Newspaper asks readers: 'What would you cut?'

A regional daily newspaper is asking its readers which items of wasteful public spending they would cut as the Chancellor prepares to reveal where the government's axe will fall.
The Belfast Telegraph is calling on its readers to help it expose where taxpayers' money is not being well spent.
It launched its 'War on Waste' campaign ahead of the government's spending review, which is due to be unveiled by Chancellor George Osborne in a Commons statement today.
The paper has started the campaign to ensure public organisations spend every pound of taxpayers' money well and will report on examples of waste highlighted by readers.
Editor Mike Gilson said: "The cutbacks are highly likely to affect everybody in some way. We need to keep pushing the case for adequate funding for Northern Ireland, while at the same time making sure that savings are made in the right places.
"That is why we have launched War on Waste. We all know of anecdotal evidence of wasteful and inefficient practices.
"We are not interested in lambasting public bodies. It is very much in the interests of employees themselves to stamp out waste."
The Telegraph is inviting public sector employees, as well as those in the private sector, to blow the whistle on wasteful practices with an online form, which can be anonymous.
Chancellor George Osborne is due to announce later today where the government will make major public sector cuts to tackle the deficit under the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Source: holdthefrontpage.co.uk

Readers in a dilemma: newspapers or untrustworthy Internet?

Based on a recent report of research carried out by the Center for the Digital Future at University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism, consumers seem not to be sure of their preferences.
Only 56% of Internet users ranked newspapers as an important source of information, with an even lower 29% viewing papers as a source of entertainment. 18% withdrew their newspaper subscriptions because "they now get the same or related content online."
When asked what they would do if the print edition of their newspaper stopped, a significant 59% said they would go with the online edition, 37% said they would move on to the print edition of another newspaper, and 22% admitted that they would not miss the print edition of their paper.
With the above statistics, it is somewhat surprising that 61% of these same users find "only half or less of online information is reliable," with 14% believing that "only a small portion or none of the information online is reliable." Only 46% have some degree trust in the Internet, with 9% having no trust whatsoever.
In a twist previously explored by Sfnblog, 49% of internet users admitted to using sites such as Twitter, with only 0% willing to pay for the service. "Online providers face major challenges to get customers to pay for services they now receive for free," said Jeffrey I. Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future.
"Where are people going to find news and information they trust, in a world with a dwindling number of print publications and an ever-expanding number of online publications?" Claire Cain Miller of the New York Times asked, before answering, in summary of the figures above, that "readers have not yet figured out the answer to that." Can newspapers persuade readers that their online versions are trustworthy?

Source: 2010 Digital Future Report, The New York Times

Readers are willing to pay to get access to the best news websites

The way that the British read news online appears likely to change greatly over the coming years. As The Times and The Sunday Times prepare to charge readers for the online editions of their newspapers, the titles point to growing evidence that Britain is more willing to spend money online than almost any other nation.
It is argued that, with news sites now accounting for 3 per cent of the time that we spend online, charging for content represents a natural step for the press and publishing industry.
Nearly 16 million people in Britain visited a mainstream newspaper website in February. Figures from the market researchers UKOM/Nielsen show that a quarter of those users have already paid to access news online or would be willing to do so. A third even said that they would be willing to pay for web content that they had already paid for offline, if it was substantially better than what was on offer free.
As is the case in the music industry, the move toward paid-for services reflects the rapid increase in the time that we spend online and the content we now consume.
Alex Burmaster, an analyst with Nielsen, said that only a few years ago the thought of buying holidays or clothes online was anathema to most people. The rapid increase over recent years in the availability of broadband, however, has combined with an improvement in the quality of online products and services to create a “perfect storm”, whereby people have become dependent on the internet.
The introduction of the iPad this week could do to publishing what the iPod did to music and transfer another part of our lives online. The ability to refresh newspaper pages while on the move could capture the imagination of a British public that has already proved more open to online services than in other countries. Very few nations spend more time online than Britain.
“It’s permeated everything we do. There’s no part of daily life that hasn’t changed,” Mr Burmaster said.
British internet users are also more likely to spend money online, with usage of large online retailers such as Tesco.com and Amazon up nearly 50 per cent over the past three years.
That British internet users are spending an increasing amount of time and money online is thanks to the massive increase in the availability of high-speed broadband in the past decade.
Only six years ago Britain was something of a broadband laggard in global terms, but the country has quickly caught up, and overtaken, other countries. Yet the big concern for Britain’s increasingly digital population is that of being left behind. A survey by Ookia suggests that British networks are already straining under the pressure of increased internet usage. It ranks Britain’s broadband speeds as only the 33rd fastest in the world.
BT has just started work on the country’s new network and expects to have connected two thirds of the population to superfast broadband by 2015. However, it is mostly doing no more than plugging the new network into the local exchange, as opposed to directly into the customer’s house, meaning that the speed available will still be a fraction of that in countries such as South Korea and Japan.

