Craigslist founder on journalism

The Los Angeles Times online had an interesting interview with Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, on Tuesday.

In part he said:

"What people seem to want are a few sources of national news overall and then a lot of very local stuff, because now and then we do care about really big issues, and that's important, and for that reason people do want national newspapers in some form. ...

"We also need to see the hyper-local stuff, and I think that's the way many newspapers are going to survive, because, you know, we may not care about what's happening across the country, but we may care about the guy walking his dog in a neighborhood. I guess what we care about is what's happening around us, because we all do live in neighborhoods and communities, and in our culture now, we have this Bowling Alone effect, where we do feel frequently isolated from the people around us. You know, you might live in a big building where you don't know the people around you, or if you live in a neighborhood that's more modest -- no high-rises or whatever -- you may want to get to know the people around, because we do have that need to connect. But, you know, the mechanisms for that don't really exist very well."

Check it out at: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-newmark-ps25-2008nov25,0,902749,full.story

I think he's right, and more and more people are reaching similar conclusions. But the question remains -- what is the money-making template for local news? Subscription services? Online ads? Membership drives similar to PBS?

No one is sure. There will probably be a variety of successes and failures with different models.

Rupert's recipe

From the Associated Press, Nov. 17, 2008:

"Global media magnate Rupert Murdoch says doomsayers who are predicting the Internet will kill off newspapers are 'misguided cynics' who fail to grasp that the online world is potentially a hurge new market of information-hungry consumers."

" 'Unlike the doom and gloomers, I believe that newspapers will reach new heights' in the 21st century, Murdoch said."

This was in a speech the Australian-born media mogul gave for the Australian Broadcast Network, and it sounds like good news. After all, Murdoch has found ways to make money in journalism while many others are losing it. I'm not about to second guess him.

But it isn't immediately clear from the AP story what he means when he talks about newspapers in the 21st century. Murdock is quoted as saying newspapers have the advantage over Internet bloggers and other newcomers because they are more trusted by their readers. But, in another spot, the AP reports, "He said newspapers would have to evolve from the physical item to 'new brands' that are delivered in a variety of ways and are flexible for readers."

Hmm. That doesn't sound so much like the old ink-on-paper formula to me.

There's more:

"I like the look and feel of newsprint as much as anyone," he said. "But our real business isn't printing on dead trees. It's giving our readers great journalism and great judgment."

In other words, good journalism will continue, but it won't be IOP.

Glad to see Mr. Murdoch agrees with me.

It is not just print

It's easy to reach the conclusion that print news is nearly extinct, while online is flourishing. But that's not necessarily the case. This report, from Conde Nast Porfolio.com, is an example:

"Breaking: TheStreet.com Shuts S.F. Office

Today in media layoffs: TheStreet.com is shutting down its entire San Francisco office, effective immediately, according to two sources.

"I think we have a few employees that are going to be contributing to the website still," said one.

I'm waiting to hear back from TheStreet.com's editor, Glenn Hall, for more information on how many people will be let go as a result of the shutdown. Editor in chief David Morrow is already gone for the weekend.

Update: A spokeswoman confirms it, but declines to say how many jobs have been eliminated as a result, or whether San Francisco bureau chief Mike Goodman will be staying with the company; one source says he will.

"We've made the decision to close that office," said the spokeswoman. "But we are nonetheless going to maintain an ad sales presence out there and we expect at least some of the reporters in that office will continue to contribute to our network of sites."

The spokeswoman added that the decision was consistent with the discussion during the company's third-quarter earnings call of the need for belt-tightening measures. "This is really part of an overall effort we talked about and it shouldn't be too surprising given the environment that we're in and the unprecedented times that we're in that we're taking a hard look at our costs."

The Street.com is an online financial mag that's been in biz since 1996. And it's been successful. But that doesn't mean it isn't hurt by the current financial conditions.

Weeklies at risk

Oh, oh. This is not good news.

From a Nov. 12 story in the Hartford Courant:

"The Journal Register Co. has told employees at 11 weekly newspapers in Connecticut that those operations would be closed if a buyer isn't found by Jan. 12."

The story that's been presented for several years now is that the large metro dailies are in trouble for a variety of reasons, but the smaller community papers -- dailies and weeklies -- are actually doing fairly well. They will still be putting ink on paper for years to come, and making money doing so.

Maybe not.

There are some issues particular to the Journal Register that make this case unique. Massive debt and stock prices that are now measured in pennies, according to the Courant story, are part of the problem.

