my 2 cents

A disaster waiting to happen

Last week I caught the tail-end of a Twitter discussion group -- Journchat#.  It was my first time venturing into an online discussion group on Twitter and, although I found it hard to follow at times, it was interesting and fun.

I got caught up in one thread of the conversation, talking about citizen journalists.  Some participants felt they are playing an important role in the newsgathering process, citing staffing cuts in newsrooms of many traditional media outlets.  Citizen journos, they claim, can help fill that gap.

There is some truth to that proposition, but there is also considerable risk which, frankly, frightens me.

Some of the chatroom participants also expressed concerns about accuracy and context, saying those things are best left to professional journalists to deal with.  Citizen journos can help with the raw reporting, they feel.

But as newsroom staffs are getting smaller, with fewer copy editors available, might accuracy and context get lost in the shuffle?  And throw in the pressure to be first with a story, coupled with the increasing frequency of deadlines as print and broadcast reporters have constant updates to file for online editions, Twitter feeds and the blogs of the media outlets.  It's a recipe for disaster.

Big celebrity news has been broken more frequently by TMZ, which may have started life as citizen journalism but is now very much a real newsroom.  Their track record for accuracy seems to be pretty good.  But they're dealing with celebrity news (and soon, sports news).  It's not news of earth-shaking importance.

What about the more complex and important stories on the global, national and regional fronts -- politics, war and terrorism, natural and man-made disasters, crime, business?  Can we afford to get those stories wrong? 

Mistakes get made, even by the most respected news organizations.  But throw citizen journalists -- untrained "reporters" -- into the mix and it's a disaster waiting to happen. 

Will 2010 be the year we have a major reporting screw-up that jumps from the online stream into the mainstream media, taking on a life of its own?  It could be a simple error, or it could be something more sinister -- intentionally erroneous or distorted reporting slipped into the news stream by someone with a political or financial ax to grind.  Surely, there are many people or organizations who would love to take advantage of any weakness in the social media-to-mainstream media news pipeline.  Since information moves so rapidly now and is so pervasive, the impact could be substantial.

I'm just not a supporter of citizen journalism -- at least, not for important news.  I hope I'm not proven right on this.

photo: Future Perfect Publishing

Good news for journalism

A shield law that protects journalists from being forced to reveal their sources was passed yesterday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a key step toward the bill becoming Federal law.  A report by Broadcasting & Cable said the bill now must go before the full Senate before it gets reconciled with a version passed by the House.

There is still likely to be some discussion on the Senate floor regarding what are called "carveouts" that would exclude from Federal protection information relating to certain types of crimes and issues like national security, bodily harm and sensitive personal and business information.  And there has been -- and will continue to be -- discussion about who is actually a journalist.  Bloggers and freelancers are still in question as to whether they are journalists who merit protection under shield laws.

Once passed, law enforcement will have the burden of showing proof that the source of information gathered by a report falls under the umbrella of national security or the other areas that are specified.  It would then be up to the courts to determine whether or not a reporter must give up names.

There have been, and will continue to be, some abuses of this privilege afforded journalists.  But overall, I feel it is important to maintaining a free and independent media in this country. 

Losing the News

A review of Losing the News, by Alex Jones

Readers of this blog know I’m a newspaper junkie.

When I travel, I just have to pick up a copy of the paper in every town I stop in. There’s nothing like browsing through the paper over a morning cup of coffee. Reading the news on Kindle on the train just doesn’t cut it for me.

But I know I’m in the minority and that most Americans get their news from TV and, increasingly, from various online sources including newspaper websites. I know the newspaper business is in deep trouble and struggling for its very survival.

Alex Jones, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist (eight years covering media for The New York Times, and currently director of Harvard's the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy) has a new book out that discusses the troubling state we’re in regarding newspapers and the role they play in a free and open society. He laments the decline of good journalism, and while he recognizes the place for citizen journalism, he feels it cannot adequately take the place of trained professional journalists. Citizen journalists can supplement, he writes, but should not replace pros.

In Losing the News, Jones gives some historical perspective of newspapers, in an engaging and fast-reading manner.   He draws parallels to the changing media marketplace newspapers find themselves struggling to adjust to, recalling the fear newspapers had as TV began reporting the news.  Although today’s fragmented news marketplace is unlike anything we’ve seen before,  Jones advises papers to find their own voice and stick with it.  Yes, enhance stories with blogs and online video where it makes sense.  But newspapers shouldn’t try to become Google news.  If newspapers, he says, do well what they do best – in-depth reporting and relevant analysis, written clearly and well -- there will be a place for them in tomorrow’s world. They can’t compete with the immediacy of the web or CNN.  We no longer need newspapers to be first to tell us what’s happening – that’s now become the realm of the internet and, lately,Twitter. But to get the meat behind the 140-character news bytes… that can remain the function of a professional team of journalists at a newspaper.

