Archive for the ‘Business of media’ Category

The new order changeth, giving way to …

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

In looking back at his eventful years of control of Tribune Company, Sam Zell recently told the Fox Business Network that the main thing he wasn’t much prepared for . . . in addition to the collapse of the print advertising market, perhaps … was “the degree to which the media loves to cover the media . . . the kernel is, the media loves to cover the media more than anything and anyone else.”

Tribune TowerThis predilection of course has been much in evidence in recent days, starting with David Carr’s Page One takedown in the Oct. 6 New York Times of the “bankrupt” corporate culture of the mired-in-Chapter-11 enterprise. In turn, Tribune’s chief innovation officer and chief executive officer soon found themselves in the spotlight, then out of their jobs, and media both major and minor had plenty of material to fill their pages and programming. This morning (Nov. 2) came news that a few more executives from the ex-CEO’s claque were ankling from the Tower.

A side effect has been a temporarily thriving market in punditry, and that recently has been my principal direct connection to this story.  My dual identities as a Northwestern professor and as a 37-year Chicago Tribune veteran meant that, for a few days, I showed up so often on air that I was getting as many emails about having been spotted as I generally do about frozen Nigerian bank accounts.

The tasks I was undertaking felt a mite more complicated than you might think, if only because I felt a need to try to parse the organizational and cultural distinctions between Tribune Co. and its individual businesses (newspapers, TV stations, and so on), differences that weren’t being much mentioned (perhaps partly because they might clutter the story line?).  Reader/viewer/user confusion about this is nothing new, of course … a quarter-century of Cubs ownership by Tribune Co. demonstrates that point … and in general the responsibility for its existence lies not with the audience, but with their information sources. (Not that four TV gigs and a radio segment are gonna fix that.)

Mercifully, not all of these media appearances have been preserved for posterity.  But here are a couple:

On Oct. 21, I was on WBEZ’s morning program “Eight Forty Eight” with David Greising of the Chicago News Cooperative and host Alison Cuddy.  The primary topics were organizational culture, business results and prospects, and of course the recent departure of the Tribune CEO. The audio is 13 minutes long.

Two weeks earlier, on Oct. 7, I spent some time on WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight” with Thom Clark of the Community Media Workshop and ex-WGN Radio host Steve Cochran, being interviewed by Eddie Arruzza in the early days of what we all knew was a developing story. Cochran is particularly good here, I think. The video is about 16 minutes long.

With any luck, my next stint in the sideshow spotlight will be about some other topic. No need to stay tuned; let your RSS feed do the work.

Share

Gee, Brain, what are we going to do tonight?

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

The topics and books that were the focus of my principal panel at this year’s Printers Row Lit Fest continue to compel the attention of writers, reviewers and journals.

Technology Panel, Printers Row Lit Fest, 6/13/2010
BookTV.org video of Printers Row technology panel

Sunday’s New York Times Book Review, for instance, held a highly complimentary review of Tom Bissell’s “Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter.” In the Business section, Steven Johnson took mild exception to some of the premises in Nicholas Carr’s “The Shallows” in a piece called “Yes, People Still Read, but Now It’s Social.” And Carr’s busy blog, Rough Type, pointed me to the online version of the latest Nieman Reports, where Jack Fuller shares part of what he learned in researching and writing “What Is Happening to News” in a piece entitled “Feeling the Heat: The Brain Holds Clues for Journalism.” (Nieman also includes a link to Chapter 6 of the book, one of those I’ve been teaching at Medill this past academic year.)

In short, we’re long on discussion of the impact of technology on our cognitive abilities; of the continuing evolution of narrative; and of the changes wrought in and on our culture by the various media revolutions of the past 20 years. You can get a flavor by watching (all or some of) C-SPAN’s 47-minute video from Printers Row, available by clicking on the photo at right.

