DO niche publications - the ones with titles such as Payroll and Human Resources, Process Engineering, Air Cargo News and Parliamentary Monitor - hold the key to the future? The growth and success of business-to-business magazines, newsletters, online bulletins and databases, alongside more widely read niche publications such as the Economist and Financial Times, is among the most striking features of the media landscape over the past 20 years. Though many are struggling in the recession, they are expected to weather it better than most mainstream media. People will still pay for authoritative specialist information and advertisers will also pay to reach those who are reading it.
But a fascinating new report from the Pew Research Center in Washington, DC, suggests that the rise of such publications has unwelcome implications. Most of their subscribers are members of professional elites. And in the US, at least, they are gradually taking over the coverage of politics. Press coverage is being remoulded to serve an elite that will pay a premium price to keep tabs on how politicians and civil servants are affecting elite interests. News of how democratic institutions work is being segmented and privatised. And this process began 20 years ago, long before the recession and even before the growth of the internet.
Pew identifies newsletters, trade publications and specialist magazines, many of them online only, with such titles as ClimateWire, Energy Trader, Traffic World, and Food Chemical News, and finds that the number with Washington reporting teams has risen by roughly a third since 1985 and by a fifth in the past four years. For instance, ClimateWire, which covers the growing policy debate on climate change and charges $3,495 for an annual subscription, has more than twice as many reporters on Capitol Hill as Hearst, which runs 16 dailies. The biggest and best-known niche media organisation is Bloomberg News, with 275,000 clients worldwide and nearly as many Washington reporters as Associated Press and, in London, three reporters accredited as parliamentary lobby correspondents.
As Pew points out, mainstream media journalists once looked down on such publications as "boring and peripheral" and their reporters aspired to jobs on "proper" newspapers and magazines. Now, many journalists see niche publications as havens of relative security.
Not all such publications serve corporate customers. Mother Jones, a lefty, non-profit magazine from San Francisco that promises "hell-raising", has seven reporters in Washington - only one fewer than Time magazine - where a decade ago it had none. But the general media trend is clear. About half the news generated in Washington - concerning federal agencies and government departments, as well as Congress - is no longer aimed at the mass of voters, but at narrow lobbying interests, many of them the sources of politicians' campaign funds. As one journalist said to Pew, lobbyists will know more about what the senator for Alabama is up to - and be in a better position to influence his vote - than the people of Alabama. If this is the future, western politics will, in effect, return to the early 19th century, before the advent of mass circulation papers, mass literacy and the extension of the franchise.
What does this mean for the British press? Our media, politics and, crucially, geography are quite different from America's and it is not possible to identify a precisely parallel shift in coverage of Westminster and Whitehall. But the withdrawal of much of the mainstream press from detailed and serious coverage of public policy - as opposed to Westminster drama and scandal - is widely commented upon. This applies particularly to the immensely important European institutions that now account for nearly a third of all the legislation and regulation that affect Britain. To get any sense of what is emerging from Brussels, one has to find specialist publications on, for example, accounting, energy, engineering and the food industry. The FT is rightly admired for its comprehensive and authoritative reporting of public policy. But its paid-for circulation in the UK is less than 100,000. It will never be read beyond a small elite. Commentators frequently lament how British politicians are swayed by the Mail and Sun. It would be far worse if our rulers cared only what the FT said or if the FT and publications like it were alone in paying attention to how we are governed.
The future for mainstream newspapers may lie in finding niche markets that they can themselves exploit. There is no obvious reason why reporting teams dedicated to producing material for elite specialist audiences on, say, banking, climate change, energy policy, or food shouldn't also provide coverage of such issues for a more general readership. As Pew's Tom Rosenstiel puts it, niche publications tend to cover trees, not forests, and therefore don't provide the big exposés. But there is nothing to stop imaginative publishers and editors from bringing the trees together.
A Liddle bit of respect, please
Rod Liddle, the Sunday Times columnist, is entitled to his opinions on New Labour ministers. I wouldn't claim to be a fan myself, and I am all in favour of well-directed political abuse. But can somebody explain to me what is supposed to be funny about the regular personal insults Liddle throws at Labour women? Last November, he described Dawn Primarolo as "a shovel-faced termagant". More recently, he stated that "Harriet Harman will never become party leader, because she has a face like an empty pie-case in which the pastry has not been sufficiently pricked." (There's more of that one, but I won't bother you with it.) In the same column, under a picture of a Chinese man carrying a giant rat, Liddle observed it (the rat) was "the size and shape of Tessa Jowell" and explained that, though they do eat such creatures, the Chinese "prefer them smaller - the size and shape of Hazel Blears at most".