Jones lays out some possible options for newspapers to consider if they are to survive – which he believes will be the case.   And he thinks publishers will figure out ways to stay in the newspaper business and still make a decent profit.

I hope he’s right.

Losing the News is worth a read.

Losing the News, by Alex Jones     Oxford University Press, 2009  $24.95 (US)

Enough, already!

Here we go again -- a media pile-on over a celebrity's private life.

Why was Tiger Woods leaving his house in a rush at 2 a.m.?  Had he just had a fight with his wife?  Was it over another woman or, perhaps, another "other woman?" 

WHO CARES?!!

Tiger Woods is a phenomenon on the golf course.  Off the course, he's involved in charitable work and makes tons of money from endorsements.  If news broke that he had taken performance-enhancing drugs or that he had surreptitiously moved a ball from the rough to a foot from the cup to win a tournament,that would be news.  What he chooses to do in his personal life is not news -- or it shouldn't be news.

Tiger injured himself in a car crash and will be out of action for a while, including missing a tournament he hosts.  That's really all we need to know.  All the other stuff doesn't concern us and is not our business.

I fully understand, though, the need-to-know mentality of many people.  I suppose some people get off on seeing the rich and famous stumble.  And yes, being in the public eye comes with a price.

But should the media -- other than the gossip rags and the entertainment news shows -- get involved and thus spur the obsession with Woods and other celebs?  There's a market for this sort of news (or in many cases, allegations and misinformation would be better words to use).  I understand that the papers and TV shows need to build their audience, so if this is what the public wants, then give it to them  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the NY Post had a jump in its newsstand sales yesterday, with its cover photo of Rachel whatever-her-name is, under the headline "Tiger & Me." 

But what troubles me about the pile-on with stories like this is the rush to get something juicy at any price. 

"Juicy" may not necessarily be true.  In this scenario, for example, we're hearing allegations from "friends" of the "other women."  ("Friends like that, willing to sell me out, are hardly friends.)  Or we're hearing from disgruntled former employees, possibly with an axe to grind, as in the case of National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, who's accused of a deal with Woods' people to keep quiet about an alleged affair in exchange  for getting Tiger for a cover shoot for sister publication Men's Fitness. It just gets more and more seedy.

"At any price" is another problem for me.  We have questionable sources getting paid to tell their stories, or the stories of their friends and acquaintances.  $25,000 or $150,000 can be pretty convincing for someone to say what they think a reporter wants to hear.  And stick a camera in their face and the money might be almost secondary to their getting 15 minutes in the national spitlight.

So I see two problems here, at least.  1)  Paying for information.  2)  Taking and using information from sources with questionable credentials or questionable motives.

I'm not surpised when I see this type of "journalism" in the gossip magazines.  That's their stock and trade, and most of us look at them more as entertainment than as factual news.  But when all the other media, from The NY Post to FOX 5's "Good Day New York" morning show and The Today Show jump in, the story takes on a life of its own.  When that happens, it can too easily careen beyond the bounds of careful reporting, since everyone is out to scoop the competition.

Another sorry result of this type of journalism is what it does to the real news of the day.  Today's NY Post had more than 2/3 of its front page devoted to a picture of one of "Tiger's birdies," with the Obama speech on Afghanistan stuck off to the left side.  Both stories got 2 full pages inside.  

I suppose I'm not in the majority on this, but I don't need to know about Tiger's supposed daliances.  That's between him and his wife -- not me.  I didn't need to know every last detail of the OJ crime as it unfolded in Judge Ito's courtroom,w hich rivaled "People's Court."  And I could care less about lowlifes like Amy Fisher and Joey Buttafucco.

But that's me.  I guess I'm being a grumpy stick-in-the-mud for not jumping onto the latest gossip bandwagon.  I may be a bore at the water cooler, but I'm too busy keeping up with the real news of the day. 

Even good news is bad news for newspapers

A Scarborough Research report flies in the face of headlines we've been seeing about the decline in newspaper readership and demise of newspapers.

The good news is 74% of American adults -- 171 million of us -- still read daily newspapers.  The demographics skew toward better-educated, white-collar folks with above-average household incomes.  The survey shows 84% of newspaper readers are college grads and 82% are in homes with HH income of $100,000 or more.