I can’t end this particular linkfest without doubling back yet again to the NYT and its magazine cover story Sunday about a computer system that has been built to play “Jeopardy!” The interactive simulation that accompanies the online version was nearly as compelling as the article … enough so that I didn’t get distracted while playing it (nor, come to think of it, was I distracted while reading. This is a good sign). Watching “Jeopardy!” today after having read the piece was to be reminded of just how tricky those clues really are, and what a feat of programming it is to “teach” a machine to parse them out.

The Brain

"The same thing we do every night, Pinky: Try to take over the world."

If I were so inclined, I suppose I could worry that by the time an IBM system is ready to have a real conversation with a human being, all the available humans will have, in Carr’s memorable construction, outsourced their memories to Google. For another day.

Share

Smarter? Dumber? Distracted? Enthralled? Find out Sunday!

Friday, June 11th, 2010

Back in the summer of 2008, the cover of The Atlantic asked us, quite pointedly: “Is Google Making Us Stoopid?” Inside, Nicholas Carr provided an overview of “what the Internet is doing to our brains”; from the vantage of June 2010, I would say that an Internet meme had been born. At least, as I prepare for a panel at Sunday’s Printers Row Lit Fest in Chicago with Carr, Jack Fuller, and Tom Bissell, it sure feels like a meme – and you can find out whether you agree by watching the panel on CSPAN2′s BookTV, live at 1 p.m. Central.

The question and its answers actually didn’t show up everywhere all at once.  Exactly one year later, The Atlantic included coverlines that asked, “Is Google Actually Making Us Smarter?” Inside, Jamais Cascio made the case for “augmented cognition”; if a battle had not been joined, at least another voice had joined the discussion.

51MoYnOjelL._SL500_AA300_About the same time, I first heard from Fuller, my friend and ex-Tribune Co. colleague, about the book he had been working on, an exploration of what neuroscience can tell us about why people respond to today’s media the way they do. As I wrote here last year, Jack allowed me to read the book in typescript, and I since have had him share his ideas with two groups of Medill graduate students. His book, What Is Happening to News: The Information Explosion and the Crisis in Journalism, was published in June. Feel free to link off to Amazon and buy a copy; while you wait for it to arrive, here is a link to an excerpt in the Spring 2010 issue of Dædalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (I recommend that whole issue highly too; called “On the Future of News,” it was edited by my Medill colleague Loren Ghiglione.)

And then the deluge.

Source: Computer Industry Almanac, via WSJ.com
Source: Computer Industry Almanac, via WSJ.com

A book had grown out of Carr’s Atlantic piece: The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains was being published in June, just in time for Printers Row.  And when I picked up The Wall Street Journal last Saturday (June 5), the “Saturday essay” on the front page of Weekend Journal was given over to a point-counterpoint between Carr and the estimable Clay Shirky, who, lo and behold, has a new book too: Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age.

And there was still more: On Monday, Page One of the New York Times….plus two entire open jump pages…addressed one slice of these issues with “Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price.” “Your Brain on Computers,” said the logo that ran with the story, “The Information Addiction.” No real point-counterpoint here: “paying a price” was the focus, complete with a box of warning signs to tell you if you are “too absorbed in technology”: “Have you ever lied about or tried to hide how long you’ve been online?” (Not me, but maybe the mother in FoxTrot…..)

So there’s plenty to talk about Sunday, including “Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter,” by Bissell. Does spending 80 hours playing a particular console video game fit into that box of “too absorbed”?  (“These days,” he writes in Chapter Nine, ” I play video games in the morning, play video games in the afternoon, and spend my evenings playing video games. . . .I woke up this morning at 8 a.m. fully intending to write this chapter. Instead, I played Left 4 Dead until 5 p.m.”

Shirky, who won’t be in Chicago Sunday, with his “cognitive surplus” holds that diverting even a tiny fraction of consumers’ attention away from content consumption, largely via television, to participation and creation “can create enormous positive effects.”  Carr, who will be there, worries (among other things) about the decline in diversity of ideas and opinion that flows from too much choice. And Fuller explains from his research why neurobiology dictates that the way we are wired both makes us focus on the sensational and fatally disrupts the “Standard Professional Model” of journalism.

