my 2 cents

From newsprint to digital in New Orleans

 

The legendary Times-Picayune, since 1837 the major newspaper serving New Orleans, announced today it is shifting to a digital publication called NOLA Media.  The move will take place in the fall, with the Times-Picayune cutting back its print publication to three days a week. The digital site, which will be enhanced, is already up at www.nola.com.  

Nola.com runs the news as its lead story, under the headline:  New digitally focused company launches this fall with beefed up online coverage; The Times-Picayune will move this fall to three printed papers a week

A story in today's New York Times media blog says three top editors at the Times-Picayune will be laid off in the next few weeks, and "deep newsroom layoffs are on the way."  The paper, which now has a daily circulation of 141,100 and nearly 159,000 on Sundays, will publish on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays with what NOLA's statement says will be "a more robust paper."

While this is troubling for the newspaper industry overall, the Times-Picayune has been dealing with a unique challenge -- the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina nearly seven years ago and having a much smaller population base (and advertising base) after the storm.  

The paper is following the route taken almost three years ago by the Ann Arbor News, also owned by Newhouse Newspapers.  The Ann Arbor News cut its print publication to twice a week and laid off almost all of its editorial staff in the process. Various news reports say about 12 people were re-hired for the digital operation, AnnArbor.com.  The paper, when it was a daily, employed about 270 people.

When the Ann Arbor paper closed, the publisher blamed it on the loss of classified advertising revenue (caused mainly by Craigslist), and a very low rate of home ownership in an area where the population is transient and young. I wonder if that spells similar outcomes for papers in other college towns like Berkeley, Austin, Boulder and ... name any other large college town.

It's sad to see a newspaper go under, although in this case, the Times-Picayune masthead will remain.  Hopefully the reduced publication schedule will enable it to keep going by filling the paper with quality news and analysis content that gets enough readership to sell more ad pages.  It's as simple as that, and I hope it works.

...

A side note... I always enjoyed saying the name of this paper.  Picayune is one of those words that, for me at least, is fun to say out loud.  I never knew what picayune means, but in doing some research for this post I learned a picayune was a Spanish coin and when the paper first published in 1837, it cost one picayune. 

 

 

 

In News, First Isn't Always Best

 

 

"I'd rather be behind and right than ahead and wrong."

So said Associated Press executive editor Kathleen Carroll in a story in this week's ADWEEK. 

The article takes an in-depth look at the ever-growing pressure on media to be first to break news.  That pressure, which has been heightened exponentially by online and social media that can pump out breaking news in a single tweet or email blast, has caused erroneous information to be quickly spread.  And sometimes that wrong information gets picked up by major news organizations that usually have a very high credibility reputation -- The New York Times, CNN, NPR, FOX News (well, sort of) and others.

It takes time to verify information, and editors must feel tremendous pressure to jump onto the bandwagon as news of Michael Jackson's or Joe Paterno's death, or whether Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was killed or not in the Tucson shootings runs wild online.  No one likes to be last.  But quality newsrooms don't want to be wrong.

Many people subscribe to the idea that just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.  It used to be that many of those doubters relied on mainstream news -- newspapers, network TV, radio -- to verify breaking news items we'd see online and in social media. 

But since some of those rumors that swirl about online have crept into news reports on mainstream media, it seems the public is losing confidence in the news media overall.  The Gallup poll from last summer had 66 percent of Americans feeling the media reports stories that "are often inaccurate."    That's up from 34 percent who felt that way 25 years ago. 

Despite the growing lack of trust, many still rely on major news organizations when they want to find out what is really going on.  But they probably won't get to those news organizations via the traditional route -- opening a newspaper or tuning in to CNN or a network or local TV channel.  As more of us have smartphones and tablets, we look for news online.  But still, when we want to know for sure what is happening, we'll use our portable device to link into the website of The New York Times or CNN or NBC.  Because we still trust those old-line news organizations to be reliable and get the story right -- even if they're not the fastest.