So this sounds like great news for the newspaper industry, right?  Why, then, are we still hearing about papers losing circulation and ad revenues, as they decimate their newsroom staffing to try to slow the flood of red ink.

The good news is part of a double-edged sword, it seems, with the two edges being print and online.Print readership continues to decline, although not as steeply as the gloom & doom forecasts would indicate.  In print, newspapers still reach tens of millions of people every day -- much more than the average prime time network show.

But print advertising in most markets continues to decline, fueled by the tough retail economy.  And printing and delivery costs are rising, exacerbating the financial squeeze on publishers. Ad revenues for the year to date  are down 29% from a year ago.  Even online ad revenues, which make up only 10% of the total, have dropped.

The bright side -- from a readership perspective -- is the tremendous growth in online newspaper readership.  Nielsen says nearly 72 million people visit newspaper websites every month -- more than three times the combined print circulation of the 125 biggest dailies.

But... newspapers are still downing in red ink and, as mentioned above, even online ad revenues have dropped.

Part of the problem is that newspapers still haven't figured out how to make real money from all those online readers.  Online ads sell for a fraction of what a print display ad can fetch. 

It's a real Catch-22 situation.  Newspapers are rich in content that people want -- news, information, analysis, advice, entertainment.  Historically, though, it's been given away free, and it's hard to get people to pony up for what they've always had for free.

But let's compare it to cable of 30 years ago.  Why would anyone pay for TV when it was free for the taking, as long as you had an antenna?  But cable gradually added value -- an amazing menu of program options, perfect signal quality, and finally, quality programming that equals or often exceeds what's on free TV.    

For newspapers, the solution may not be unlike what happened with cable.  Using available technology, tools and apps, or possibly awaiting the introduction of new ones we don't yet know, newspapers may be able to charge and receive subscription fees for offering a wider array of content that's available in very targeted or individualized packages.  It might be in the form of a delivery method we haven't yet imagined.  Or it might be organized in a way that makes it easy and fun to get exactly the news and information that you deem is important to yourself.

Publishers need to be creative and embrace new technologies.  What will the answer be?  Time will tell.  Hopefully, for the survival of newspapers and the important role they play in a free society, it won't take too much time.

They won't tone it down -- mayo war

This shows how little I know or normally think about mayonnaise.  Until this morning, I thought Miracle Whip was just a low-calorie version of mayo.  We have jars of both Miracle Whip and Hellman's in our refrigerator.  If I'm going to put mayo onto a sandwich or into my tuna salad, I just grab whichever jar happens to be closer to the front.

But as I was reading the paper this morning, I learned that there IS a difference.  A full-page ad caught my eye.  (Had I been reading the paper online, I probably wouldn't have seen or looked at the ad.  But that's a subject for another post someday.)

It was an open letter to Comedy Central host Steven Colbert, who evidently made some disparaging comments recently about Miracle Whip.  Possibly he was responding to a new ad campaign the Kraft Foods brand launched a few weeks ago, trying to differentiate Miracle Whip from real mayo by talking about its blend of spices that give it a distinct flavor.  (I never realized that.)                                         graphic: District Domestic

The Miracle Whip folks are turning Colbert's joking comments into a faux mayo war which seems to me is a very clever way to get attention and promote the product benefits.  They're doing it in a way that may reach people who wouldn't respond to a traditional food product ad.

Some excerpts from the ad:

"Mr. Colbert, we found your attacks a little harsh, occasionally funny and at times wholly inaccurate.... But unblike most advertisers who are so mayo, who would back down at the slightest whiff of controversy and pull their advertising not just from your show but from your entire network and all its sister entities -- we intend to do just the opposite.

"On November 12, we will dominate the airspace on your show.  With every commercial break, your viewers will be exposed to hardcore Miracle Whip attitude and revelry.  You will see our legion of "mayonay-sayers" snarfing sandwiches topped with our one-of-a-kind flavor in a very cool and totally hip way.  They will be in your face... They will not tone it down.

"Think about it, Mr. Colbert.  In a sense, we will own you.  We're raisiing Hell, man."  (Hellman's, get it?--DR.)

I don't know if this whole thing is a set-up they've done with Colbert and the Comedy Central ad sales team, or if it's just smart exploitation of an opportunity.  But here's a brand that's not taking itself too seriously, and their response to Colbert's "slight" seems in character with their new positioning and attitude.

