offers users the chance to create highly personalised home pages using many different widgets, is Netvibes. Founded in 2005, Netvibes now has 30 staff at its headquarters in Paris, five in San Francisco and a presence in London. The Editors Weblog spoke to CEO Freddy Mini to find out more about how Netvibes' different services work, and how they contribute to a user's personalised experience.

Netvibes operates on the principle that we should be able to feel at home in our online world. When a user creates a Netvibes page, they can change everything: they choose which widgets they want, where they are placed, how big they are, what shape they take, or what colours they use: "widgets must be fluid or liquid enough to participate in a more sophisticated layout," commented Mini. It is also possible to install Netvibes widgets on a computer desktop or on another website. There are plenty of opportunities to personalise within the widgets themselves, such as moving tabs around, or choosing a slideshow view. "There is a lot of intelligence in the product and we built it to make sure that people will try things and the product will react and surprise the user," he remarked. "It's all about making the pages really yours," stressed Mini, "as you can see, there is no prominent Netvibes logo." The interface is available in most European languages and progress is being made to translate it into others.

The platform is very user-friendly (see my 'Easter egg'-themed page, which took a matter of minutes to create), and it is easy for companies or publications to create simple RSS-based widgets, using a Netvibes 'wizard.' About half of the 180,000 widgets on Netvibes are RSS-based, Mini specified, meaning that they are essentially one or more RSS feeds in widget format, but there are many more complex ones involving video feeds or programming: searches for flights or hotels, or the possibility to access email or social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter.  Many different newspapers and news services have created widgets, often showing a list of the most recent stories.

Netvibes for newspapers

Netvibes can also help clients to develop more advanced widgets. With newspaper clients, Netvibes helps the paper to "granulize" the content into a widget and make that widget into a destination in itself, rather than just a way to "fish for an audience and drag the user immediately back to the site." Mini believes that if the widget simply links back to the site in one click, then "it is like an ad and it gives the user a poor return." So Netvibes built widgets have at least one or two clicks within Netvibes before redirecting to the paper's website, on the premise that the user feels at home within their page and will not want to be directed away the instant that they consult the news.

When asked if he has faced opposition from newspaper publishers who believe that services such as Netvibes are reducing their website traffic and advertising revenue, Mini explained that a few years ago this existed, but not any more. "If you are a newspaper you want to be in the widget game," he asserted, "now it's not even a choice: if you're not, another rival paper will be, and you will lose that part of your audience."

As well as their private page, which they can sign into from any computer, Netvibes also offers the chance to create a public page, or a Universe. It is published in real time, and can be seen by anybody who knows the URL  - www.netvibes.com/[username]. Other people cannot alter the page in any way, but can see what another user is reading. Users can search for friends and connect to set up a network within Netvibes; Mini clarified that the site was not built to be a social network, but it has "the basic capabilities" so that if people do not use another service they still have the opportunity to share what they are reading. The public pages are not necessarily just personal, publications such as the Financial Times have created one, which Mini described as a "showcase for their widgets."

Making money without advertising

No money is exchanged when papers place widgets on the Netvibes site in a standard sense. The company makes money in three different ways, notably not through advertising. The first is through promoting widgets by listing them first to make them far easier to find among the more than 180,000 options. The widget owner pays per install, and the widgets are marked as sponsored.

The second is through selling its 'Premium Universe' service, which allows companies to create their own page using Netvibes' software, but with their own branding and own URL. There is a set-up fee, and then a yearly contract to pay. The pages are fully 'personalisable,' unlike the free public pages, which are static, and consumers can create accounts and sign in. Unlike a user's personal page which they build from nothing and add content to, the Premium Universe pages come fully loaded with widgets, and they then have the choice to keep what the company is offering them or change it. The 80-90 clients include advertising agency Ogilvy, which created The Daily Influence, and French daily Le Figaro (www.lefigaro.fr/maune). The company can advertise and keeps the revenue generated. In this area, Mini explained, Netvibes is effectively being used as a publishing tool such as Wordpress, as there is the option to add "very sophisticated" notes.  

Installing Netvibes on the servers of others, effectively licensing Netvibes' source codes, is the company's third source income: Netvibes for Enterprise. This gives the client even more power to customise than with the Premium Universe, which is a turn-key solution that Netvibes maintains, and which remains on its server. For this service Netvibes sends the client one of its engineers who will spend five days installing the software and will remain for a further two days to train the relevant IT staff. The licenses are tailor-made depending on what the software is used for.