Adweek quotes Julie Moss, director of Poynter Online -- a site for journalists -- about the choice news organizations make between being first and being right.  "I actually do believe it matters less and less who's first with something, particularly when you have two or more people reporting on the same thing.  What matters is originality. I assume that in most cases, we will get beat."

Maybe so, although if you're second on a story but you get it right, then I'd say you've won.  You've won the public's trust.

 

Some good news for Newspapers

 

While many newspapers are still bleeding red ink financially, the latest numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulation shows verified readership is increasing at some of the biggest dailies.

The reason, perhaps somewhat ironically, is the internet, which for years has been seen as the cause of the impending demise of newspapers. 

The ABC says the average daily circulation of the 618 papers it monitors went up .7 percent -- a very small gain, but significant in the face of years of circulation declines papers have been showing.  The 532 Sunday papers have gone up 5 percent -- which is a significant and encouraging jump.

ABC is now including digital circulation, which on average accounted for 14 percent of total newspaper circulation.  A year ago, digital comprised 8.7 percent of total circ.  Digital includes not only hits directly on newspaper websites, but also viewership on tablets, smartphones and e-readers.  They're not paper and ink, but the content is newspaper all the way.

The New York Times, which began its paywall about a year ago, was the biggest gainer, with a total circulation jump of 73 percent.  Its 1.6 million daily circ is 807,000 digital and 779,000 print.  

The Wall Street Journal remains the biggest daily circulation paper, with 2.1 million, followed by USA Today, with total digital and print circ of 1.7 million.  The Times is at #3 overall.

I've been seeing reports that the paywall is starting to pay off for The Times financially, which is a good sign.  The problem for newspaper publishers is still the difference in rates they can get for digital ads vs. print ads.  Digital still doesn't come close, but maybe the paywall concept will eventually offset that difference and help keep papers alive.

Gannett's Journal News, serving Westchester and the northern suburbs of New York City, has just put up a paywall this week.  They're trying to entice readers to subscribe for extras online that include additional reporting and analysis, photos and video.  The problem with The Journal News, however, is their local news reporting leaves a lot to be desired.  For many readers who recall when each town had its own local paper that really covered local happenings, the homogenized county-wide Journal News misses a lot of local news, mainly because they are seriously short-staffed.  I'm not sure their "extra" coverage online will really fill the gap, but time will tell.  And Gannett has deep pockets, even if they don't spend their money on newsroom employees. But they can aford to wait to see how the paywall experiemnt works out financially.

In newspapers we trust

 

I came across two stories last week that give me hope that newspapers are not, in fact, a dying breed.

PR man Steve Rubel, writing in Ad Age, says, "The press is a case study in evolution...it has reasserted itself and is stronger than ever."

I'm not sure I'd agree with the "stronger than ever" part, since papers are still losing print circulation and ad revenues, and many continue to cut newsroom staff.  But as Steve points out, newspapers are evolving with the times and many papers -- large and small -- now have more content online than in print.  That online content often includes more than additional print-type stories.  We see video news stories that rival what the local stations and the networks offer. 

The Wall Street Journal's WSJ.com site includes about 40 - 50 new video reports every day.  And the New York Times nytimes.com site includes some great content we don't see in the paper's print editions -- slide shows, in-depth interviews and commentary, and photo essays.  Gannett's Journal News, serving New York's northern suburbs, has a lively site, lohud.com, that includes blogs on a variety of subjects, video reports and hyper-local news and reader chats.

Gannett, like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and, most recently, the Los Angeles Times are among many papers that are trying to monetize the online content in ways beyond advertising, which hasn't yet been able to bring in the big bucks to rival print ad rates.  So they're trying paywalls, usually allowing online readers to get a small number of stories free before asking them to subscribe or pay a per-story charge.  It's too soon to see if this will work successfully, but more papers are moving in that direction.

It's good to see that papers aren't giving up in the face of the changing ways we consume news and information.  Which brings me to the second story I saw about newspapers last week.

Newspapers, according to a report released last week by Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, are the public's most trusted source of news.  The survey shows newspapers lead, although by a small margin, network TV and cable news when it comes to trust in the accuracy of news.