I might even do as the ad says at the bottom -- "This is not over.  Tune into The Colbert Report November 12 on Comedy Central."

Oh,I found this Miracle Whip spot on YouTube.  When I checked this morning, the 45-second clip had more than 23,000 views.  You can see it here.  

FTC catches up with social media

Beginning December 1, bloggers and twitterers can be liable for hefty fines if they promote products and services for pay without disclosing that they have a financial arrangement with an advertiser.

For the first time since 1980, the Federal Trade Commission has updated its rules on endorsements and testimonials in advertising.  The new rules now specifically require bloggers and twitterers to clearly disclose any "material connection" to an advertiser, which includes payments for ads or promotional copy, or also for free gifts given in exchange.

Fines can be up to $11,000 for each violation.

For most bloggers I know, these new rules won't be a problem.  They already make it clear if they've received a free product or book for review.  Even Joe Jaffe, who stirred up people a few years ago when he over-hyped his free digital camera, made it perfectly clear he had been given a demo camera.  Readers were then free to make their own judgment about the impartiality of his blog posts.

The real problem seems to stem from a few segments of the blogosphere where outright greed and deception seem to run rampant.  Mommy bloggers (not all, of course) have been big abusers, with some so greedy that they've made it clear their policy is "no pay, no play."  Want to get written up in a popular mommy blog? No problem, as long as you send a nice payment or a major appliance or a trip to Disneyworld.  No freebie?  No coverage.

There's also been some abuse in the health area, where some bloggers recommend remedies only because they've been paid to do so.  Consumers have a right to know that the blogger may have been influenced by payment, which is what the new FTC rules are about.

It's probably abuses in these areas that brought the FTC's scrutiny.  For those who've been deceptive and greedy, their blogging practices will have to change.  It'll be hard to fly under the radar, since the FTC will probably be looking for a few cases they can use as high-profile examples.

It should be interesting to watch over the next several months.  For most of us, though, it's business as usual.

NBC's big gamble... Will it pay off?

Monday night at 10 p.m. will be the start of "do or die" time for NBC, as The Jay Leno Show debuts.  NBC has been hyping it heavily and I think a lot of people are rooting for Jay to succeed.  He comes off like a nice guy... an "everyman" sort of fellow, and most of America wants to see him do well.

The new show is a gamble for Leno, who's been at the top of the late-night heap for years.  But as he's made clear in recent interviews, he feels he doesn't have anything to prove and if the show should stumble, he can still make a very nice living doing standup in Vegas and/or in big venues around the country.

The real gambler is NBC.  They've been justifying the move by talking about the profit factor, saying they can make money even with lower ratings because the cost of the Leno show is way cheaper than scripted dramas or comedies. 

But there's another factor at work here -- the local affiliates, who need a strong 10 p.m. show as lead-in for local newscasts, which can be the real moneymaker for the stations.  So even if Leno succeeds in profitability terms for the network, if the ratings are down significantly, it means fewer eyeballs tuned to NBC that might hopefuily stay tuned when the late news comes on.

That could cause an uproar from the affiliates.  Some might eventually try to put other programming in at 10, rather than carry the Leno feed on the network.  NBC brass could have a mutiny on their hands.

What can we expect?  I'm sure the new Leno show will have strong ratings at the start, especially with guests like Jerry Seinfeld.  The real test will be after a few weeks, or maybe a few months, when the newness has worn off and people start migrating to other shows.

Topical comedy will draw people, but it may not be enough to bring people back five nights a week.  Maybe if Jay allows his on-air humor to be a bit more biting, people may tune in to see what he has to say on the day's hot topic.  But what about days when there's no big, hot issue or news item that has everyone's attention.  Every day can't be a giant news day a la Michael Jackson, Bernie Madoff, Bill Clinton and the blue dress, etc.

And he'll have to have guests who we don't see all the time on the usual talk-show circuit, hawking their latest movie or book or CD.  Leno's bookers will have a real challenge.

Like most of America, I wish Jay Leno luck in his new gig.  I'll be watching next week, like many of us.  After week 2 or 3, I'll probably become an occasional Leno viewer, depending on who his guest is, what else is on the tube (and that includes the hundred-plus cable channels, pay-per-view or whatever I've DVR'd), or if I'm engrossed in a good book or on the computer blogging, twittering or just surfing the web.

Quite a challenge for Jay Leno and NBC.  It certainly will be interesting.