Each of these revenue streams accounts for about a third of the company's total income, said Mini, with some fluctuations. Amidst tales of financial woe throughout the industry, Netvibes' revenue is actually growing, with first quarter results significantly up compared to last year. "We should continue to thrive," Mini hopes, and confirmed that the company is on track to break even in September. The one way that the financial crisis has had an effect, he explained, is that interested customers are taking far longer to make decisions than usual: "that is the challenge."

Is personalisation the future: do people care?

One of the big questions concerning personalisation is: do people care enough to bother to do it? Netvibes has more than 3.7 million active users according to Mini, so seemingly some people do. Mini emphasised that for him, Netvibes' reason for being is to empower people, to give them the choice to make the pages that they want: he realises it is not something that everybody wants to do, but at least they are being given the chance. He thinks that in terms of news, it is unrealistic to assume that people will want to get all of their news from one source: for example if you follow several different sports based in different countries, why would you read about all of them in one newspaper?

The Netvibes service is fully driven by users: they choose what they want, there is nobody tracking what they read or use to recommend different articles or products which is the basis of some other personalisation offerings, such as the DailyMe. This avoids one of the potential problems connected with personalisation: privacy issues. Registering for Netvibes involves providing minimum personal information. However, it does mean that it is likely to only be used by more proactive, tech-savvy Internet users. There are also limitations to the service, for example, news can only be chosen by source rather than by topic or keyword, meaning that a user will still have to scour the web for information they need.  

From a newspaper owner's point of view, the proliferation of such sites cannot entirely welcome as they give readers the chance to access news without visiting the paper's website, hence generating no income. However, as Mini explained, there is now little point in resisting, and the possibilities provided to publishers, such as Premium Universe, are a valuable opportunity for those newspapers which are eager to embrace personalisation on their own sites, and there is an opportunity there for advertising revenue.

Although the Seattle Post-Intelligencer did not succeed in finding a buyer in this troubled economic climate, there are publications that have succeeded where the P-I failed. It was announced yesterday that private equity firm Platinum has bought the San Diego Union-Tribune for an undisclosed amount. Platinum specialises in buying struggling companies, although the Union-Tribune is its first foray into publishing.

Also in the US, plans to close the Tucson Citizen on Saturday have been delayed, due to ongoing sales negotiations with two interested parties. Similarly to the P-I, the Citizen's owner Gannett imposed a deadline of March 21st for either the sale or closure of the publication. Citizen editor Jennifer Boice said that Gannett president Robert J. Dickey "gave no details concerning potential buyers, what was being negotiated or how soon a decision would come", according to EJC.

Across the Atlantic, Tindle Newspapers Ltd. has bought four free newspapers published in the East Devon area. Tindle has been operating a policy of expansion for some time, having acquired three South Essex weeklies last year and 27 London titles in 2007, reports Hold The Front Page. Former Tindle employee Philip Evans previously owned the publications, and the move will save 20 jobs.

Source: New York Times, European Journalism Centre, Hold The Front Page

The media trend of the moment is undoubtedly Twitter.  Praised for its ability to break news first (the Hudson plane crash for example), and for it's on the ground reporting (take the Gaza conflict), Twitter is increasingly being valued as a genuine news source.  

'The Media Is Dying' Twitter feed started as a small private thread by an anonymous PR employee to keep track of industry news.  But the success of the feed was such that it is now a public feed with an extra seven industry volunteers keeping it up to date.

But what happens when Twitter gets it wrong?  The Media Is Dying reported last Thursday that Fox News would be cancelling 'Red Eye', which is their late night comedy/news slot.  Fox News denied the story, and said that Red Eye is not going anywhere.

Newspaper and television organization the Tribune Company filed for bankruptcy on Monday, with owner Samuel Zell promising there would be "no effect" on employees' payroll and benefits.

The news organization, which publishes The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times, is $13 billion in debt, faced what Zell called the "perfect storm" of a failing economy and advertising market.

Zell announced the decision less than a year after taking control of the organization of 12 newspapers, 23 television stations, a national cable channel and other media holdings.

Rick Edmonds, a media business analyst at the Poynter Institute, said that Zell took on "a huge amount of debt at just the wrong time," and that Tribune's heavy debt burden is "unusual" and not an indication for what's to come for the newspaper industry.

