Merrill Lynch predicts, via Ad Age, that this year, revenue for online will surpass that for both magazines and yellow pages.
Posts about lastpresses
When I said I wanted to see more transparency in newspapers, I didn’t mean that they should be sharing their family squabbles…. though I am glad they are, for it’s just so entertaining.
I’m already over the Froomkin kerfluffle but I’m amazed at the newsroom sniping that’s coming out in public. See Brad DeLong’s incredible phone interview with Washington Post political editor John Harris:
Q: So you knew [Ruffini] had been a Republican operative in 2004, and didn’t tell that to Jay Rosen?
A: [Ramble of which I caught only scattered phrases] But assuming you aren’t posting this at least immediately… A good relationship between the print Washington Post and WPNI… Happy to answer privately… Really don’t want to be quoted on the record… If you want to call me an idiot without my response, that’s fine…
A: No I want your response.
A; [stream continues] But I shouldn’t respond… I’ve promised people I won’t respond… We need to cool this down… It’s a really a very narrow issue: are there people confused about Froomkin’s role…
This is followed by the editor first going off the record and then refusing comment. Journalists should be the last people to do either.
: Now go to Ken Auletta’s New Yorker story about tsuris at the New York Times with some deft slipping of shivs between the shoulder blades of executive editors: Keller v. Raines v. Lelyveld. Most entertaining.
: Some are positioning l’affaire Froomkin as political: See Kos. Others are gamely trying to laugh it off as a turf war over a home page. See Aschenblog. Some see it as resistance to change: See Yelvington — “It’s time to change your people, or change your people.” I see it as that and as a war of journalistic worldviews about alleged objectivity vs. transparency.
But a wise editor I know said it better in an email: “The elbows are getting very very sharp right now.” And the reason is that the business is shrinking and the print guys and online guys — forced together in newsroom meetings and mergers — are like dogs growling and snapping over that last scrap of meat. When the going gets tough the tough get snarky.
Deborah Howell (with whom I used to work at Advance) writes an ombudsman column for the Washington Post that illustrates, in its quotes from editors at the paper, the kind of clueless, destructive, and snobbish territoriality between print and online that is killing newspapers.
Political reporters at The Post don’t like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin’s “White House Briefing,” which is highly opinionated and liberal. They’re afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.
John Harris, national political editor at the print Post, said, “The title invites confusion. It dilutes our only asset — our credibility” as objective news reporters.
I have to stop there. What a terrible insult and slap at a colleague who writes a very good, respected, and journalistic column for online. What a slap from a newsroom snot. But that is what newsrooms are like.
Froomkin writes the kind of column “that we would never allow a White House reporter to write. I wish it could be done with a different title and display.”
Harris is right; some readers do think Froomkin is a White House reporter. But Froomkin works only for the Web site and is very popular — and [web site executive editor Jim] Brady is not going to fool with that, though he is considering changing the column title and supplementing it with a conservative blogger.
So we acknowledge that Froomkin’s column is popular with readers… but not with print editors. What does that tell us?
And the solution this reputed problem is to play the dumb cable “balance” game, journalism as a Chinese menu? No, the solution is for Dan to be very transparent about his views and for readers to judge him and what he says in that context; clearly, that is working with readers. The public we serve is too smart to fall for this balance game. Crossfire’s dead, folks. Howell continues:
Froomkin said he is “happy to consider other ways to telegraph to people that I’m not a Post White House reporter. I do think that what I’m doing, namely scrutinizing the White House’s every move — with an attitude — is in the best traditions of American and Washington Post journalism.”
On the other hand, Chris Cillizza, a washingtonpost.com political reporter, appears in The Post frequently. When he writes for the paper, he works for Harris, who is happy to have him.
Which is to say: It’s petty and personal. Newsrooms are.
Some Post reporters don’t appreciate that links are put on the Web site to what bloggers are saying about this or that story — especially when the bloggers are highly negative.
And what does that say? Post print reporters don’t like anyone else having a say; they don’t like dialogue; they don’t like listening. And they wonder why readers don’t respect them? Because they don’t respect readers.