Gannett's disguised massacre... Part 2

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the disgusting human relations tactics being used by Gannett's Journal News as a way to institute staff cuts. Gannett had asked all of its newsroom employees (and ad sales people too) to re-apply for their jobs, saying about 70 spots would be cut, including 50 from the newsroom.

David Carr wrote about the result in his New York Times column a few days ago.  He reports that The JOurnal News has, in fact, cut 50 news reporting and editng jobs.  As Carr writes, tongue-in-cheek, Gannett's euphemisms include the fact that reporters no longer work in a newsroom, but in an "information center."  They are no longer assigned to cover beats; they report on "topics."  And one we've heard before... the layoffs or firings are part of a "comprehensive restructuring plan."

Carr's report included the following sentence, about midway in the story, that caught my eye:  "The entire business reporting and editing staff was laid off in the reorganization."

I get The Journal News at home, so I took at look at the business section for the week so far.  What's left is one or two pages, including space for ads, with 100% pickup from the wire services.  Gone is the coverage of local businesses, except perhaps giant locally-based companies like PepsiCo, IBM and MasterCard, whose news would be reported by the wires. 

But stories about smaller local businesses or the local economy are gone.

Isn't the purpose of local newspapers to cover local news?

Since it merged a chain of 12 local papers into a single masthead in 1998 (Gannett has owned the local chain since the mid-1960s), Gannett has slowly been cutting the amount of truly local news coverage in the paper.  One hears complaints from residents of practically every community in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties about important local stories that go totally unreported. The paper's circulation reflects that displeasure.

David Carr writes that The Journal News is serving as the model for the other 84 dailies that Gannett owns throughout the country.  I can only hope he's wrong.

I thought so...

When Twitter seemed to explode on the scene a year ago, I took a look, just to see what all the hype was about.  After a few days, I thought to myself, "Either it's a wasteland of inane chatter, or maybe I just don't get it."

A few months later, after seeing several of my blogging friends spending less time blogging and more time on Twitter, I figured I ought to give it another try.  Some bloggers who I follow and respect were all but calling Twitter the next best thing since sliced bread... or since, well, blogging.

I started following a bunch of people,including some journalists I know or would like to know.  I installed Tweetdeck on my computers.  I updated my Twitter profile.  I was ready to go.

What happened?  Even more inane chatter, except now from even more sources.  Some of the journalists I decided to follow, hoping to perhaps get insight into stories they're working on or info they'd like to receive from a p.r. person, seemed to be writing more about what bar or restaurant they're at or what they had for dessert.  And some of my blogger friends, who write with insight about marketing and social media issues, are tweeting about movies they saw or providing a running dialogue (or monologue) on what they're watching on TV. at the moment.

Enough!  Please.

I'm not saying Twitter is bad or a waste.  It doesn't do much for me, personally or businesswise...at least at the moment.  I still check Twitter a couple of times a day.  Tweets have pointed me to some interesting posts and articles.  But I have to wade through so much chatter to find the good stuff.  There's just not enough time.  I complained about it to one friend, who simply told me to unfollow them if I didn't like the chatter.

A study ,mentioned in this week's Mediaweek, said 58% of Twitter account holders rarely or never send or receive tweets.  Twenty percent do several times a month; 11 percent several times a week, seven percent every day or nearly every day, and only two percent are doing it several times a day.  Those are the people with thousands of tweets logged and often thousands of followers. That two percent may be the ones jamming Tweetdom with so much clutter.

So I feel a bit redeemed when I read results of a study that found more than 40% of Twitter tweets are "babble." (Not my word. That's how it was reported online by BBC News.)

Market research firm Pear Analytics looked at the Twitter stream every 30 minutes for six hours a day over the course of a week.  They took 2,000 messages at random and categorized them into six groups:

      News

      Spam

      Self-promotion

      Pointless babble

      Conversational

      Messages having pass-along value

Pointless babble took first place, accounting for 40.5% of the messages analyzed.  Conversational accounted for 37.5%.  Those with pass-along value were 8.7%.  Self-promotion and spam were 5.9 and 3.8 percent respectively.

Ryan Kelly, founder of Pear Analytics, was quoted saying, "It will be interesting to see if Twitter takes a heavier role in news, or (will it) continue to be a source for people to share their current activities that have little to do with everyone else."

I hope it will change over time. More marketers are experimenting with Twitter, and I know there are some serious and helpful dialogues going on.  It just seems, now at least, that they're few and far between.

In the meanwhile, I'll keep trying.  And I'll probably keep complaining, too.  So bear with me, you heavy tweeters.