This Sunday, the New York Times magazine ran their first "cover wrap" advertisement, for U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management, which overlays one-third of the front cover and nearly one-half of the back.

"This ad buy illustrates how we continue to work closely with our clients to create unique executions and customized opportunities to meet their business objectives," Denise Warren, senior vice president and chief advertising officer at the New York Times, said in a statement.

The Times has introduced many new ad formats over the last 18 months including section front ads, spadias, and single-sponsored magazines.

If there was ever a time for innovation in newspaper advertising, it's now. Advertising revenue was down 11.8% for NYT in the second quarter of 2008.

Source: Editor & Publisher

When a session of Congress adjourns, so do C-Span broadcasts. C-Span cameras, which deliver live broadcasts of the proceedings of the US Senate and House of Representatives, are controlled by members of Congress, so when "Pelosi just turned out the lights," as John Culberson wrote on Twitter Friday, the cameras went off - but recording didn't stop.

Culberson used his cellphone to record video of discussions that continued after the adjournment, and later posed this video to his Qik site. One 12-minute video Culberson posted has received more than 22,000 views.

The House adjourned Friday for their five-week summer recess, but dozens of  Republicans chose to stay on the House floor to discuss energy legislation. Culberson, a Texas Republican, who reqularly updates both Twitter and Qik, "acted as a citizen journalist covering the proceedings, albeit one with clear partisan intentions," reported The New York Times.

Culberson used his Nokia 95 cellphone to record the discussions - described by another congressman as a "pep rally" - from a hallway (since House rules prohibit private cameras on the House floor).

"Mr. Culberson's online communications showed how new media tools like Twitter can supplement professional reporting," reported NYT. "As the Republicans departed the House chambers, a C-Span host explained the camera restrictions and said, 'We don't have a lot to show you.' So, in the absence of professional video, the cable channel showed one of Mr. Culberson's videos."

Source: The New York Times

The following is a brief narrative of the last World Editors Forum Study Tour in the US. We accompanied 26 newspaper editors through some of the most advanced newsrooms in the area, including Reuters, the Associated Press and The New York Times in New York, The News-Journal in Wilmington, and the Politico and Washington Post Newsweek Interactive in Washington D.C. (not all are depicted).

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.

It seems the only way to make captions appear is by clicking on the pictures - and pausing the slideshow. Captions are included below too:

- After having visited Reuters, AP deputy managing editor Tom Kent and others gave us the tour of the Associated Press' new integrated newsroom...
- ...which spans over plus 100,000 square feet on an open-floor plan.
- The main feature of the new design was spatial flexibility...
- ...and, at times, the newsroom may resemble a construction site. But, Kent assured, this didn't disturb journalists' work.
- Another feature at AP: editors have two working spaces. They can work outside the closed office, preferably, to be closer to their staffers...
- ...but they can also use their private office if need be.
- The tour ended by AP's video production control rooms.
- At the New York Times...
- ...editors got a glimpse of the brand-new newsroom...
- ...and its modern design and architecture.
- NYT Futurist Michael Rogers treated us to the Times' top-floor research labs...
- ...lined with tech gadgets...
- ...that thrilled the editors.
- On our way to D.C., we stopped by Gannett's innovative News Journal...
- ...where editors greeted us warmly around the central hub...
- ...showed us their video studio...
- ...explained the editing work...
- ...and how the website has set up databases...
- ...and implemented mobile journalism.
- In Washington, we visited the Washington Post's online newsroom.
- Here again, a hub-like centre...
- ...and plenty of video equipment.
- The tour ended with a visit at the recently inaugurated Newseum...
- ...and the editors flew home.

Here's Part 2 of a piece submitted to us by Chris McGillion, former Editorial Page Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. He currently coordinates the journalism program at Charles Sturt University in Australia.

In the following, he outlines five key points presented by some of his journalism students to top execs in the newspaper industry, who it seems would be better off heeding their advice :

Also read Part 1: The value of the journalism graduate.

Last year the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers' Association (Panpa) invited five of my journalism students from Charles Sturt University (CSU) to give a keynote presentation at its annual conference in Melbourne on what their generation wanted from the newspaper of the future.

Newspaper decision-makers have access to the latest statistics and trends in audience research as a matter of course. But they rarely if at all have five representatives of Generation Y - the readership base of the future - holding court without interruption for ninety minutes on what they want in a newspaper and why.

