Archive for the ‘Journalism’ Category

Looking for business models? Mind the gaps

Friday, October 30th, 2009

I suppose that every day is a good day to talk about how and whether the journalistic enterprise will remain commercially viable as the world turns in these days of our lives, or indeed whether all my children can recover from their financial ailments, be released from the General Hospital, and find a guiding light to lead them to the promised land of free cash flow. Progress on “new business models,” however, seems to move along at about the same pace as a soap opera plot – even though hardly a day passes without an announcement that someone is going to try something new, or someone else is going to essay something old in a new way.

Indeed it was thus on Thursday, a day when I opened the New York Times to read about the plans by the folks behind Politico to compete online with the Washington Post on local news. And I was actually in a good spot to keep thinking about their admission that they didn’t know how the Web economics might work; since the dean of Medill, John Lavine, had another commitment, I was at Harvard, sitting in at an “executive session” on, ahem, news business models.

Entitled “How to Make Money in News: New Business Models for the 21st Century,” the event gathered an intentionally small group at the Charles Hotel in Cambridge: about 20 panelists for the day’s three discussions, and about 30 additional participants on hand both to listen and to take part. Alex Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, and author most recently of Losing the News: The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy, was the convener.

As it turned out, the three panels were so packed with speakers with something to say  that many of us other participants – who sat in chairs ringing a central square of tables where the panelists faced one other – got in our licks à la mode du 21ème siècle: 140 characters at a time.

Now, granted, this may not have been optimal.  In her prepared remarks, MIT’s legendary Sherry Turkle – generously not calling attention to anyone seated behind her or on the flanks – pointed to the substantial body of research that shows “your ability for any single task goes down when you multitask. No matter how much we want to jump on the bandwagon, multitasking degrades performance.”

I therefore must cop to the fact that none of my listening, note-taking, or tweeting were as good as they might have been. On the other hand, I must also say that those of us who were intermittently posting and reading got a window in what an additional 10 people were thinking, were piecing together, or were valuing as interesting (or, in some cases, not thinking, not piecing, not valuing). If you’re interested, you can recreate the moment by searching Twitter for the hashtags #Shorenstein and #newsmoney, with far more at the former; I certainly won’t get to all the sound bites here. My own tweetstream is at twitter.com/YoungOwen.

Multitasking, Harvard Square style: in-mirror televison

Multitasking, Harvard Square style: in-mirror televison

(Oh, while we’re on the subject of multitasking, staying at the Charles Hotel provided me with a new model.  I guess they’ve been around since 2006 or so, but the Charles’ bathrooms feature “in-mirror TV’s” from a company called Séura, whose web site explains, “Enhanced color correcting technology allows the LCD picture to appear when on, while flawlessly concealing the screen behind a bright reflection when off.” Turkle, I am sure, would rightly caution us that there is a risk of degrading the quality of one’s ablutions in the process.)

Turkle’s actual multitasking point, by the way, was centered on how journalists should choose their methods and channels of communicating. “Newspaper reading creates a ‘reading space’ that journalism occupies,” she said. “The teenagers I study leave us with a profound question: Will we be able to have journalism when we don’t have newspapers to appear in? Reading on the Web, if it is all you do, does not favor complex lines of thought. So the implication for news is to stay with narratives that need to be read with all one’s attention.”

(more…)

Dead trees and dying cities

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

The New York Times’ decision to add pages of metropolitan-area news to copies of the papers circulated in San Francisco (last week) and Chicago (Nov. 20) is, if nothing else, an interesting juxtaposition with its nearly contemporaneous announcement of 100 layoffs in the newsroom. By contracting with newly formed local news entities, it doubtless will acquire high-quality content at less cost, and with less long-term liability, than had it staffed up to do the same thing (or had transferred folks to the hinterlands).