Metro reporters think the Web site ignores their good work and doesn’t display it well. “My concern is that we have this rich, deep, robust local coverage which is not fully displayed, but I know the site is working to fix that,” said Robert McCartney, assistant managing editor for metropolitan news. McCartney is a great ally of the Web site and was assistant managing editor of continuous news for two years before he became Metro’s top editor.
Oh, I heard that argument from every paper I worked with in my last job. It is code for: We want online to be just like the paper we produce and we want to be in charge of online. It’s about power and territory. Newsrooms are about power and territory.
Howell concludes that the web is good for what newspaper editors have wished it was good for: supplements to their print prose:
The Web is a wonderful place for The Post to put newsprint-eating texts and documents, such as presidential speeches, and other information, such as congressional votes, that readers want.
That is so 1995. No, friend, it’s just the opposite. The web is the rich medium; the paper is the thinner, less dynamic, staler, one-way, one-size-fits-all supplement.
Howell ends with one more slap at Froomkin:
But I agree with The Post’s political writers here; the Web site should remove the “White House Briefing” label from Froomkin’s column.
The Washington Post and its site are among the best in newspapering, yet we see this kind of trivial and destructive sniping between the two even there even as newspapering struggles to survive.
This is why I left that battleground.
: Froomkin rises above the playground rivalries in a most gracious post on the Post’s blog — and his readers come in to give him amazing support:
There is undeniably a certain irreverence to the column. But I do not advocate policy, liberal or otherwise. My agenda, such as it is, is accountability and transparency. I believe that the president of the United States, no matter what his party, should be subject to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable. And he should be able to easily withstand that scrutiny. I was prepared to take the same approach with John Kerry, had he become president.
This column’s advocacy is in defense of the public’s right to know what its leader is doing and why. To that end, it calls attention to times when reasonable, important questions are ducked; when disingenuous talking points are substituted for honest explanations; and when the president won’t confront his critics — or their criticisms — head on.
The journalists who cover Washington and the White House should be holding the president accountable. When they do, I bear witness to their work. And the answer is for more of them to do so — not for me to be dismissed as highly opinionated and liberal because I do.
Some quotes of support for Froomkind, which should be printed on paper and handed out in the newsroom:
I am old enough to have read Woodstein word-for-word during Watergate. I recall the Post in that era with enduring respect and even fondness. Katherine Graham, Bill Bradlee, Woodward and Bernstein – they made the Post the best newspaper this side of the moon; as integral to my day as that first cup of coffee.
I walked away in the early 80’s. It was a tip from a friend about Dan Froomkin’s “White House Briefing” that brought me back to the Post over a year ago. Through him, I have come to admire Walter Pincus, Dana Priest, and even the right-leaning Kurtz.
* * *
The only way to balance Dan Froomkin’s reporting would be to counter him with a complete liar.
* * *
view Dan Froomkin as a true reporter. He connects the dots in a very basic fashion. Rather than imposing a narrative on what is now called the “news”, the column juxtaposes raw source material with reporting, opinion and comment from elsewhere in a fashion that illuminates connections between events, and drives sensible debate. This makes the occasional irreverent observation all the more enjoyable.
I don’t think it makes any sense at all to say Froomkin is overly “liberal”. Modern America is psychotic with its need to divide the world into two groups, however, so whatever.
But even if he was — Why on earth would you lose a strong columnist because he has an ideology?
* * *
The WPs new Ombudsman would do well to use Dan Froomkin’s methods. Simply stating that WP reporters find his reporting highly opinionated and bias and calling him a liberal is not reporting. It is spin. Why not list and investigate specific claims instead of acting like the White House press secretary.
* * *
Froomkin turned me on to looking in all sorts of spots for my info. I’ve read and watched transcripts of press briefings, read articles by journalists with whom I was not familiar, found sources of info that were unknown to me because of links and things I’ve read in Froomkin’s column. Sending people to many different sources for their information and pointing out when the media is unable to get real answers to important questions is the opposite of bias.