My students made five major points. First, while not discounting a continuing (if diminishing) market for hard-copy newspapers, they argued that the "newspaper' of the future would have to be web-based in order to attract sustained patronage from their generation.

This is consistent with the results of annual surveys of first year communication students at CSU (200 in all of whom almost half are journalism students). These results show an increasing trend toward accessing news online (34.7% did so at least weekly in 2007) and decreasing hardcopy newspaper consumption (down to 41% at least weekly in 2007).

Further evidence of our students' attachment to web-based technology is daily usage of Hotmail accounts (60.7% in 2007), the Google search engine (72.7%), and social networking websites such as MySpace (33.3%).
 
Second, the student presenters argued that future web-based news sites would have to play a "gateway" role rather than the traditional "gatekeeper" role. Put simply, young people these days don't like to be told what news is or what they should consider important: personalised, tailored content will be the hallmark of Generation Y's media consumption.

Another side of this cultural shift is that Generation Y doesn't like to be told what to buy: they will certainly follow trends and adopt brands but both must be - or must appear to be - peer-recommended (and remember we are dealing with people who may have up to 400 "friends" on their social networking websites).

This shift has important implications for advertisers and thus the way media organizations fund their operations.

Third, the most popular news sites will allow for a degree of interactivity. Young people don't only want to know what's happening in the outside world: they also want the outside world to know what they think about what's happening and even, increasingly, to be the ones defining and providing whatever it is that is happening.

Fourth, reputable media organisations remain highly valued. This seems to be a function of information overload and the consequent need to filter what's "out there" together with attitudes ingrained from parents (and reinforced by teachers and public figures) about reliability and quality. 

Fifth, and most important, Generation Y will change the economics of the newspaper industry. In an internet age, young people do not see the need to pay for information.  But nor do they have the same concerns about privacy as their parents and grandparents. Their's, after all, is the "Big Brother' generation whose private lives have become the stuff of public consumption.

The students at Panpa then unveiled their idea for a proto-type web-based "newspaper". It was designed as a gateway to the internet: it allowed readers to pre-sort the news they received, to access email and other social networking sites, and to provide their own "news" stories, comment and photos. It also offered free mobile phones and/or phone accounts in exchange for personal information which the site host then sold on to advertisers.

I had worked closely with the students for three months on this presentation. Sitting in the audience of 300 or so (mostly middle-aged male) editors and publishers, I heard enough grumbling about what the students were saying to fear that the presentation was a PR disaster for the journalism course I run. "Free newspapers and mobile phones!" I heard one editor complain under his breath. "What else do these people want?"

Then, one by one, three international experts on the subject of trends in the newspaper industry - representing IFRA, INMA, and News Digital Media - were invited to respond to the students' presentation. Their message was clear, simple - and reassuring for me at least: in no uncertain terms they each told the audience that they ignored what my students told them to their peril.


Chris McGillion coordinates the journalism program at Charles Sturt University, Australia (cmcgillion@csu.edu.au).

If you would like to contribute your views and insight, please feel free to visit our 'Contact Us' page and send us suggestions for stories or articles.

Stay tuned, as we will shortly be resuming our 'Future of Journalism' series with interviews from editors at The New York Times and the Financial Times.

Through social networks such as Facebook and MySpace, people can keep updated with their friends by posting messages back and forth or by checking status updates. But imagine if the social networking world became 3-D. Based in Menlo Park, California, Vivaty has been creating 3-D virtual chat rooms that people can add to sites where they spend most of their Internet time.

Users will choose pre-existing avatars to represent themselves as they do on services such as Second Life, and navigate through a gothic urban warehouse, seaside villa, or another of the dozen environments. Users will also be able to create their own environment wherever HTML code can be imbedded. Vivaty plans on allowing companies to construct their own virtual rooms with their own décor and messages.

In this virtual space, users may see Facebook photos hanging from walls or a YouTube video playing on a TV. A maximum of 15 users can enter the same room at the same time for "text-based live socializing." This technology does not require downloading any programs.

"We want to take all your content on the Web and move it to a more visually immersive, immediate experience," said Keith McCurdy, Chief Executive at Vivaty and a former Vice President at the big game maker Electronic Arts.

Vivaty has been working on its technology for three years, and this week it will launch a private test period on Facebook.

If this technology is successful, newspapers will also have the opportunity to integrate itself into these 3-D environments, either creating their own spaces or displaying headlines within other environments.