Official word came today that in Chicago, several of my former Tribune colleagues are launching the Chicago News Cooperative – not only to supply stories to the Times, but also to repopulate some of the beats and coverage areas that have been affected as the Chicago papers have laid off staffers, reduced newshole, and changed their focus and approach. (When current Tribune editor Gerry Kern delivered the Crain Lecture here at Medill recently, the editorial changes at the Tower were among the topics he addressed; the text of the lecture is here, and here is an interactive video that includes both his remarks and the slides he used to illustrate them. The video requires Microsoft Silverlight. The fact that I delivered the introduction to the lecture may be reason enough not to download Silverlight and view it.)

Of course, the number of Starbucks available to sell the Friday and Sunday NYT in Baghdad-by-the-Bay and Beirut-on-the-Lake might also be a reason for the Times to start its metro news initiative in those two cities.  But I think an answer even deeper than journalistic idealism or straight competitive instincts is lurking in the cover story of the November issue of Harper’s, by Richard Rodriguez: “Final Edition: Twilight of the American Newspaper.” (It’s not available online except to subscribers.)

Wrinkle in Time (detail), by Steve Mills: Cover art from the November issue of Harper's.

Wrinkle in Time (detail), by Steve Mills: Cover art from the November issue of Harper's.

Rodriguez got my attention back in June when he gave an interview to New American Media on “The Death of the SF Chronicle” that included the following: “I don’t think the Chronicle is dying so much as I think that San Francisco is dying. When a metropolitan newspaper of that magnitude  stops publication it indicates that there has been a death of the metropolitan ideal.”

This piece in Harper’s expands on his theme of “the death of place,” but also is far more expansive on the Chronicle in particular, newspapers in general, and most especially of San Francisco.

(more…)

There were giants. . .no, there are giants.

Friday, October 16th, 2009

David Axelrod was grateful.  His Secret Service guy, I’m not so sure about.

It was Saturday night in Greektown, and about a hundred more-or-less-literally-ink-stained wretches were shaking their heads and shaking each other’s hands at the Parthenon restaurant.  It was a reunion of Chicago Tribune newsroom employees from the mid-sixties to mid-seventies.  You could read that as either their current ages or their decades of employment and, for the most part, be pretty close to right.

In my online invite from Sel Yackley (corrected 10/17; sorry, Sel), the event had been billed as having a 1975 cutoff for participation, but who would begrudge a presidential adviser a few lousy months?  Though Axelrod couldn’t stay for dinner . . . his Secret Service guy  was waiting offstage to whisk him away for another commitment . . . David summoned up his first days at the Tower and first stories in the paper.  It was June 14, 1976, and he was wearing his best suit.  It wouldn’t stay clean for long.

He was on his way to Lemont with the casually attired Jeff Lyon to write sidebars on the previous night’s killer tornado. The town was a mess, but not the prose on page 2 of the next day’s paper, a shared Lyon/Axelrod byline (with another Axelrod piece nearby):

“Possessions–bowling shoes, toilets, lasagna packets, princess phones, dishwashers, cheese graters, Christmas tree lights, and wagon wheels–lay set out as at some grotesque garage sale. But the garages, along with the most of the homes and trees along McCarthy Road from McCarthy Street to Walker Road, were gone.”

tornadotrim1

After the storm: Click for PDF of photos and text

Then he moved on to the next day and his even riskier next assignment: Finding a Teamster or two willing to talk on the record about their president’s 25% raise to $156,250 a year, which was coupled with a doubling of their dues. Well, he found one, and the story ran on Page One.  (That salary would be $593,060 in today’s dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, if you’re scoring at home.)

A pretty good first couple of days at the office, if you ask me.  But Axelrod was not taking the credit.  No, he pointed to Jon Van, sitting out in the Parthenon banquet hall.  ”And so I started to learn the value of rewrite men.”

(more…)

How America was 2-1-3′d

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

Brett Favre or no, instead of ignoring Monday Night Football by reading or writing last night, I ignored it by watching a two-hour documentary on PBS.

temp_homepage_slideshow“Inventing LA: The Chandlers and Their Times” (PBS companion site) (NYT review), a film by Medill alumnus Peter Jones, treads some of the same ground traveled by David Halberstam 30 years ago in The Powers That Be.  In fact, it leads off with a Halberstam quote: “No single family has dominated any major region of the country as the Chandlers have dominated Southern California. They did not so much foster the growth of Los Angeles as invent it.”

