Results matching “stakes in blog publish”

To mark the relaunch of the Editors Weblog, the World Editors Forum is running a special series entitled "Doing More with Less." The series highlights major trends that editors-in-chief are using to steer their newsrooms through the difficult economic climate. The sixth in the series takes a look at outsourcing editorial work to India.

Editorial outsourcing has frequently been presented throughout the Western world in a very negative light. The idea of trained American or European journalists and copy editors losing their jobs to workers across the world in India or Australia who will work for far less has appalled many, and others worry about a drop in quality. But is it really as bad as it sounds, or are people rejecting a good business model in favour of a misplaced emotional attachment to traditional values and a fear of change?

The Editors Weblog spoke to Tony Joseph, CEO and co-founder of Mindworks Global Media, which takes on copy editing, layout, and website optimization for clients around the world, and James MacPherson, Editor of Pasadena.now, who has taken the controversial step of hiring a staff of writers in India for his site which reports on local events in Pasadena, California.    

Mindworks: an extension of client's newsdesk

Tony Joseph explained that what his teams essentially do is become an extension of the client's news desk. Each member of staff only works for one publication as part of a dedicated team, and the team keeps the same hours as the newsroom with which they are working so that they can stay in constant communication via instant messaging, phone and email.  He stressed that his editors only come in after the content has been generated, and after a senior editor has decided where the article will go.

Each member of staff works as one only one publication and stays in constant communication with the client's newsdesk via instant messaging

One of the fears of editors when contemplating outsourcing is that workers will be out of their sight and hence out of their control, and mistakes will be made.  Joseph explained the steps that Mindworks takes to reduce this. Two crucial principles which he described as "absolutely essential" are "zero loss of visibility and zero loss of control". The work of Mindworks' staff is visible to everyone in the newsroom chain, as they access the client's content management system, and Joseph insists that his editors work within the client's existing hierarchies. A six to eight week alignment and training period is used to ensure that the work of the Mindworks team is fully integrated into that of the client. Various indicators are used to track the alignment process, such as headline editing; Joseph explained that in the first week of alignment 25-30% of headlines written by his staff are changed at the client's end, so they analyse and assess why these are being changed and make it part of the training.

Pasadena: doing away with reporters

MacPherson has adopted an unusual strategy for news reporting, one which he compares to the work of an intelligence agency, or newspapers in the 1920s.  He has entirely separated the process of content gathering and writing. In fact, none of the people he employs could be described as 'reporters' in the traditional sense, rather he has 'observers,' who are "boots on the ground" in Pasadena, and 'writers' in India.  The observers attend events and gather data, generally in the form of audio and video clips. Macpherson or his wife then put together an assignment package, containing interview transcripts, video clips, links to web resources or anything else relevant and this is then sent to the writers in India.  The writers save their articles within the site's CMS, where it is checked by management before it is published.  "It would be absurd," commented MacPherson, "to put anything out to the public that had not been proofread here in Pasadena."

Observers are "minimum wage workers," MacPherson explained, and the India-based writers are paid between $7.50 and $10 for each article, which usually takes them under an hour to produce. So compared to paying American journalists, this is undoubtedly a cheaper option.  MacPherson was vehement that he had not hired Indian writers to replace Americans; rather he hired the Indians first, then hired five additional Americans in response to intense criticism, and was forced to let the Americans go when advertising revenue was showing no increases.  Outsourcing writing "has saved our publication," he emphasised, "we wouldn't be a viable business without it."

"It would be absurd to put anything out to the public that had not been proofread here in Pasadena."

Trained journalists

Both Joseph and MacPherson only employ trained journalists for their outsourcing.  Joseph clarified that his recruits are either from India's top journalism schools, or have ample experience in the field: an average of five years amongst junior staff. Many of his staff have worked in the US. MacPherson explained that he found high quality writers via Craigslist and other websites and he has six people employed on a part time freelance basis. One of his Dehli-based workers is actually originally from Orange County, California, not far from Pasadena itself.

Is outsourcing the future?

Tony Joseph is confident that his company will continue to grow: "our engagements are increasing rapidly both in terms of number and size of operations." Currently, Mindworks handles 13 or 14 titles. He believes that the outsourcing concept is "gaining momentum" as newspapers look to make cost-cuts and increase efficiency in this time of crisis.  

MacPherson is considering hiring more writers in response to a "huge influx of advertising," as a result, he believes, of the fact that "small community websites are beginning to supplant print newspapers." He explained that he is developing "a proof of concept website that the industry can look to," and expressed his hope that the methods he develops can be used by small and medium size community newspapers and websites to keep "doing what they are doing and survive." As a general business model, he proposed the idea of having a few veteran journalists and editors, the kind of people who are "the heart and soul of the local newspaper," supported by 'observers' on the ground and writers, researchers and designers in India.  