Source: TimesOnline

So much news, but so little comment

Papers went big on foreign news and story counts were high, but celebrities, features and columnists were a rare commodity

HOW did readers know what to think in 1984? Once you get over the minuscule, blurred pictures and the lack of colour, the first thing that strikes you about the newspapers of that year is the paucity of opinionated columnists. The finger-jabbing, red-faced anger of today's commentariat, the passionate, omniscient certainty with which they declare opinions, scarcely existed 25 years ago. Incredibly, the Sunday Times – under that most opinionated of editors, Andrew Neil – did not then have a single serious regular weekly columnist, its political pundit Hugo Young having recently decamped to the Guardian.
The paper had three, sometimes only two, bylined comment pieces. They contained few surprises: the deputy director of the National Farmers Union demanded the government "be fair to farmers" while Michael Meacher, then Labour social services spokesman, defended the welfare state. The Daily Telegraph had one bylined comment a day, with only TE Utley and John O'Sullivan appearing regularly.
Some days, the Daily Mail offered no opinions on anything except through leaders and, by implication, headlines. On Thursdays, its op-ed carried reviews of six, sometimes eight, hardback books. Even the Sun, edited by a swaggering Kelvin MacKenzie, had only one serious weekly columnist: John Vincent, a Bristol history professor. Richard Littlejohn he was not: "Neil Kinnock's recent promise to renationalise everything that Mrs Thatcher has denationalised was, perhaps, a shade impetuous," began a typical column.
Although 24-hour radio news stations had been established, TV equivalents were some years away. Newspapers believed that their prime duty was to report what had happened the previous day. The pages may have been fewer – the Sun (owned by Rupert Murdoch) was typically 32 tabloid pages, the Telegraph had 36 broadsheet pages in one section – but the number of news stories was, if anything, slightly higher than in today's papers.
Nearly all stories had "yesterday" in the first sentence. The future tense – "the minister is expected to say today", "Club X will this week sign Player Y" – was rare. Foreign news had a higher priority: the Daily Mail put it on page four, while the Telegraph published front-page bulletins about the declining health of the general secretary of the Italian Communist party.
The broadsheets offered daily coverage of parliamentary debate – but no commentator or analyst gave any context; readers were left to make up their own minds.
Celebrity culture was in its infancy. The comedian Dick Emery was exposed by his ex-wife as "a flop in bed" ("Even my pink undies didn't turn him on") while a "playgirl", in the News of the World's first tabloid issue, revealed "my frolics" with Prince Andrew. Ron Atkinson, then Manchester Utd manager, had an extramarital affair that provoked Jean Rook, the Daily Express columnist billed as "the first lady of Fleet Street", into a paroxysm of rage.
Rook, and her Daily Mail counterpart Lynda Lee-Potter, were just about the only columnists offering advice to erring celebs who, even in the tabloids, made the splash only if they were royal. It now seems a strangely innocent time. The scandal was mostly in the missionary position, the only sex aids were frilly undies and nobody apparently snorted or tried bondage. As for the broadsheets, they remained aloof from popular culture. When the Sunday Times reported a musician's secret love affair, it was the long-dead classical composer Edward Elgar. Neil introduced a spread called "People" which included the head of a civil service union and the former head of a thinktank. Guardian readers got a diet of trade unions, green belts and polytechnics; on a lucky day, they might get a story about a cat up a tree.
Features were sparse, and confessional journalism almost unknown – the Telegraph's features, for example, included: "Taking a close look at stitching through the ages" and "Showing the best of British baskets". Similarly, the Sunday Express, still a broadsheet, followed a formula which required exactly the same type of story on the same page each week.
Were newspapers then better or worse? By today's standards, they certainly seem calmer. The big story of 1984 was the miners' strike and Margaret Thatcher's battle to crush it. Readers could have been in little doubt where most papers stood. Headlines and stories, particularly in the Sun and the Mail, portrayed the miners as "thugs" and the pickets as "a mob". In a leader, the Express announced itself "SICK to death of this violent, meaningless and unnecessary … strike".
But the effect was less overwhelming. This was not just because newspapers had fewer intemperate columnists. It was also because even the miners' strike did not dominate page after page, creating a kind of emotional tsunami, as a similar issue might now. On the broadsheets particularly, width of coverage counted for more than depth of coverage. Over the past 25 years, we have come to learn more and more – and to be given more definite opinions – about less and less.

Source: guardian.co.uk

Buffett: Wouldn’t Buy More Newspapers ‘At Any Price’

WARREN Buffett will keep the Buffalo News and a stake in the Washington Post Company (NYSE: WPO)—but won’t play white knight for the newspaper industry. The billionaire financier told shareholders at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting taking place today in Omaha, Neb., that newspapers face possible “unending losses” and that the company would not buy most U.S. newspaper “at any price,” according to MarketWatch and WSJ.
Buffett also spoke of how newspapers once had been essential to readers—and thus to advertisers—but that was no longer the case. But what of Berkshire’s current holdings?