An interesting side note is that young adults ages 18 - 35, the people who grew up with computers and the internet, gave newspapers the best score for trust, although they also rated online news sites as "highly credible."

The survey also shows that the media's frenzy to be first to break news doesn't necessarily earn high marks.  Most respondents said they value accuracy far above immediacy when it comes to news reporting.  They value fact-checking, they say, even as they rush to tune into 24-hour cable or online sites to see the latest.  They'll read newspapers later, it seems, to get it right.

There is still hope.

Major newspaper chains try to outsource editing

It's about saving money to keep papers alive

 

Three major newspaper chains are in the process of outsourcing copy editing positions in the newsroom.  For publishers Media General, Tribune Co., and Gannett, the change will result in dropping more than 40 newsroom jobs.

MediaPost reports that Media General has consolidated copy editing and page layout for 23 of its daily papers over the past two years, with its most recent move to consolidate copy editing for The Tampa Tribune, Richmond Times-Dispatch and Winston-Salem Journal at copy centers in Tampa and Richmond.  Looks like Winston-Salem gets the short end of that stick.

Gannett, which is the nation's largest newspaper chain, is setting up five regional copy editing centers to do copy editing and design for 80 local papers.   They haven't said how many jobs will be eliminated.  I still see some serious irony in Gannett cutting what may amount to dozens of newsroom jobs while the CEO pulls down a salary of nearly $5 million, plus a bonus of $1.45 mil.  But that's another story... or another post.

And The Chicago Tribune reported on Sunday that the nation's oldest daily newspaper, The Hartford Courant, owned by the Trib's parent company, will be copy-edited at the Trib's newsroom in Chicago.  The article says 19 newsroom positions will be eliminated.

Centralizing the copy-editing and layout process does, in theory, make sense, and it can be a cost-cutter for newspapers who are struggling to reduce costs in order to stay alive. But it raises a legitimate concern about how much accuracy may be lost in editing local stories when the copy editors are hundreds or thousands of miles away and may not have real local knowledge.  Perhaps that local knowledge can be developed over time, if the centralized copy editors work on the same papers every day and also have a chance to make regular visits to the markets they are serving, so the reporters they are editing can show them around and give them solid background.

Outsourcing copy editing and design is better than outsourcing original reporting, and it's certainly better than cutting reporters altogether.  Hopefully, centralizing these functions can save some reporters' jobs without hurting the quality of the news content. 

 

.

Paying for news

No, I don't mean paying for a newspaper.  I'm talking about news organizations -- papers, TV, cable or others -- paying sources for their stories.  It goes against the rules of journalism, but it seems more so-called legitimate news organizations have been doing it.

Paying for "exclusive" stories used to be pretty much the domain of the gossip and sensationalist tabloids, who justifyably had little credibility.  But lately, real and respected news organizations like ABC News have admitted to paying for stories.  They call it a "licensing fee" but let's call it what it is -- checkbook journalism.  It calls into question the accuracy of the source: are they lying, or exaggerating to make the story more sensational and, thus, worth more money to the source?  We, the news consumers, may never know.

Wayne Friedman, writing in his "Full Frontal Television" column at MediaPost, wonders if the less-glamorous stories as told by non-paid, non "inside" sources are less compelling as drama, might newscasts lose audiences and, thus, sponsors, thereby making it more difficult to suppport news. 

Will networks be tempted, he wonders, to try to beef up their news stories by opening their checkbooks to sources, legitimate or not, to reveal details -- real or imagined?

Let's hope not. News is news, not fiction or entertainment.

 

 

Are media 'fat cats' good for the public?

Broadcasting & Cable Magazine reports that the FCC is in the process of conducting a series of studies to determine the impact, if any, on news coverage by allowing multiple ownership and cross-ownership of media outlets. 

Before FCC rule changes that took place in the early and late 2000s, companies were prevented from owning more than 1 or 2 radio stations and/or a TV station in a market.  Media companies, particularly newspaper publishers, had been able to own a local TV and/or radio station in their market, but only one.  Examples included The New York Times, which owned classical station WQXR; The Dallas Morning News, which owned WFAA radio and TV; The Tribune Company, which owned The Chicago Tribune and WGN radio and TV (the call letters stood for World's Greatest Newspaper) and The Daily News, WPIX-TV and an FM station in New York.