The Telegraph Media Group was recently the latest major news organisation to announce that it was outsourcing sub editing of some of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph weekend supplements. It is using Pagemasters, an Australian company owned by the Australian Associated Press, which counts Fairfax media among its clients. Telegraph digital editor Edward Roussel explained that his belief that "Newspaper-web companies should focus internal resources on what they do best: creating premium editorial content." Another option is to adopt a form of in-house outsourcing, such as that which Reuters has been operating for several years.  It employs a team of about 100 financial journalists in Bangalore who cover Wall Street news.  Editor in chief David Schlesinger justified the move by explaining that the New York journalists could now be sent out and about to cover more interesting stories. A crucial difference is that these journalists are Reuters staff and their office is a Reuters bureau, but the fact remains that they are reporting on things happening on the other side of the world, and doing so successfully.

If newspaper revenue continues to fall, people will have to look for more ways to cut costs and editorial outsourcing may well become more and more appealing, even if there is initial reluctance at the staff cuts and modified work practices that have to be imposed. From a business standpoint, it makes sense to get the work done wherever it can be done cheapest, as long as the quality is maintained, and doing things as cheaply as possible is increasingly becoming a must. As MacPherson put it, "people keep saying they don't like what I'm proposing, but what's the alternative?"  

Sub-editors may be vanishing but Guardian writer Peter Wilby believes they are essential in the upkeep of newspapers, even though their roles probably will change and diminish.

Many newspapers do not see a need for sub-editors, for example, Archant Suffolk announced last week that they plan on getting advertising designers to lay out pages and reporters to sub each other's copy in place of 20 sub-editor positions. Other papers have centralized subbing into categories that serve several titles, while others have outsourced subbing. Times writers maximize search results with key words instead of a traditional introduction.

The argument for phasing out sub-editors is that if an article's gist is clear, then there is no need for perfect grammar. If an article has factual errors and spelling mistakes, then those reporters should be fired and replaced with those who write with higher standards.

Wilby argues that a brilliant reporter does not equate to a brilliant sub-editor since those two jobs require different skills. "There is something odd about the perpetual demand for multi-skilling in newspapers and other industries," Wilby writes. "The division of labour was once seen as the chief dynamic of economic progress, allowing each of us to perfect a particular set of talents and skills."

But, the primary question is whether or not readers will pay for an unpolished finished product. The popularity of blogs indicate that people read articles that do not go through a sub-editor, but if newspapers want to survive, Wilby states that they must "persuade
people they are premium, high quality products" by maintaining and further yet, improving "their reputations for reliability, clarity, consistency and coherence."

In the future, however, Wilby believes technology will probably perform the more routine subbing functions.

Source: The Guardian

The Editors Weblog obtained an exclusive interview with Philippe Karsenty, who is currently appealing a 2006 verdict that found him guilty of libel, in a trial opposing him to French public broadcaster France 2 and journalist protégé Charles Enderlin. The hearing on Wednesday Feb. 27 lasted over six hours, but the court adjourned its decision to May 21.

According to Karsenty, France 2's Al Dura "coverage is the media's biggest masquerade to have had such impact." But he doesn't believe that the allegedly fraudulent report is representative of more widespread manipulations in media coverage.

Quick recap of the story: in 2000, France 2 diffused coverage obtained from a local camera man, and voiced over by Enderlin, of the death of a Palestinian boy, allegedly killed by Israeli fire, an iconic image which was widely reproduced thereafter and used as a symbol by pro-Palestinian propaganda.

In 2004, Karsenty's Media-ratings company accused France 2's coverage of being a hoax - for a plethora of reasons. Karsenty was subsequently taken to court and found guilty in October 2006 of defaming journalist Enderlin and his outlet, public broadcaster France 2. He appealed the decision and during the new hearings on Feb. 27, a lot of time was spent reviewing and discussing the video footage and images. And as a Weblog exclusive, you can read the ballistic report, which was commissioned by Karsenty.

Without going too deep into the details about the new trial, Karsenty argues that a lot of coverage produced at the time was staged with the help of the local population, and this seems to be confirmed by footage viewable on Honest Reporting, as well as footage shown in court. "On that day in Gaza, it was a film set," he says. Other major news organizations, including Reuters and the Associated Press, were present.



Are these kinds of manipulative or staged media practices widespread?

"I'm not generalizing," says Karsenty, who insists his only claims are about this specific report in those circumstances. But this event should bring attention to international news organizations' use of local correspondents and camera staffers, whose content the outlets must often trust at face-value, he said.

In fact, the France 2 camera man's footage was offered to CNN, which refused to initially air the report because it didn't obtain the guarantees of authenticity it was asking for.

Whether these media practices are widespread internationally Karsenty didn't say, but he argues they correspond to the media's situation in Palestine, "a situation where the media bends over to the rules of Palestinian authorities," he says (see here about the monitoring of coverage of the Oct. 12, 2000 lynch).