* * *
Why would the credibility of the Post be endangered by a column that is largely populated by links to and discussion of stories filed in the print edition of the Post?
* * *
I applaud his approach and wish more reporters, print and media, would follow it. Keep it up Mr. Froomkin.
* * *
Where do I go to file a complaint about the ombudsman herself?
Froomkin is a must-read for me. I can’t imagine there are people who think it’s factual reporting — anyone savvy enough to read his fascinating column is surely savvy enough to differentiate between opinion and fact.
* * *
Too many other reporters–including those at the Post–seem just to repeat what they are told. Froomkin does that openly, with links to his original materials, but in addition he has the guts, and integrity, to check the statements of his sources. If that is liberal bias I’m all for it.
* * *
How can anyone who reads the column equate accountability with liberalism? The quintessential Froomkin column ran a few days ago; it was called “Fact Checking the President”. It was composed almost exclusively of links to news stories in which the reporter noted discrepancies between Bush’s picture of Iraq and more disturbing pictures of Iraq provided by people who are actually there.
* * *
The rest of the Post’s White House team should read the last year of Froomkin’s column to see what real reporting and analysis are. Froomkin has usually been way ahead of the curve of the “establishment” media, pointing out Bush’s increasing unpopularity, for instance, long before it became acceptable in conventional media to talk about Bush’s high rate of disapproval.
* * *
I often rely on Froomkin and Kurtz combined to get a grasp on many of the stories of the day, and the integrity of the reporting involved.
* * *
Froomkin’s “White House Briefing” is essential reading for anyone who hopes to understand 1. what is going on behind the headlines and 2. the greater context in which ongoing news stories play out.
The media guru Neil Postman, in Amusing Ourselves to Death, bemoaned the degradation of American discourse into a world of decontextualized information — thanks largely to the rise of television as our predominant medium for communication.
What the Internet does best is to subvert the packaging of news that television has led to — and Froomkin, by compiling the day’s news — from all sources online — with links to the stories themselves, subverts that decontextualization.
And on and on. To paraphrase my friend Jay Rosen, here’s the message in that to Post print people: The readers are writing. Are you reading?
: The real lesson for Posties should be this: As Howell herself points out, the Post’s site is a helluva lot bigger than the Post’s paper:
Its circulation, as reported in September, is 671,322 daily and 965,920 Sunday. The Web site’s reach is huge — 8 million unique visitors a month, about 1.3 million of them local.
Perhaps that should tell the paper’s editors that they should be learning from online, rather than trying to lecture to it with haughty bravura. That, too, is what newsrooms are about. But the audience has clearly shown its support for the online Post over the printed one; the only reason online is not as successful is because advertisers are even more behind than newspaper editors. And the audience has clearly shown Froomkin their support. Perhaps the paper should be doing more of what he does. Did you ever think of that, o, vaunted newspaper editors?
: LATER: Jay DeFoore at E&P covers the kerfluffle.
: LATER STILL: Jay Rosen interviews the Post’s political editor, online editor, and columnist in a fascinating exchange.
What interests me first are the atmospherics. The online folks are bending over backwards to be deferential to the print people. The print person is spitting lines like “pompous” and “total bullshit.” Not a happy camp, there. Once more: Newsrooms are like that.
Second, what interests me is that I think we are seeing the Japanese monster movie of journalism … or perhaps a more timely allusion would be King Kong: Dinosaurs v. the overgrown ape. The print people (you can guess at my casting; either that or Godzilla would be loaded) are holding onto their beliefs in objectivity for dear life. The online people have moved onto a new world. And Dan holds firm saying that he’s not a liberal columnist or even an opinion columnist, though he has taken on the latter label; he says — and I agree — that these days, tracking media and those who would spin it is reporting. In my book, that is sometimes more like reporting than what some reporters do when they dutifully report what the powerful spin. But it all fits in the big tent of journalism, if those who think they own that tent will allow it. Jay quotes an internal memo from the print editor to the online editor:
It’s not an overstatement to say that our generation of reporters and editors is trying vindicate the entire tradition of ideologically neutral news in a web-driven age in which most information is presented through argument. Certainly the Bush White House would be happy to have this tradition die–it makes it easier for them to dismiss all reporting they don’t like as the work of liberal critics.
