Tim Sprinkle

BBC: New Journalism Model on the Horizon

BBC's Andrew Marr followed up his discussion on the future of news over the weekend. No time to comment in depth, but suffice it to say that a renewed focus on aggressive, in-depth reporting (instead of the light, one-off copy that clogs most of the web these days) would be great news for the profession.

Most Journalists Expect Their Print Pubs to Eventually Fold

Well, this is grim.

Journalists appear to be reaching an equilibrium of sorts between print and digital media – an “equilibrium of sorts” because it appears the scales are tipped heavily in favor of going digital. According to a recent report by Oriella PR Network, journalists see their offline publications as risky endeavors in the current economy, with over half of those surveyed predicting the demise of their print, publication or TV media sometime in the future.

According to the Oriella Digital Journalism Report, journalists’ attitudes towards the current state of the media is rather bleak. In addition to over half of them predicting the downfall of their offline publications, one quarter believes that media in general, whether on- or off-line, will shrink significantly.

I don't have any more answers on this than anyone else. I don't see online ad revenues coming anywhere close to print revenues anytime soon, and it's just a matter of time before print operations price themselves out of the market. Fingers cross for an ad spending resurgence.

In Online News, Burnout Starts Younger

News has always been a high pressure business, but I can see how 24-hour deadlines would add a little something extra to the mix. Via The New York Times:

Such is the state of the media business these days: frantic and fatigued. Young journalists who once dreamed of trotting the globe in pursuit of a story are instead shackled to their computers, where they try to eke out a fresh thought or be first to report even the smallest nugget of news — anything that will impress Google algorithms and draw readers their way.

Tracking how many people view articles, and then rewarding — or shaming — writers based on those results has become increasingly common in old and new media newsrooms. The Christian Science Monitor now sends a daily e-mail message to its staff that lists the number of page views for each article on the paper’s Web site that day.

The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times all display a “most viewed” list on their home pages. Some media outlets, including Bloomberg News and Gawker Media, now pay writers based in part on how many readers click on their articles.

Once only wire-service journalists had their output measured this way. And in a media environment crowded with virtual content farms where no detail is too small to report as long as it was reported there first, Politico stands out for its frenetic pace or, in the euphemism preferred by its editors, “high metabolism.”

What do we think? Is this sustainable? Will this just contribute to the use of "content mills" to fill the gaps? (I don't think that's an option at Politico, by the way, since it is so focused on exclusive news. But at some point the online new cycle is going to need a release valve. I guess that's what turnover is for.)

Citizen Journalism: Another Look

Returning to the discussion of citizen journalism from last week, PBS' Mediashift on Monday began an interesting series exploring the growing business of "content farms."

As traditional news outlets continue to lay off journalists, a new generation of companies is betting big on online content. Their approaches differ significantly, but are all built on the common premise that for online content to be profitable, it has to be produced at a truly massive scale. The proliferation of these so-called "content farms" -- a name the companies predictably dislike -- has raised the ire of journalists and pundits alike.

Jason Fry took the debate a step further, arguing that the real victims of the content farm model are not journalists (who are simply falling victim to the law of supply and demand) but Internet users, who will eventually be faced with wave after wave of less-than-quality content.

I don’t think what Demand and its ilk do is “evil” — “unfortunate” is a better word. And my concern isn’t that companies like Demand and Associated Content will drive down writers’ salaries or that the compensation built into their model is “too low,” whatever “too low” means. That’s unfortunate, sure, but it’s just the pitiless economics of supply and demand at work — there would have been some other actor if Demand had never existed. Rather, what bugs me is the quality of the stuff these companies produce, and what it does to search. (See Daniel Roth’s Wired article for a deeper exploration of that.)

I have to agree with Fry on this one. Content farms are a bummer, especially for writers just starting out, but the market for short, punchy pieces online was never a terribly lucrative one anyway, so it's not like the real pros are missing out. If these shops eliminate the $50 story market, so be it. I'm convinced that there will always be outlets for thoughtful, well-researched journalism, even online.

The economics of replacing Larry King

Ken Doctor explains CNN's latest conundrum: hiring a replacement for Larry King.

Turns out, the real question isn't how the cable news net can replicate King's long-running success (though it has been waning lately) but whether or not they should actually want to. The web is where the real money is, after all.

Yet the changing economics of CNN’s basic business model prompt lots of questions about ways CNN could go — as well as offering print- and broadcast-based news companies some pointers on their own business model development.

Let’s recall that CNN is a tale of two modern stories. Its flagship cable news station has been flagging badly, having fallen to a #4 position in cable news behind Fox, MSNBC, and its own Headline News Network (HLN), tabloid TV without tabloid wit. CNN is cool and confused in an age of hot and pointed.

Online, though, CNN has built a formidable business. It ranks at or near the top of the top news sites, excels at user-gen news content and offers one of the few paid news apps.

It’s a tale of two business units going opposite directions.

User Comments on News Sites: Burden or Benefit?

CNN takes on the increasingly sensitive subject of user comments on news site. You know, those nasty posts that often take up more space than they should on local news outlets' web sites.

Looks like some papers are taking a stand are are cutting off the flow, which is something that the New York Times and other big outlets have been doing for a while. Is this a free speech issue?

(CNN) -- User comments on news sites, while vital to interactive storytelling in the digital age, often read like scribblings on a bathroom stall: anonymous, offensive and full of hate.

"I hate what you people, and by that I mean the blacks, are doing to this city," wrote one Buffalo News reader last month in response to a story about a local shooting. "Each area you move too [sic] quickly becomes over run [sic] with crime, loud music [at] all hours, adults swearing and screaming at kids, children playing in the street, porches with beer and garbage thrown all around."

Rants like this one prompted the Buffalo, New York, newspaper to discontinue anonymous user comments on its website as of August 2. Commenters will be required to register with their name, city of residence and phone number -- more information than most news sites require -- and staffers will attempt to verify their identities.

"It is the ability to remain anonymous that encourages people to say whatever they want [online] ... when people are required to give their names, our thinking is that they'll think twice," said news editor Margaret Sullivan, who added that vetting commenters will be a "challenging" task. "There might be people who slip through the cracks."

Like those bathroom-stall messages, online comments on news stories can be difficult to police. For years, many publications have tried to strike a balance between encouraging open communication among readers and maintaining civil discourse. But a few sites, fed up with rude or inflammatory comments, are taking bold new steps to raise the level of dialogue.