There is another intriguing issue in this affair: in the years since this controversy has started, few French traditional media have openly taken Karsenty's defense or been willing to place it high in the news agenda.

Blogs and independent media have increasingly covered the story, many of them outside of France though. According to Karsenty, a similar affair would have never dragged on as long in the US, because bloggers and truly independent media would have long dug out the truth (evoking Dan Rather and the Killian documents controversy).

What the Al Dura affair also shows is that France is (still) a "system with dominating media that don't recognize their mistakes," says Karsenty. He points out that of the few established blogs and 'independent' news outlets in France, those that are considered legitimate by traditional media, all are held by professional journalists and former journalists who have worked within traditional media.

But Karsenty refuses to see the Al Dura affair as the symbol of commonplace manipulative practices in the media. Nor was France 2's report symptomatic of showbiz-news and news agendas increasingly led by eyeballs and sensationalism. For him, this is simply the story of a local camera man who submitted a faulty report, which was picked up by a mainstream media organization and its well-respected journalist, both of whom didn't recognize their mistake.

According to Karsenty, a US website will shortly be publishing the 18 minutes of raw footage that France 2 showed in court (out of 27 minutes filmed by the camera man).

Karsenty says he is confident about the outcome of the appeal. The court will make its decision public on May 21.

Source: Philippe Karsenty - Metro - Le Monde - Tribune de Genève - Honest Reporting

Many have picked up on the fact that The New York Times Co. was among the financers of Automattic, the commercial arm of the Wordpress blog platform. In fact though, NYT Co. only contributed a small share of the $29.5 million in financing.

As more and more journalists turn to blogs, whether for fun or for work, here are ten lessons offered by Blogging Tips Guidance to ensure your blog’s success and readers’ loyalty.

In an excellent article, Editor & Publisher’s (E&P) Joe Strupp gathers 12 important lessons learned from online flops and failures, such as… 

Paul Moreira is an investigative reporter who has worked extensively in the print press and was one of the founders of the defunct French, investigative, television show “90 minutes.” In his latest book, Les nouvelles censures, Moreira describes the widespread practices of overt and covert manipulations of the news media. “One of this era’s most powerful myths is that we live in the information age. In fact, we live in a media age, in which information is repetitive, “safe” and limited by invisible borders,” writes John Pilger, Hidden Agendas. Are these theories ‘Big Brother’ paranoia, or are information flows much more controlled than the public would like to think? Is this only the case for television’s spectacular requirements, or also for trusted newspapers? Moreira investigates, and answers.

The International Center for Media and the Public Agenda (ICMPA) recently published a study called “Openness & Accountability: A Study of Transparency in Global Media Outlets.” The results of the study indicate that The Guardian and the New York Times are the most transparent and accountable while Sky News and Time are the worst. 

As Google encounters increasing resistance from traditional media, it is starting to look for new approaches to deal with them. Traditional media seek to partner Google, but tread cautiously.

The much-publicized story of Harvard sophomore and supposed novelist phenom Kaavya Viswanathan has turned towards the news. Several scandals over the past few years have broken the public's confidence in large news organizations to supply it with trustworthy hard facts and analysis. One journalist for New York Magazine takes his readers to an extreme to find out how can one really be sure what they're reading is unique.

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. 

If you have only one article to read on this blog today, read this one written by Arthur Sulzberger Jr, chairman and publisher, and Russell T. Lewis, chief executive, The New York Times. Here is the beginning of their article: "Last Thursday, a federal district judge ordered a New York Times reporter, Judy Miller, sent to prison (see former posting). Her crime was doing her job as the founders of this nation intended. Here's what happened and why it should concern you." But in my opinion, this affair could be seen as a real gift to The New York Times: a few weeks ago Judith Miller was in a very uncomfortable situation - it's an understatement - after her "revelations" about suspected weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... and now she becomes a hero defending press freedom! Well done! (Nevertheless, I have always considered the First Amendment as a fantastic tool to protect journalists and I agree with some of the article's statements).

If you have only one article to read on this blog today, read this one written by Arthur Sulzberger Jr, chairman and publisher, and Russell T. Lewis, chief executive, The New York Times. Here is the beginning of their article: "Last Thursday, a federal district judge ordered a New York Times reporter, Judy Miller, sent to prison (see former posting). Her crime was doing her job as the founders of this nation intended. Here's what happened and why it should concern you." But in my opinion, this affair could be seen as a real gift to The New York Times: a few weeks ago Judith Miller was in a very uncomfortable situation - it's an understatement - after her "revelations" about suspected weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... and now she becomes a hero defending press freedom! Well done! (Nevertheless, I have always considered the First Amendment as a fantastic tool to protect journalists and I agree with some of the article's statements).