All these comments seem gratuitous and childish to me. No doubt Liddle will dismiss my concerns as those of an ageing, politically correct lickspittle, trying to ingratiate myself with Guardian wimmin. Either he needs psychiatric help or I do.
Cope or dope?
The Daily Telegraph ran yet another series last week about the plight of "the coping classes", which it invented last year. These comprise well-heeled middle-class folk who have been hit by rising food and fuel bills (unlike the rest of us, of course). Now, we learn, they are no longer coping. "We've sacked our cleaners, we're exercising our own pets," writes Judith Woods. "We" are naturally wondering how "we" can keep up the school fees and afford a nanny. It has all come as a rude surprise: "we" didn't think house prices could ever fall. Sounds more like the stupid classes to me.
Source: Guardian.co.uk
Showing posts with label market. Show all posts
Showing posts with label market. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Markets have killed the daily newspaper. Let's get creative about the future of journalism
THERE has been considerable energy spent on industry blogs in recent weeks debating questions that were, in my view, resolved a long time ago. That it is taking some so long to speak honestly to our problems is either testament to our industry’s notorious, self-focused blindness or confirmation that too many industry leaders were constrained from speaking their minds — speaking their truth — because of their jobs, their bosses, their bonuses or simple reticence to step out in front.
My take, for what it is worth:
1. Our industry’s central debate ought not to be about saving newspapers and, in fact, that hasn’t even been an open question for some time. The American newspaper as we have come to know it in the post-war era is not going to survive. I said this at a Washington State University symposium four years ago and was widely attacked for my pessimism, particularly within my own newsroom. But folks, this isn’t pessimism, it is reality. Don’t misunderstand me. News and information will be distributed in print for decades to come. But the contemporary mass-market American newspaper familiar to generations of Americans, is — OK, I’ll say it — already dead.
The shadows of once-great community papers carry on at one level or another. But they are shades. Too many industry pundits, focused on the big-5 or even the big-10, continue to think of the American newspaper industry in terms of the giants. Even as they suffer their own declines, their pain is as nothing compared to what we’re seeing outside the Northeast.
This isn’t about the Post or the Times or the Journal. The tragedies of which I speak are taking place in Wichita, Spokane, Seattle, Denver, San Jose, Tucson, and countless other communities. I am not suggesting great journalism is dead in those places. Nor am I suggesting papers are dead, at least as credible businesses.
And good journalists carry on. They continue to do good work, to fulfill their obligations to citizens and community. But we must be honest. How can we suggest a newspaper is fulfilling its fundamental responsibilities to a community when there is, for example, one education reporter instead of four, one statehouse reporter instead of three, one public safety reporter instead of two. Publishers will say it’s not about the numbers. Bullshit. When it comes to journalism that serves community, it is all about numbers.
One good reporter can do a good job covering some aspects of a state legislature. But one good reporter simply cannot do the work of three. Something is going to be uncovered, unreported. And it will be something important.
Publishers who continue to argue their papers are strong despite massive cuts in newsroom staff, are twisting the truth in order to save their businesses. They talk about the migration to niche products, to smaller, leaner papers and efficient websites. Saving journalism isn’t part of their agenda. To be fair, especially in the current marketplace, they can’t save both. They always will default to the money side, they have no choice. So a niche website devoted to golf may generate revenue for the business. But it will not serve citizens who rely on journalists to reveal civic truths.
2. Did the industry make a mistake giving away for free on the web content generated for a profit in print? I don’t know if it was a mistake or not. It really doesn’t matter anymore.
I was an advocate of a web pay model in Spokane, a model we adopted. But it didn’t do anything for us and so I began to argue for a free model. But, to be honest, that wouldn’t have changed anything.
The pay-no-pay issue already has been resolved by consumers. Readers will not pay for online news content provided by traditional mass-market news organizations. I doubt they will pay for it from non-traditional sources, either, but that question remains open for now. For traditional newspapers, the genie is out of the bottle. No organization can hold on to its information long enough to make it a viable commercial commodity in the digital world. Once published anywhere or in any way, the information is out there, for free, for everyone.
I’m amused by those who suggest the problem is the quality of the web content. Better journalism, indispensable journalism that people simply must consume, will generate revenue, it is argued.
Sorry. Spend some time cruising the nation’s best newspaper web sites. The critical, indispensable journalism is there. In many cases, it is better written, better researched, better presented and more relevant than ever before, although there isn’t enough of it. And it isn’t selling. The problem isn’t the content, it’s the medium. The Internet is a free medium. That’s it. And that is why traditional mass-market newspapers have failed in their efforts to successfully transfer their print business model to the Internet.