Source: The New York Times

With newspapers facing layoffs and financial woes, many journalists are wondering if the 'Poynter business model' for its paper, the St. Petersburg Times, offers a solution. However, the model is not as easily adaptable to others.

"We're aware of the structure and how it's special," says Neil Brown, Executive Editor of the St. Petersburg Times. He calls the paper "a jewel of American journalism."

In his will, founder Nelson Poynter gave the designated successor of the Times Publishing Company the sole authority to vote on shares and the exclusive power to name his own successor. This person would not receive direct financial benefits but would have complete control over the newspaper, the Poynter Institute (which teaches journalism), and his/her salary. Paul Tash currently holds this position, deciding how much money goes to the Institute and serving as the editor of the Times, chairman and CEO of the Times Publishing Company, and chairman of the board of trustees of the Poynter Institute.

According to Tash, contrary to common perceptions, the company is "private, for-profit." The Poynter Institute owns the shares of the Times Publishing Company, which owns the St. Petersburg Times, Congressional Quarterly, and several smaller publishing ventures. In reality, the Poynter Institute is dependent on the St. Petersburg Times' profits for its own funding. Thus it is still dependent on newspaper market trends, although these are mitigated by the fact that the sole owner can decide on the distribution of the available funds.

So, in order to fund the Institute's programs, the goal is to keep the profit margin of the Times above 10%, which is about half of what most newspaper companies demand. 

Even so, the Times is still facing financial problems. It hasn't met its goal in the past 2 years and has cut about 10% of its newsroom staff in the last year.

So is the Poynter model applicable to other papers?

Large newspapers may have trouble applying the Poynter model, especially if they are under individual or family control. Ownership would have to be willing to give the paper away, relinquishing a significant amount of money and notions of dynastic control. Proposals to transfer ownership to a nonprofit institute would probably meet strong opposition from the bondholders, bankers, and fellow investors.

Family-controlled but publicly traded newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times would find it even more complicated to transfer control to a nonprofit entity than to a private owner.  

Frank Blethen, whose family has controlled The Seattle Times for five generations, calls the Poynter experiement a "pleasant campfire tale." "But the key point why you won't see it again...is that you have to give up most of the value in the organization, and it's very rare for a family to do that," he says. "On a local and regional level, independent newspapers are still a nice business, with eight, ten, twelve percent returns. It's the big public ownership model that's falling apart."

Source: CJR

Tribune Co. Chairman and CEO Sam Zell had stated that newspapers "have a great future" but are in need for rapid change. He is now giving pep talks around the US to encourage Tribune employees to be more creative or risk losing their jobs.

Zell not only wants to cut bureaucracy, but is also attempting to enforce quicker decision-making and more collaboration among newspapers, TV, and the Internet.

Some of his employees are criticizing Zell for swearing in his speeches as well as failing to clarify his goals.

"We see how newsrooms are shrinking," said Julie Cart, 25-year metro reporter at the Los Angeles Times. "Zell makes a lot of noise but he hasn't articulated the new model other than saying we're doing it wrong.''

Zell's defense is that he wants to create a sense of urgency, especially since Tribune's debt increased in December when Zell took the company private.

Source: Bloomberg

News of New York governor Elliot Spitzer being involved with a prostitution ring caused The New York Times website to sustain serious delays on Monday the minute it was posted around 2 pm.

There was a 60% increase in traffic and 20 seconds increase in average load time for two hours. New York Times spokesperson Diane McNulty comments that the only other times the website has had the same overwhelming activity was on September 11, 2001 and November 12, 2001 when American Airlines Flight 587 crashed.

Roy Peter Clark, Senior Scholar of the Poynter Institute, questions the ethical aspect of the reporting, wondering where "public interest and private morality collide." He has developed a tool dubbed "The Wheel of Ethics" that describes "the most common justifications for certain news judgments in these kinds of cases." Some approaches include:

- "Truth Teller": Believes in providing all potentially relevant information, so collects as much information as possible then tests accuracy and relevance later.
- "Do-Not Disturber": Believes there is no necessary relationship between public behavior and personal choices, so does not publish private information
- "Info Spreader":  Believes that all knowledge is relevant and "when in doubt, publish."

For the entire "Wheel of Ethics", read Clark's article.

Sources: Huffington Post,The New York Observer, Yahoo News through I Want Media

Myanmar Consolidated Media Company, publisher of the weekly business paper Myanmar Times, is to publish a daily newspaper starting in May.