With 25 fresh interviews; access to a multitude of Chandler home movies and the L.A. Times archives; and an interesting diorama-like visual effect that imparted depth to collages of archival still photos, Jones and his team breathed even more life into an already larger-than-life tale of power brokering, Chandler self-interest, civic vision, and Times self-interest.  The PBS site calls it a “character-driven tale”; indeed, Jones is quoted as saying, “Revelation of character must anchor a film’s narrative trajectory. Character is best revealed one detail and one story at a time. We rely on evidence more than exposition.”

There are characters, all right, more of them wearing black hats than white. Truth be told, some of them are actually character-shaped holes in the narrative; while the film elicits wonderful sound bites from a few contemporary Chandlers in the non-Norman-and-Otis branch, they are mostly absent except when uncharitably referred to.

Harry B. Chandler

Harry B. Chandler

Which is not necessarily a problem. My early Internet colleague Harry B. Chandler, Otis’s son, was on camera extensively. He remains passionate about the role of newspapers and the importance of the Times (as evidenced in this November, 2006, piece written after the firing of Dean Baquet), and he lent a very human touch to a story so big that it broke the town called “this town” wide open.

Watching it reminded me again why relationships between the newspaper staffs in Chicago and Los Angeles were so fractious after Tribune took over Times Mirror in 2000.  (There was the time, for instance, when the editor of the Times told the editor of the Tribune that they couldn’t possibly run any stories by Tribune writers because “we’d have to label them as advertorial.”)  The Times both had built Los Angeles and had constructed a pervasive sense of itself as Maximum Leader, large and in charge, as the saying goes.

(more…)

Throw out this lifeline

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

Throw out the lifeline with hand quick and strong:
Why do you tarry, why linger so long?
See! he is sinking; oh, hasten today
And out with the lifeboat! away, then away!

(Refrain:)

Throw out the lifeline! Throw out the lifeline!
Someone is drifting away;
Throw out the lifeline! Throw out the lifeline!
Someone is sinking today.

– From the hymn by Edwin S. Ufford, 1888.

Today I was one of six lecturers at the annual kickoff symposium for “Know Your Chicago,” a 61-year-old fall tour series run out of the University of Chicago’s Graham School of General Studies. What quickly became clear as I delivered my talk, “When Worlds Collide: The Journalist, Technology, and the Audience,” was that this particular audience … several hundred folks who were mostly my age and older, mostly women … was deeply invested in being reassured about their morning newspapers.

In fact, I was only interrupted by applause twice, and then only in the Q&A:  once when I said I was one of those folks who valued having a printed paper in the morning, and once when I opined that some newspapers would certainly be around as long as I am (or words to that effect).  This after I had pointed out that Col. McCormick’s classic definition of a newspaper —

“The newspaper is an institution developed by modern civilization to present the news of the day, to foster commerce and industry, to inform and lead public opinion, and to furnish that check upon government which no constitution has ever been able to provide.”

— really didn’t require that the newspaper actually exist in newsprint form. What folks cherish is the idea of a newspaper, whether the Colonel’s or someone else’s.

(more…)

Who will pay?

Friday, September 11th, 2009

It was a piquant question . . . well, piquant if you took it the right way . . . and then-Chicago Tribune publisher Scott Smith seemed to ask it at all the right times.

“Who will pay?”

There was never any shortage of product ideas, and in fact never a shortage of good product ideas, at the Tribune during Scott’s era, roughly 1997 to 2008. For nearly all of these ideas, it was a simple matter to quantify and project the costs. For nearly as many, it was pretty straightforward to estimate the size of the audience and its members’ potential enthusiasm.

“But who will pay?”

Were there advertisers out there – real ones, not notional ones – ready to support this idea with actual dollars (and would those dollars be new, or just shifted from somewhere else?)? Were there potential partners willing to help bear the costs due to mutual self-interest? Or might there be actual consumers ready to fork out a quarter, or a couple of bucks?