3. If there is any good news in the inability of publishers to properly fund and supply content for existing websites, it is this: The “traditional” Internet newspaper is as doomed as the mass-market print variety. The era of the newspaper website designed for a desktop computer is passing and fast. The future, for the short-term anyway, is in mobility.
Not only do people want their information for free, they want it right now, wherever they might be and from whatever source they can tap. Oh, did I say this already, they want mobile news for free, too.
One of the things I’ve learned quickly working on a college campus is the insane futility of the “traditional” web model. Old farts of my generation may hold on to their desktops or their laptops. But the rest of the world is trying to figure out how to install information aps on their 3G phones. They are experimenting with the Kindle. They are waiting for the portable, roll-up flat panel.
I have heard from any number of publishers who say they are just hanging on to their businesses for now so that when the economy turns, they can come back and reinvest in their papers, rebuild gutted web operations.
They will be too late to recapture their markets. They need to be investing right now in mobile information platforms that will be the mass-market tool for the near-term future.
4. All of which really brings us back to the core question: How do we save the qualities and values of newspaper journalism when the businesses that have supported it are losing their grip on the future, selling their future for a few more years of business survival?
This is where industry debate is most helpful and most needed.
I have argued before for multi-platform newsrooms that generate revenue from a variety of different streams that, collectively, might help support those newsrooms. Let’s find the newsrooms where multi-platform innovation is possible and argue about ways to support that innovation.
Partnerships between newspapers to share content are good short-term steps and they are growing. But the partnerships that would help more would involve same-market newspapers, radio and television outlets. Newsrooms could become news wholesalers rather than retailers, producing content for all available media in any market and charging the providers rather than or in addition to consumers.
I believe partnerships between professionals and academics hold promise. Programs that blend professionals with academics and students in an “institute” environment could bring quality journalism built around select topics to select geographic or interest communities. Could an institute for legislative journalism hosted by a major university and utilizing professional and academic resources produce quality legislative coverage for a state? Sure. Are their ethical issues? Probably. Are they any worse than the ethical dilemmas posed by profit-desperate publishers trading legislative reporters for yellow-page salesmen? No. We can figure this out.
I believe there will be a place for low-overhead news products, mostly digital, produced by a small number of like-minded community journalists who will derive a livable wage from voluntary consumer support, from grants and low-overhead advertising. Turn-key (and free) digital platforms that do for online publishing what Blogger did for blogging will happen. Such platforms might make it possible for half-a-dozen laid off Silicon Valley reporters, for example, to combine to produce a mut-read Silicon Valley report without having to worry about buildings, distribution, IT experts or ad sales staff.
Even without such platforms, it may be possible for a single journalist, operating on her own, to cover a legislature somewhere in a format as crude as a newsletter or pamphlet and generate enough from her efforts to make a modest living.
The market — and panicked publishers — are killing, have killed, the traditional mass-market newspaper. But they ought not to be allowed to kill the vital public-service journalism that serves citizens. It’s time to stop debating the obvious. It’s time for journalists to take back the debate and save themselves.
Source:reclaimthemedia
My take, for what it is worth:
1. Our industry’s central debate ought not to be about saving newspapers and, in fact, that hasn’t even been an open question for some time. The American newspaper as we have come to know it in the post-war era is not going to survive. I said this at a Washington State University symposium four years ago and was widely attacked for my pessimism, particularly within my own newsroom. But folks, this isn’t pessimism, it is reality. Don’t misunderstand me. News and information will be distributed in print for decades to come. But the contemporary mass-market American newspaper familiar to generations of Americans, is — OK, I’ll say it — already dead.
The shadows of once-great community papers carry on at one level or another. But they are shades. Too many industry pundits, focused on the big-5 or even the big-10, continue to think of the American newspaper industry in terms of the giants. Even as they suffer their own declines, their pain is as nothing compared to what we’re seeing outside the Northeast.
This isn’t about the Post or the Times or the Journal. The tragedies of which I speak are taking place in Wichita, Spokane, Seattle, Denver, San Jose, Tucson, and countless other communities. I am not suggesting great journalism is dead in those places. Nor am I suggesting papers are dead, at least as credible businesses.
And good journalists carry on. They continue to do good work, to fulfill their obligations to citizens and community. But we must be honest. How can we suggest a newspaper is fulfilling its fundamental responsibilities to a community when there is, for example, one education reporter instead of four, one statehouse reporter instead of three, one public safety reporter instead of two. Publishers will say it’s not about the numbers. Bullshit. When it comes to journalism that serves community, it is all about numbers.
One good reporter can do a good job covering some aspects of a state legislature. But one good reporter simply cannot do the work of three. Something is going to be uncovered, unreported. And it will be something important.