A tall order. But the contrary arguments that are made are first that no one is ideologically neutral and that transparency is needed and second that not all information online is presented through argument but argument does not invalidate information.
One thing I forgot to say in all the posts about newspapers and business below:
Newspapers have neither a constitutional nor a God-given right to exist. They exist if they serve their communities well and are supported by those communities in one way or another.
In the panic over the possible sale of Knight Ridder’s papers, some are grasping for new business models that aren’t business models at all: They are suggesting that newspapers should be taken over by charities or — this is new to me — even viewed as public infrastructure. I understand the nervousness and the need to seek alternatives — especially in the face of news that the dreaded Carlyle Group may be a buyer. Welcome to The Philadelphia Daily Fair & Balanced.
The Daily News’ Attytood blog has been lighting candles, crossing fingers, and blogging incantations in hopes that the local Pew Charitable Trust might take over the paper, following the example of the Poynter Institute’s benevolent ownership of the St. Petersburg Times. White Knights, indeed.
If that happened, it would be a fine thing for Philadelphia. But it is by no means the solution for the problems of newspapers today. Indeed, I think it is a dangerous dream, for it continues to separate newspapers from their publics, their markets, their real masters.
: Now see Editor & Publisher, which gives us what I think is a naive view of how to save papers: Turn them into charities, with legislation to give tax breaks, even.
Joe Mathewson, who, amazingly, teaches business journalism, dismisses those of us who argue that the marketplace matters.
But does “healthy” have to mean “profitable”?
Let’s dream for a moment about newspapering freed from the profit motive. Purists may argue that newspapers, like any other enterprise, should have to earn their way in the marketplace, and if they fail the market test, so be it.
But in fact newspapers, as important to the civic health of our society as public transportation, have a claim on public allegiance that goes beyond financial measure.
Newspapers as infrastructure? That’s a new one to me. We’ve seen them portrayed as everything up to religion. But newspapers as roads and buses? Sorry. I don’t buy it. News comes in many forms, in many media, and there is no law of nature or principle of democracy that says a paper is public infrastructure that should have public support. In fact, I’ll argue that is another dangerous dream, for it potentially puts journalism and free speech at the mercy of government support and thus government control, which should be the last thing we’d ever want.
Mathewson wants legislation to make it happen:
There are two tax-favored models before us: public broadcasting and real estate investment trusts. Some rather simple tax legislation would be required, available solely to newspapers, not to broadcasters or to companies that own both — which incidentally would free these papers to cover the federal government without fear of jeopardizing their corporations’ interests at the Federal Communications Commission. Such special legislation wouldn’t be novel, for Congress long ago recognized the importance of healthy newspapers when it authorized joint operating agreements as an exception to the antitrust laws.
A newspaper company, like a public broadcaster, could be organized as a not-for-profit, tax-exempt corporation. It could still sell papers and advertising, it could still develop new Internet revenues, it would still pay market wages and salaries (or maybe better), it could re-invest in improving its own staff and facilities and operations, it just couldn’t make a profit. And it wouldn’t pay taxes or dividends….
But if the owner is an otherwise-profitable company, a deductible gift might do more for the bottom line than a fire sale. Congress could encourage such donations by allowing the company to deduct the full value of the newspaper as a charitable contribution, creating a special exception to the current ceiling on corporate gift deductibility, which is 10% of taxable income.
Another possible transition from for-profit to not-for-profit might be a buyout and donation by civic-minded wealthy individuals or families, the same folks who give millions to build a new library or a new hospital wing…. Facilitating this, too, would require an amendment to the tax law, to waive for this purpose the 50-percent-of-adjusted-income ceiling for personal tax deductions — just as Congress did for 2005 contributions to Katrina relief, and all other 2005 charitable gifts.
