Archive for the 'Media' category
Two Takes on the Future of Newspapers
February 1, 2008 1:52 pmThere’s no question that the business of newspapers (while never easy) has become particularly difficult in the last decade. The questions come over the reasons for the difficulty and the best response to the troubles in the industry. This week we’ve seen two different responses — one that I think could be helpful as we try to move forward, and one that pretty well encapsulates the attitudes that are leading us deeper into troubled times.
Jon Talton has written a serious and meaningful indictment of newspaper management in the current era. I saw many of the same problems he discusses, though mine were seen at magazines rather than newspapers. In too many cases, tech-phobic managers tried to block the technological forces of change rather than use them to deliver great content to the readers. Even more damning, too many publishers used a decline in readership as an excuse to abandon the existing reader base, rather than trying to build on reader loyalty to find new ways to grow.
The kind of inward-looking, defensive attitudes that Talton rails against are on display in Roy Peter Clark’s Poynter column on why the readers are wrong. I have listened to fellow journalists run through the arguments that Clark makes, and every one rings hollow, blaming our readers for not properly understanding our purity and greatness when we are the ones who claim to be professional communicators. If the public in large numbers say that they see bias in our coverage, then the proper response isn’t to claim that the majority of the population is unable to properly read for meaning, but to apply the same sort of rigorous scrutiny to our pages that we claim to apply to government, business, sports, and the other societal structures that we cover.
I firmly believe that the public isn’t falling away from newspapers because they no longer read, but because we’re no longer giving them stories that they want and need to read. Our readers aren’t fixated on celebrity twaddle because they’re shallow, but because we as an industry have offered them little else. Let’s stop pretending that our highest calling as journalists involves looking back at a "Golden Era" of limited competition for reader attention. Society needs the stories we’re able to tell, and deserves a press that looks at itself as honestly as we claim to look at them.
How to Pay Journalists
January 8, 2008 3:25 pmThere’s been a recent surge in interest on the question of how journalists should be paid. Is it right, for example, to base all or part of a journalist’s compensation on the number of readers the journalist attracts? The passion is great on this one, and there are reasoned arguments to be made on both sides. I, of course, believe that one side is both reasonable and right, and I’m pleased to see some other folks coming around to the arguments I’ve made.
Back in the early 1990s, before the World Wide Web had become a platform available to more than a relative handful of researchers, I argued to publishers that columnists, writers, and on-line hosts (as we sometimes called the folks who kept the pot stirred in our on-line reader forums) should have at least a portion of their compensation based on the number of readers they attracted. I was actually a bit more crass than that: I said that a portion of ad revenue (based then, as now, on the number of eyeballs seeing the ads) should be paid to the content creators. This "commission" would give them incentive to do more and better work, and would be a fixed portion of revenue, so the publisher could create more accurate budgets. I thought then, and think now, that it’s a great idea for everyone concerned. Of a certainty, a baseline payment should be made "for professional services", but as the audience responds and the publisher flourishes, then the journalist/writer/columnist should flourish, too.
The most common counter-argument I heard from publishers was that my ideas wouldn’t work because journalists didn’t care about money. As a journalists who enjoys the warm feeling that comes from writing a non-bouncing check to the mortgage company, I disagreed. Journalists may well be motivated by factors that can’t be put into a bank savings account, but that doesn’t mean we don’t care about money. What I’ve come to understand in the decade and a half since I floated the original idea, is that there are some journalists who don’t like the idea of being measured or evaluated in any way. For these folks, the idea of having something as concrete as money attached to their work is horrifying. For many other journalists, the idea that practicing better journalism could result in a healthier bank account has a great deal of merit.
In the New Era of journalism, some folks "get it" and thrive by tying readership to compensation. Though a commentator more than a journalist, Glenn Reynolds has made the new model work for him when he calls attention to journalist’s compensation in a recent post. Other’s like Michael Yon, base their journalism almost entirely on direct support from readers.
I think that the principles of Nick Denton’s new compensation plan are spot on: a base salary for regular work with a bonus based on how many people read it. Journalists like Lucas Grindley see this pretty much the same way I do: it’s a model that leads to everyone on the publication team prospering through the success of the publication. Other journalists, like Jack D. Lail, see the issue through a similar lens — one that ties compensation to the journalist’s value to the publication.
Today, the arguments against this sort of compensation ultimately boil down to "It will lead to pandering." If, by "pandering", you mean telling stories that interest and benefit the reader in an active, compelling manner, then I’m all for it. If, on the other hand, you mean chewing over cold celebrity stories with rancid titillation thrown in for flavor, then I suggest that you’re part of journalism’s problem. The idea that the only two possibilities are "good for you" pieces that no one really wants to read or celebrity trash is poisonous to the health of real journalism. I believe that people are no less interested in solid, meaningful stories than they ever were — they’re just tired of having them wrapped in bad prose and preachy tones. Tell a good, honest story in a lively, engaging way and people will read it — and they’ll prefer it to the latest crap about who couldn’t find the underwear drawer on the way out of the house.
I hope the new model for compensation will take hold because I honestly believe it will encourage good writers to become good journalists. We need good journalists — it’s the same old way of doing things that we can do without.
Yet Another Tool for Blogging
October 11, 2007 10:32 pmMy friend Brian Chee pointed me at Microsoft LiveWriter a while back, but I had trouble getting the software to work with the blog here. Now, it’s working, and I have to say that it’s pretty slick. It’s even nicer than ScribeFire, the FireFox extension I’ve been using for some time.
I’ll be using LiveWriter to update my student blog, and I’ll be creating some photo pages here in the near future. LiveWriter should make building the blog and those pages much easier — and I’ll just have to live with having to say nice things about another Microsoft product.
Back to the Blogging, Again
September 20, 2007 11:21 amNotes on a Wednesday Evening
September 5, 2007 9:40 pmWhither Journalism Education?
August 31, 2007 3:33 pmA New Gig
August 27, 2007 8:49 amBetter Photos
August 26, 2007 11:29 pmThe Big Day
August 23, 2007 7:13 amOK, the big day is here…I get to sit in a university classroom as a student for the first time in 24 years. I’ll be blogging about the experience of working on graduate degrees in mass communications, with (I hope) special attention on the tools and technologies involved.
Last week was orientation, and I learned a number of interesting things. Among them:
There are over 10,150 graduate students at the University of Florida
Of those, 10,000+ students, 7 are entering the master’s program in journalism.
A number of people have asked why I’m doing this, and the simplest answer is that I’d like to be able to teach at the college level. I’ve always enjoyed working with young writers, and I believe I could help people become better journalists. There are other reasons, of course, and one of them is that this is a very exciting time to be a journalist. Heaven knows there are stories begging to be told, and the ways they can be told keep expanding. I’m fascinated by the “class warfare” that’s broken out between those who blog and those who don’t (I suspect you can tell which side I’m on), and would like to help figure out ways to keep everyone who commits journalism on the same side. Jay Rosen’s piece in the L.A. Times has good examples of the good work bloggers can do–we just need much more of the good work.
There will be more later in the day…this is going to be quite the adventure.
Technorati Tags: journalism, university, graduate, blog
Another Great List
July 23, 2007 4:29 pmIf you’re into graphics (and if you’re working on the web, you need to be into graphics) then the list of resources Snap2Object has put together in this post will be useful. You’ll find everything from libraries of company logos to tutorials, and most will be helpful, especially if you’re not a professional art director. Highly recommended reading.