Publishers who continue to argue their papers are strong despite massive cuts in newsroom staff, are twisting the truth in order to save their businesses. They talk about the migration to niche products, to smaller, leaner papers and efficient websites. Saving journalism isn’t part of their agenda. To be fair, especially in the current marketplace, they can’t save both. They always will default to the money side, they have no choice. So a niche website devoted to golf may generate revenue for the business. But it will not serve citizens who rely on journalists to reveal civic truths.
2. Did the industry make a mistake giving away for free on the web content generated for a profit in print? I don’t know if it was a mistake or not. It really doesn’t matter anymore.
I was an advocate of a web pay model in Spokane, a model we adopted. But it didn’t do anything for us and so I began to argue for a free model. But, to be honest, that wouldn’t have changed anything.
The pay-no-pay issue already has been resolved by consumers. Readers will not pay for online news content provided by traditional mass-market news organizations. I doubt they will pay for it from non-traditional sources, either, but that question remains open for now. For traditional newspapers, the genie is out of the bottle. No organization can hold on to its information long enough to make it a viable commercial commodity in the digital world. Once published anywhere or in any way, the information is out there, for free, for everyone.
I’m amused by those who suggest the problem is the quality of the web content. Better journalism, indispensable journalism that people simply must consume, will generate revenue, it is argued.
Sorry. Spend some time cruising the nation’s best newspaper web sites. The critical, indispensable journalism is there. In many cases, it is better written, better researched, better presented and more relevant than ever before, although there isn’t enough of it. And it isn’t selling. The problem isn’t the content, it’s the medium. The Internet is a free medium. That’s it. And that is why traditional mass-market newspapers have failed in their efforts to successfully transfer their print business model to the Internet.
3. If there is any good news in the inability of publishers to properly fund and supply content for existing websites, it is this: The “traditional” Internet newspaper is as doomed as the mass-market print variety. The era of the newspaper website designed for a desktop computer is passing and fast. The future, for the short-term anyway, is in mobility.
Not only do people want their information for free, they want it right now, wherever they might be and from whatever source they can tap. Oh, did I say this already, they want mobile news for free, too.
One of the things I’ve learned quickly working on a college campus is the insane futility of the “traditional” web model. Old farts of my generation may hold on to their desktops or their laptops. But the rest of the world is trying to figure out how to install information aps on their 3G phones. They are experimenting with the Kindle. They are waiting for the portable, roll-up flat panel.
I have heard from any number of publishers who say they are just hanging on to their businesses for now so that when the economy turns, they can come back and reinvest in their papers, rebuild gutted web operations.
They will be too late to recapture their markets. They need to be investing right now in mobile information platforms that will be the mass-market tool for the near-term future.
4. All of which really brings us back to the core question: How do we save the qualities and values of newspaper journalism when the businesses that have supported it are losing their grip on the future, selling their future for a few more years of business survival?
This is where industry debate is most helpful and most needed.
I have argued before for multi-platform newsrooms that generate revenue from a variety of different streams that, collectively, might help support those newsrooms. Let’s find the newsrooms where multi-platform innovation is possible and argue about ways to support that innovation.
Partnerships between newspapers to share content are good short-term steps and they are growing. But the partnerships that would help more would involve same-market newspapers, radio and television outlets. Newsrooms could become news wholesalers rather than retailers, producing content for all available media in any market and charging the providers rather than or in addition to consumers.
I believe partnerships between professionals and academics hold promise. Programs that blend professionals with academics and students in an “institute” environment could bring quality journalism built around select topics to select geographic or interest communities. Could an institute for legislative journalism hosted by a major university and utilizing professional and academic resources produce quality legislative coverage for a state? Sure. Are their ethical issues? Probably. Are they any worse than the ethical dilemmas posed by profit-desperate publishers trading legislative reporters for yellow-page salesmen? No. We can figure this out.
I believe there will be a place for low-overhead news products, mostly digital, produced by a small number of like-minded community journalists who will derive a livable wage from voluntary consumer support, from grants and low-overhead advertising. Turn-key (and free) digital platforms that do for online publishing what Blogger did for blogging will happen. Such platforms might make it possible for half-a-dozen laid off Silicon Valley reporters, for example, to combine to produce a mut-read Silicon Valley report without having to worry about buildings, distribution, IT experts or ad sales staff.
Even without such platforms, it may be possible for a single journalist, operating on her own, to cover a legislature somewhere in a format as crude as a newsletter or pamphlet and generate enough from her efforts to make a modest living.
The market — and panicked publishers — are killing, have killed, the traditional mass-market newspaper. But they ought not to be allowed to kill the vital public-service journalism that serves citizens. It’s time to stop debating the obvious. It’s time for journalists to take back the debate and save themselves.
Source:reclaimthemedia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