Law enforcement might help in this. When Larry Ellison of Oracle was charged by the state of California with a securities-trading violation, he settled by agreeing to donate $100 million to charity. That would have been enough to buy a good-sized newspaper and donate it to a not-for-profit, maybe even endow it.
Mind you, these are still businesses with considerable margins, albeit margins that will be sure to shrink. And there are plenty of other means of providing news: online, radio, TV, magazines.
And I’ll fret again that newspapers are in the pickle they’re in because they have operated as isolated monopolies. Make them isolated charities or publicly supported utilities and you’ll have disasters.
: Note that the Carlyle Group is, at the same time, looking to buy a hunk of Dunkin Donuts. They’re just cash cows.
: Note also that Knight Ridder’s paper in Akron is running out of pencils. Maybe they should find a few and try selling them on streetcorners. New revenue streams.
I believe that newspapers are and should be businesses, that market pressure is not only good but necessary, for newspapers are all about serving the public and if the public doesn’t want them, well, does that tell you something? The problem is that newspapers became monopolies, which made them fat, sassy, snotty, and lazy. See this very good post by a technologist turned VC who worked at the embattled Knight Ridder about newspapers as mainframes:
The short-form story in the modern history of computing is the deconstruction of the mainframe. Nothing in computing exists today that did not exist in some precursor form back in the original mainframes. The evolution of computing is the continuous unbundling of each of the components, cost reduction and miniaturization, and subsequent empowerment of the user at the point of delivery. Newspapers are Mainframes. The transformational power of the Internet lies in its incessant pressure to unbundle….
The business model of the newspaper is based on two principles – network effects and bundling.
The network effect is the classifieds business. The reason there is only one major newspaper per city, nearly everywhere, is that the classifieds business is a winner-take-all business. This made newspapers ‘natural monopolies.’ The net effect of the natural monopoly was that the competitive pressure for innovation disappeared. How many industries can you name where the product form, features, and delivery has not changed in 75 years? The marketing gene was largely bred out of the industry by becoming local monopolies. Monopolies fail catastrophically because of their inability to respond when the competitive landscape changes dramatically. This is the incumbent’s disadvantage. The very immunity to competition that made newspapers such great businesses also created resistance to market forces.
The bundling is the aggregation of all the varied content to attract and retain the audience. The core premise is you’ll read some content regularly, not necessarily all content….
But the Internet is that ruthless and incessant force for unbundling. Everything is a click away. Search costs are crushed.
Newspapers are Internet victims, but they are far from being the only industry under siege. Newspapers are especially impacted because two of the three main components of their cost structure are obsoleted. Advertising sales moves from traditional ‘push’ to advertiser self-service. All the physical assets of printing and delivery are obsoleted by the shared infrastructure of the Internet. If most of the cost structure goes to zero value, what’s left are news gathering and editing organizations and IT.
I like that: A newspaper is an IBM 360. A blog is an Apple 2. Go read the rest. Then see the post above about people trying to see newspapers as something other than businesses.
Rebecca MacKinnon says that journalism schools need to teach students to be more entrepreneurial. I agree that that’s why I added an entrepreneurial course that I will teach to the curriculum of CUNY’s Graduate School of Journalism (you won’t find it online; it’s new).
The idea is that students need to create a new journalistic product. These could be businesses the students start when they graduate (and because they may have the next Google in mind, this will be the one course I won’t webcast) or a product they could start in an existing media company (because they are all woefully short on R&D) or even a charitable endeavor (but even in this case, they need to show why people would give money to make it work).
American journalism is in crisis. What a wonderful opportunity we now have to rethink the whole industry. The question is: Even if journalism schools do train the future’s journalists to innovate and think outside the box, will today’s news organizations be prepared or willing to take advantage of their fresh ideas?
I find it pleasantly ironic that while some in journalism wish it weren’t a business, others want to train journalists to be better at business. Count me in the second camp and see my other posts on the topic today.