We should have an interesting time, so come on down.  Or find us on BookTV, where the panel will be followed by a call-in segment.

Share

Not dead yet (add end)

Saturday, April 10th, 2010

During the fall, I wrote here several times about the fall Interactive Innovation Project at Medill, whose students studied obituaries both as a form of journalism and as a source of audience and revenue. The class was sponsored by Legacy.com, the Evanston-based company that partners with hundreds of newspapers to host their online death notices, and at the end of the term Legacy received specific recommendations that went beyond the class’s white paper, “The State of the American Obituary.”

This week, on its Web site, obitresearch.com, the class released those recommendations to the industry at large: a report entitled “Transforming the Obituary Landscape.” that contains their findings (use the previous link to download a copy).  Rich Gordon, with whom I led the project, published his assessment of the opportunity and challenges on Poynter.org.  And as detailed in this Medill press release, Legacy announced its reaction to and decisions on implementing the recommendations (these are also detailed on obitresearch.com).

Though I am on the Legacy board, I was not involved in any way with management’s decisions on which parts of the recommendations should be implemented.  On balance, switching back and forth between my board hat and professor hat, I can support the student rationales for why each recommendation was made, and the Legacy rationales for the choices it made.  Rich Gordon’s post is probably the best place to go for a nuanced overall point of view, so here is yet another link so you don’t have to scroll up to go there.

Obit geek that I am, I see plenty of upside in the obituary and death notice category – for all involved. Not dead yet, indeed.

Share

Life at the confluence

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010
The prototypical confluence

The prototypical confluence

It was a regular, and solemn, invocation for Monday Night Football in the years when the Pittsburgh Steelers turned up there as often as ABC and the NFL could manage it: Howard Cosell, in his fullest declamatory splendor, telling America that he and we would spend the next several hours “at the confluence of the Al-le-ghe-ny and Mo-non-ga-he-la Rivers” – the origin of the Ohio River, and therefore the very eponym of Three Rivers Stadium.

There are a couple of football games this weekend that don’t include the Steelers, but we are spending the end of January at a confluence nonetheless.  Two mighty rivers of ink are flowing together, inexorably, even as we speak: that which has been spilled in anticipation of the Apple tablet, and that which has been spilled in anticipation of the emergence of a coherent strategy for paid news content on the World Wide Web. For a handy list o’ links that should satisfy your need to drown in either river, visit the Nieman Journalism Lab for Mark Coddington’s week in review.

Perhaps it was when Bill Keller, editor of the NYT, talked about an “impending Apple tablet” to his staff in October that the stories became inevitably linked.  But, once the Times sketchily sketched out the state of its sketchy plans on Wednesday morning, we had to wait less than 24 hours for the heartwarming Wall St. Journal headline, “Apple Sees New Money in Old Media.”

In between – actually, just a few minutes after the Times announcement on Wednesday – I was in front of a class of first-quarter Medill graduate students, introducing them to some of the ideas that I flesh out further in my current class, “How 21st Century Media Work.” The Q&A centered not on the Times, but on the larger question of finding the money to support the journalism they feel called to do.

As a matter of fact, my answers dipped a toe into each of the merging rivers.

  • I do expect to see models for paid content emerging, and this year; some will be for-profit (GlobalPost), some low-profit (Chicago News Cooperative), some nonprofit and intentionally so (Texas Tribune).  They will have in common a focus on what their users find valuable, not their managers.
  • I do expect that many new devices will carry with them ways to extract revenue in exchange for the convenience or other value they bring; the media’s battle for desktop revenue will be miserable, but the chance for different models to flourish in the palm of your hand seem high.

Meanwhile, it’s back to waiting – till 2011 for the debut of the Times pay wall; till next Wednesday for whatever it is that Apple wants to tell us. Hey, Vladimir!  Hey, Estragon! Can I wait alongside you?

cropgodot

Share