But, when you combine this with some of the difficulties we're seeing with other chains that have focused largely on mid-sized dailies, the story that's been presented doesn't look so good any more.

I think the Internet is coming faster for community journalism than anyone, myself included, had imagined.

Trouble at the Times

This was from Conde Nast: Not very promising news about the future of the old Gray Lady.

NY Times Co. Slashes Retirement Benefits

"If you're thinking about retiring from your job at The New York Times Co., you should probably do it soon.

Tucked inside its latest 10-Q are the Times Co.'s plans to shave tens of millions of dollars from its budget by hacking away at pension and medical benefits for non-union employees. Those who retire on or after March 1, 2009, will no longer receive medical coverage after they turn 65, when they become eligible for Medicare. The Times Co. also said it has decreased the formula for pension benefits.

The changes, adopted Oct. 22, will yield estimated savings of $24 million in 2009."

As someone nearing retirement with another media company, I must say it increases my anxiety level.

Editorial by committee

A camel, it's been said, is a horse created by committee.

Well, an editorial created by committee is likely to be just as ugly.

I suffered through the experience of putting one together last week. I was the original author, but the final product was not my work at all, but an amalgam of four different people -- and their writing styles. We ended up arguing over individual words and commas.

Don't get me wrong, we were all basically on the same page regarding the comment of the editorial. The disputes were over which words to use and which points to make in what order.

I have become more and more convinced over the years that editorials should be one person's voice (edited by others, of course, but the writing style left intact. Last week's experience only reaffirmed that.

This has been a brief aside from my normal worrying about the future of the industry.

Aftermath

The election went far better than I had anticipated, in terms of election irregularities. Those battalions of attorneys that both major political parties reportedly had ready to fight any voting disputes did not have to be deployed. Thank God.

I do believe the media -- both nationally and in many local instances -- went out of their way to try to find evidence of voting problems. This isn't due to any particular partisan leanings, I don't believe, but because of our herd mentality and our tendency to view every event as a continuation or mirror image of the one before. "Hey, there were voting irregularities in 2004 and especially in 2000. There must be some this year. And there must be some in our community, even if that wasn't the case before."

I don't mean to suggest that newsies shouldn't have been out looking to see how well voting went. Reporters absolutely had an obligation to do so. But some of the stories I saw were downright silly. "Long lines threaten election outcome!" or something of that nature.

On election night, I watched mostly CNN -- with a little dash of Fox News -- to get results as I waited to put my paper's editorial page to bed. I think both do a better job than the regular networks, and CNN overall is the best there is at breaking news. But I get a little tired of the gadgetry. Did we really need Wolf Blitzer talking to a faux hologram of a CNN reporter in Chicago?

This, I think, is the dilemma many news organizations face, especially regarding their Web sites but also in terms of regular news.

Gadgets -- new layouts, different ways for customers to view their products, high-tech additions -- may help lure new people to your product. But unless the content is solid, they won't stick around. I went to CNN because I knew the content would be good, not because I wanted to see the latest high-tech gimmicks. Perhaps some viewers tuned in to see what the latest technology was, but I can't imagine anyone who was seriously interested in the election results saying, "I'm watching CNN because they have holograms and those touch-screen maps."

Election Day musings

It's Election Day, and the long national nightmare is nearly over.

I don't mean the Bush administration, although I know plenty of people who feel that way.

I am referring to the presidential campaign itself, which has been operating in some form or another since the day after the 2004 election, and has been a central news item every week for nearly a year. I'm tired of it, and I think many other people are, as well.

It might be more agreeable to me if I could see a direct financial return for my efforts. I told my wife we would be wealthy if only I received a commission from every campaign advertisement that used a few words from one of my editorials. I'm not alone, of course. Editorials from all over the country are quoted in support of, or opposition to, candidates and ballot issues. And what I find truly irksome is that the quoted items come almost entirely from traditional newspapers. But the advertisements themselves -- quoting the newspapers -- are for the most part run on broadcast venues: radio and TV. A few may also be printed on campaign mailers. But the newspapers themselves don't receive a great deal of the advertising revenue from the campaigns.

Which brings up another question that seems to get asked regularly: Why do we bother to do election endorsements?
It's something we have discussed in the opinion-writing classes I've taught at the local college, and one that occasionally gets mentioned at the newspaper, as well.

I saw a news item recently that said a newspaper about the size of the one I work for had decided to stop writing editorials entirely. It will run national and local columnists, but no institutional editorials. Since I didn't write down the precise news source, I won't list the name of the paper.

Perhaps, in an age when most newspapers are seeing declining circulation, the management of the paper believes that by eliminating the editorials it will avoid offending a few more readers and causing them to cancel their subscriptions.