The 20-page newspaper will be printed in Burmese.

From the source article, Democratic Voice of Burma, it’s unclear whether the Myanmar Times will be switching from weekly or if the publisher will start a new daily.

If the daily Myanmar Times obtains government approval, it would be the first private daily to be published in Myanmar since the military government’s takeover in 1962.

But this probably won’t do that much good to the situation of the free press in Myanmar.

“If the regime allows Dunkley to publish a newspaper, it will become a colorful mouthpiece of the junta,” said one editor, as quoted by the Please Help Burma blog. “He is an apologist of the junta, keeping real news of what’s going on in Burma under the carpet.”

Source: Please Help Burma blog - Democratic Voice of Burma through IFRA Executive News Service

Getty Images has agreed to sell itself to private equity firm Hellman & Friedman for $2.4 billion including debt.

The price, $34 a share, represents a 55% premium over Getty’s share price on Jan. 18, before it announced the possible bid.

Getty Images is the world’s largest provider of photographs and images to publications and ad agencies.

Early last year, Getty had acquired its biggest competitor, MediaVast, for $202 million.

The deal is expected to close in the second quarter this year.

Source: Guardian – Bloomberg – NY Times through European Journalism Centre

The New York Times has been under heavy fire from US newspapers, media, journalists and readers, after it published on Thursday Feb. 20. a front page investigative article about senator and Republican candidate John McCain.

The story asserted in its second paragraph that during McCain's first run for the White House eight years ago, top advisers were convinced he was having a romantic relationship with a lobbyist, which could have been detrimental to his campaign. However, in addition to lack of any specific sourcing, the article offered no substantial evidence about the alleged romance - which was subsequently denied by both McCain and the lobbyist.

This wasn't the point of the story though, according to Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, who said the article was the story of a man who rebuilt himself as a fighter against corruption but is still "careless about appearances, careless about his reputation, and that's a pretty important thing to know about somebody who wants to be president of the United States."

But this explanation didn't appease many readers, outraged by the Times' angle on the story - or what they perceived as the angle, namely the claim that McCain had had an affair with a lobbyist.

"I am most disappointed in The New York Times for engaging in this sort of trash-the-candidate journalism," said one commenter to the story. The Times "has sunk below its standards and created a salacious distraction from an otherwise substantive campaign," said another. And so on.

Last Friday, the Times' story had already received over 2,000 comments, many critical of the handling of the article. "But judging by the explosive reaction to the 3,000-word article, most readers saw it as something else altogether. They saw it as a story about illicit sex. And most were furious at The Times," wrote Clark Hoyt, public editor of the Times, in a column on Feb. 24.

Should the Times have run the story? Numerous pieces have already been written, and Al Tompkins from the Poynter Institute did a good compilation of the scope of reactions, which have been varied, and offered his views on how to report the McCain story. Some believe that the Times' story had valid points about McCain that were of public interest, including Jack Shafer for Slate.

However, by choosing to refer to the affair in such a prominent way, and with loose evidence of it, the Times' opted for an angle that overwhelmingly hid the newsworthy components of the story.

"What's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers," commented The New Republic (TNR). Similarly harsh criticism from Hanna Rosin, Slate.

According to TNR, Time magazine editor Rick Stengel told MSNBC that he wouldn't have published the piece as it was.

One of the more balanced analyses of the Times' McCain story came from the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz:

"To be sure, the piece included significant details about whether the Arizona senator had done legislative favors for Iseman's clients."

But "the hardest thing in journalism is to spend months on a story and then admit you haven't got the goods. There is, instead, a tendency to dress the thing up with fine writing and larger themes in an effort to demonstrate that it's not just about sex, when of course that is the only element most readers -- and the rest of the media -- will focus on."

In fact, Hoyt was probably one of the harshest critics of the Times' approach to the McCain story (although this may also be a strategy by the Times to weather through this storm):

"A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide."

That's a politically correct way of saying that the Times published a front page 3000-word piece that was based more on appearances than substance (read Michael Kinsley, Slate). A poor decision coming from the US' paper of record (Miami Herald).

Last Friday, the Times (re)opened the discussion about the McCain story and angle to readers. Read here.

And please send us your views.

Source: New York Times (here and here) - Los Angeles Times - Publishing 2.0 - The New Republic - Slate - Poynter Institute - Washington Post - Miami Herald