But media companies got greedy and the FCC, in 2007, supported their greed by permitting them to own an unlimited number of media outlets in a single market.  So the big broadcasters, now part of even bigger media comglomerates like Universal (NBC), Comcast/Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC) and News Corp. (FOX) bought more media outlets.  Newspaper giant Gannett joined in. In the New York market, for example, one company now owns both major all-news radio stations along with several other music stations, a major network affilate and some of the cable companies that deliver the TV station to consumers' homes.  Another media conglomerate owns 2 of the city's 6 major commercial TV stations, and two of the city's four major daily papers.

Multiple outlets enable the media companies to share resources including news reports, trimming costs and helping profits.  For PR folks, it often means fewer places for us to pitch stories.  For the news-consuming public, it often means less variety in reporting.

The FCC, according to Broadcasting & Cable, is not seeing any negative impact on news coverage due to multiple and cross ownership.  But I fear the FCC is evaluating the quantity of news, not quality of reporting. 

The danger of having so much of the media owned by a few big companies can be felt in many ways.  These companies -- only 5 or 6 now -- have the power to lobby for regulations in their favor, such as further easing of cross-ownership rules.  With only a few media companies in control, there's the risk of less news getting out to the public, along with a decrease in the variety of editorial viewpoints.

The public risks becoming less informed than ever on things happening in government and in business that impact us all.

So as media fat cats get fatter, the public that relies on the media for news and information may end up with less news and information, if not in quantity, then possibly in diversity of coverage and point of view.  And that's not good news. 

 

 

 

 

Filling the news gap

 

It’s not news that the shape of news in the U.S. has changed over the past 10 years or so.  More than ever, it’s become about building ratings and readership, while context, relevance and sometimes even accuracy seem to be less important. 

The reasons for this change are manifold – increasing pressure on the bottom line of newspaper publishers and broadcasters, the public craving for juicy gossip about stars and celeb-wannabees and the media’s willingness  --eagerness, it often seems – to feed us the latest on bad behavior by the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen.

Over the years there have been some steady beacons in the news business, especially in the area of investigative journalism.  Public broadcasting – NPR and PBS – have consistently done a good job filling a gap too often left by the major commercial media outlets.  Brett Zongker, writing for the Associated Press, makes note of this in a story today that talks about more than $90 million that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has used over the past three years to focus on “new journalism initiatives, including a $10 million local journalism initiative that is paying for the creation of five regional centers that will help local PBS and NPR stations cover news that affects wider geographic areas.”  Much of this is going to reporting that informs the public about happenings in business and government, thus holding those institutions accountable.   This has been happening at the same time as so many newspapers, TV networks and local stations have been cutting news and editing staff and shutting down news bureaus, doing less enterprise journalism.

The AP story points out how funding stations through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides insulation, of sorts, from pressure by the government on stations whose programs might be seen as contrary to official government positions on issues.  Thus, stations can feel more at ease to exercise journalistic integrity and report news as it is, rather than how the government or an advertiser might prefer to have it told (or not told).

Yet even as those same public stations provide a valuable role in a free and open society, they are coming under fire by some who want to drastically slash funding that comes from our tax dollars.  Many Conservatives, who see public TV and radio as no friend, are using the current fiscal crunch as an excuse to cut funding, as a way to silence that important voice.

Some funding for public TV and radio comes “from viewers like you,” and those of us who are members of public TV and radio stations should try our best to continue that support.  But the bulk of funding for public broadcasting comes from our taxes, and we must remind our representatives in Washington that maintaining independent news resources is a very important function that cannot be cut.  There are certainly many other items in the Federal budget that are bigger and far more wasteful than the money  that helps support public broadcasting.

And that shouldn’t come as news to most of us.



Here we go again ... It's Gannett's turn this time

Top executives' greed vs. sensible cost-cutting

 

Note added  April 11... Looks like David Carr at The New York Times agrees... 7 weeks later.