There's something to that. I can't tell you how many people have called or written to say they were canceling their subscriptions because of our editorial position -- particularly with respect to this year's election. We are accused of being both members of the liberal elite media favoring only Democrats and lapdogs for the Republican Party.

I don't know how many of them have actually cancelled their subscriptions. I have noticed that some of those who threatened to do so have been back a few weeks later, responding to articles or editorials that appeared in our paper.

But the flip side of possibly offending readers with editorials is providing them with interesting local content. Our readership surveys have consistently demonstrated that our editorial page is among the most read section of the paper. And, in an age of declining circulation, it seems to me that mid-sized, community dailies such as ours have one primary thing to offer readers -- local content.

They can get the national and world news, weather and many of the food and travel features we offer from thousands of sites on the Internet and from cable television. But we are the only one consistently reporting local news, and commenting on it through our editorials.

And, in the case of political endorsements, we should have done the research and have the insight to provide readers with a sound analysis of which candidates we think will best serve our communities, which ballot issues are good and which are not.
It certainly doesn't mean readers will follow our recommendations, but it at least gives them some information.

This year, we printed our recap of all of our editorial endorsements twice -- once the day before early voting began and again yesterday. The reason is we received calls and comments from quite a number of readers, wanting to know what all our endorsements are before they filled out their ballots. They may not agree with us on everything, but they want to know where we stand.

That's reason enough, as far as I'm concerned, to continue doing political endorsements.

CSM goes online only

Should have mentioned this in my first post. Beginning in April of next year, The Christian Science Monitor will no longer have a daily print edition. There will be a weekly print edition available, but all daily content will be posted on the Web site, csmonitor.com.

Here's a portion of the Oct. 28 news story from the csmonitor.com Web site:

"While the Monitor's print circulation, which is primarily delivered by US mail, has trended downward for nearly 40 years, "looking forward, the Monitor's Web readership clearly shows promise," said Judy Wolff, chairman of the Board of Trustees of The Christian Science Publishing Society. "We plan to take advantage of the Internet in order to deliver the Monitor's journalism more quickly, to improve the Monitor's timeliness and relevance, and to increase revenue and reduce costs. We can do this by changing the way the Monitor reaches its readers."

The Monitor, of course, is not a typical big-city daily. It is a national daily, a non-profit underwritten by a church. It has never had the sorts of kids-on-bicycles home delivery that most daily newspapers have had. It depends on mail subscriptions, which means it takes it even longer to get its news in the hands of readers.

In that respect, it's shift to on-line for its daily product is a result of different calculations than most dailies will make. Even so, it is probably a harbinger of things to come for much of the industry.

Newspapers in decline

Bad news for the Watergate flagship.

Below is the first paragraph of a story in the Washington Post today. Depressing for those of us in the industry.

"The Washington Post Co. today reported an 86 percent decline in third-quarter earnings compared with the same period last year, as a significant loss at the flagship newspaper offset gains at the company's education and cable divisions."


I wasn't really planning to make my first post a report on the sad state of the industry, but as I was scrolling through my favorite Internet news sites just prior to creating this blog, the Washington Post story caught my eye.

The Post is not alone, of course. Everyone who pays any attention to the industry knows how things are going, from The New York Times to the LA Times and virtually every major metro in between.

I work for a mid-sized daily, which is still very profitable and actually growing circulation modestly. The large company that owns it has been good to its employees, and I'm happy to have worked it for much of my career. But the newspaper is now for sale, as are many other mid-sized papers in this country, according to an industry trade article I read just last week. The profitable papers are often sold to help pay off other debts or because the large companies that were once heavily into newspapers are looking more and more at other things. Take a look at the last part of the graph from the Post story. The losses in the newspaper division "offset gains at the company's education and cable divisions." Obviously, the money is no longer in applying ink to newsprint.

I'm posting this on a blog on the Internet because I believe the future is more and more on the Internet. But, for a long time, I also believed that much better informed minds than mine in the journalism industry were busily figuring out how to make Internet journalism work as a profitable venture. While I'm sure many suits in corporate board rooms have been and are still trying to figure it out, I no longer have much confidence they will find the magic bullet -- the ultimately successful formula. I now believe that it will be more a bottom-up discovery. Some 21st Century Ben Franklin -- or perhaps hundreds of them -- will find unique equations for dispersing news over the net and making money from it.

But what will that mean for journalism as we've come to know it? I don't know for sure, but I think it will change considerably. It already is.

More later.