Once in a while, we could answer Scott’s “pleasantly stimulating” question, and before long we’d have a RedEye or a Chicago Home & Garden or a Triblocal.com. But probably more often, we had to confess that we just had no idea.

I flashed back to this question today when I read of the demise, or transition, of the Chi-Town Daily News, ex-Tribune reporter Geoff Dougherty’s effort at nonprofit community journalism. (For a dandy compendium of links to reports and analysis, from harsh to hushed, head over to Eric Zorn’s Change of Subject at chicagotribune.com.)

(more…)

You never squawk alone

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

The last full week of August somehow wound up being Media Week at owenyoungman.com, maybe because I had been gone to Santa Fe for the opera and chamber music season for the previous 10 days. In addition to some interesting meetings involving the journalism school, the computer science school, and a prospective media partner for some of our work, I found myself on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight on Aug. 27 and on WGN Radio’s Extension 720 on Aug. 28.

chgotoniteThe Chicago Tonight gig (16-minute video at WTTW) was precipitated by the Chicago Reader’s changing hands, an outcome of the bankruptcy filing by parent Creative Loafing Inc.  Not surprisingly, the Chapter 11 status of the Tribune and the Sun-Times was also a focus, although the three cases are pretty different (particularly the Sun-Times’; see yesterday’s post).  And we talked about the state of community media on the Internet here in town, since one of the guests was Thom Clark, co-author of “The New News: Journalism We Want and Need” from the Chicago Community Trust.

The next night’s chat with Milt Rosenberg was two hours of unadulterated fun.  (Here is a 19-minute video excerpt of the opening of the program from the WGN Web site.) With Brad Flora of Windy Citizen – that’s @bradflora to you – and Bill Adee of the Tribune – that would be @Bill80 – we held forth on some of the same topics, but with way more emphasis on blogs and blog aggregations, social media, and all things digital (to coin a phrase).

(n.b.: Should you want to have the whole two hours playing in the background sometime, here’s the link. To quote a Kevin Pang tweet to me during the broadcast: “This is too entertaining for a Friday night….just hearing Uncle Milt say ‘Twitter’ makes me squeal with delight.”)

As we like to say, enough of the pasture.  Next up: more of the future.

Read on the Fourth of July

Sunday, July 5th, 2009

Ah, Independence Day: life, liberty, and the pursuit of the written word.  I know I didn’t actually read 233 articles today (one for each year since the Declaration), but I gave it my best shot….

  • “He blanked Joseph Jackson from his life and excised him from his face, but could not forget his father’s exhortation to be ‘a winner, not a loser.‘ ” Where else but The Economist would you expect to find such an pithy, opinionated, and worthwhile obituary of Michael Jackson? No punches pulled here, nor any failure to acknowledge his “real, hard-won achievements.” By putting this together with Bob Herbert in Saturday’s NYT, methinks I am done with Michael for a few months. Or years.
  • “It’s not just the statisticians who wonder whether our heroes achieve records more often than coins. Psychologists, and, increasingly, economists, also puzzle over the seemingly discrete worlds of chance and perception.” In The Triumph of the Random in Friday’s WSJ, Leonard Mlodinow of Caltech reminds us that “Extraordinary events, both good and bad, can happen without extraordinary causes, and so it is best to always remember the other factor that is always present—the factor of chance.” (By, er, chance, a couple of hours later I began reading the typescript of a friend’s next book – which at one point moves the analysis of cause-and-effect from the realms of mathematics and probability into that of neuroscience. Yes, I had time to read more than newspapers and magazines!)
  • “Swedes believe that consensus is the best way to take long-term decisions that all can live with.” Well, that explains a lot about me, I guess, if you go for nature over nurture.  The Economist again, this time in Charlemagne’s column, Those exceptional Swedes. Oh, and elsewhere, the sensible Swedes who run Ikea get props for suspending investment in Russia due to, ahem, the “unpredictable character of administrative procedures” – read graft and corruption. As Charlemagne pseudonymously puts it, “Sweden, in short, is an exceptional place.”
  • (more…)