Nearly two years ago, I wrote in this space about my disgust with The New York Times for giving its top executives large raises and  
especially the 35% raise to its President and CEO, Janet Robinson  (putting her annual salary up from $4.1 million to $5.5 million).  These moves were made just as the paper was forcing its newsroom and other employees to accept a 5% wage cut, in the face of a first-quarter 2009 operating loss of  $61.6 million.

I said then that all the paper's problems certainly couldn't be laid at Mrs. Robinson's feet, but I wondered what sort of leadership, ethics and common public relations sense she and her Board must have to make such a move at that time.

Well, here we go again, except this time the greedy culprit is Gannett, which has been instituting some hefty layoffs at its papers over the past two years.  Some of those layoff have been done in a brutal and demeaning way, as I noted when they began to take place in August, 2009.

MediaPost reported today about a story in Gannett Blog, which I'll admit has a biased viewpoint since it is written by a former USA Today editor and is populated by comments from disgruntled current and former Gannett employees.  That caveat aside, Gannett Blog points out some real greed and questionable management judgment at the publishing giant.

Gannett's newspaper division has shed, the blog says, nearly 7,000 employees since 2008 -- a cut of more than 20%.  No doubt, there was some fat that needed to be eliminated.  And cutting personnel is often the fastest way to initiate cost-savings to help the bottom line.

But where is the sense -- or the morality -- in paying the CEO nearly $5 million, including a cash bonus of $1.45 million, even as 2,000 employees were laid off throughout that year?  The Gannett Blog says the company's annual report will disclose next month how much the CEOs pay and bonus was in 2010, as nearly 10% of the newspaper division's staff was cut.

Does it seem to you, as it does to me, that something doesn't smell right here?  Greed appears to trump common sense, morality, employee morale and public image.   And perhaps it's impacting good news coverage and journalism, too.

Where are the news media's priorities?

 

We all know you can't believe a lot of the things that get passed around the internet.  But I trust the person who sent me this today -- a friend and a former mentor who taught me lots about p.r. and about news judgment.  And even if it's not totally accurate, the underlying message rings true.

The forwarded e-mail came to me just after I had seen the headline on Page One of today's Daily News here in New York.  Headed "Food Fight," it led to a non-story about former VP candidate/quitter Sarah Palin making fun of Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign aimed at kids.  Can someone please explain what news value there is in this?  The White House, wisely, has not responded to the silly taunts from Miss North Star.

Anyway, here's what my friend Alan sent today...

 

You're a 19-year old kid.

You're critically wounded and dying in the jungle somewhere in the Centrtal Highlands of Viet Nam.  It's November 11, 1967.

Your unit is outnumbered 8 to 1 and enemy fire is so intense from 100 yards away that your CO has ordered the MedEvac helicopters to stop coming in.

You're lying there listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out.  You think of your family halfway around the world -- 12,000 miles away -- and you'll never see them again.  You know this is the day.

Then, over the machine gun noise, you faintly hear the sound of a helicopter.  You look up to see a Huey coming in.  But it doesn't seem real because it has no MedEvac markings on it.

Captain Ed Freeman is coming in for you.

He's not MedEvac, so it's not his job to respond.  But he heard the radio call and decided to fly his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway.

He drops in and sits there in the machine gun fire as they load 3 of us at a time.  He flies us out, through the gunfire to safety and the doctors and nurses.  He keeps coming back -- 13 more times! Until all the wounded are out.  No one realized until after the mission that the Captain had been hit 4 times in the legs and left arm.

He took 29 soldiers out that day.  Some would not have made it without the Captain and his Huey.

Medal of Honor recipient Captain Ed Freeman, USAF, died last Wednesday in Boise, Idaho at the age of 70.

I bet you didn't hear about this hero's passing, but we've seen a whole bunch about Lindsay Lohan, Tiger Woods, "Real" housewives and the bickering of Congress overr Health Reform.

Shame on the American media!!

(And I'll add this... Shame on us, the American public, for reading such junk and watching it on TV.  The media, fighting to hold onto readers and viewers, is feeding us what they think we want. )