Buffalo News: He said the paper is working with unions on a new business model.

WaPoCo: Buffett, who is on the Washington Post board, spoke of its attractive businesses—singling out cable—but said “does not have answers to the problems of the newspaper business.”

Twittering from the stage: The NYT’s Andrew Ross Sorkin, one of the journalists participating in the Q&A at the meeting, twittered live from the stage via BlackBerry, with the feed running in a widget on the DealBook blog. His take on the newspaper discussion: “Buffett says newspaper biz is no longer “essential” sigh. tho he’s not selling washpo or buffalo news.”

Update: Fox Business News anchor Liz Claman has this exchange with Buffett and his business partner Charlie Munger:

Question: At what price does it become compelling to invest in newspaper business or is there no price in today’s environment?

Buffett: The current environment is accentuating problem in newspapers -but it’s not the basic cause. Charlie and I read 5 a day. We’ll never give them up. We would not buy them at any price. They have the possibility of going to unending losses. They were essential to the public 20 years ago. Their pricing power was essential with customer. They lost the essential nature. The erosion has accelerated dramatically. They were only essential to advertiser as long as essential to reader. No one liked buying ads in the paper - it’s just that they worked. I don’t see anything on the horizon that causes that erosion to end.

Munger: It’s really a national tragedy. As they disappear - I think what replaces them won’t be as desirable as what we’re losing.

Source: PaidContent.org

Newspapers Can Cope With Social Media

PRINT newspapers are locked in competition with the Internet for the hearts and minds of readers.
But ignoring the demographic shift to online reading is like turning away from the fire because it’s not your house. A disturbing new Pew Research Center study (pewresearch.org/pubs/1133/decline-print-newspapers-increased-online-news) shows that since 2006, the percentage of people who say they read a daily newspaper has fallen from 43 percent to 39 percent, and only 25 percent say they read the print-only edition. Meanwhile, online readership has increased from 9 percent in 2006 to 14 percent last year.
For decades, we didn’t have any way to get information about local businesses and their sales, except from local newspaper advertising. Unless you lived in a major city, it wasn’t easy to access newspapers from other parts of the country, let alone other parts of the world.
That gave newspapers and magazines a compelling way to generate lucrative revenue from advertisers, because if an advertiser wanted to reach a particular geographic audience, this was the only way to do it.
Today, if you’re interested in global news, you can read a newspaper from Europe. If there’s breaking news in India, you can watch Indian television over the Internet.
But advertisers remain focused on the traditional model. They think about eyes on ads, only worrying about how unlikely it is they will get business from readers in Mumbai ordering engagement rings from Philadelphia.
The new paradigm is not just about the readers, but about the searchers. A significant component of online advertising results will come from being effectively discovered in searches.
It’s going to be important for newspapers to have an online presence for advertisers, because news organizations will have very robust Web sites changing constantly, with lots of hyperlinks that search engines love. Being a part of these Web sites will give advertisers lots of good visibility in searches people conduct to find products and services that solve their problems.
The way people find solutions to their problems has changed dramatically. When younger audiences have a problem, they usually use one or two basic — and online — solutions, one of which is now used in a verb form. They “Google” it. They don’t go to the Yellow Pages to find the services they need.
The bottom line? You need to show up in the first page or so of a Google search.
One way to do this is to pay for the use of certain key phrases or “Paid Ad-Words.” This is expensive if you have a popular search term like “engagement ring.”
One way advertisers are responding smartly is to create compelling “rich media” content like social networking communities, video and audio podcasts, and online presentations and blogs and to update the content on a regular, frequent basis. Google and other search robots love pages that update frequently (blogs) have rich content (photos, videos, audio, RSS feeds) and lots of hyperlinks (blogs, podcast show notes pages, etc.) to other sites and resources.
The general idea is to be helpful. Give up some of your knowledge content for free, in return for visibility as a “thought leader,” or subject matter expert.
A properly managed social media presence populated with good quality content, can make an advertiser the “go-to” company, the ultimate resource for people who want to know how that particular industry works, or how consumers of that product or service can become more informed about using or comparing products or services in that sector.
It’s all part of an overall marketing effort that focuses on where potential audiences are, not where business owners may want them to be.
Here’s an example of the power of a modest social media marketing strategy.
One of my clients is a retailing company. In addition to traditional media relations, we also produce digital photos and digital video reports about the events we cover for them, such as store openings, events with community groups, and so on.
We post the photos on Flickr.com, a social sharing site for photography (it’s also a very easy way to deliver photos to the people pictured in them and to local news media who use them), and the videos on Blip.tv, a video sharing site.
Because the photo captions had my office phone number instead of the store number, we were getting a lot of phone calls from people thinking they had called the store. People were finding the new stores by Googling the name of the store and the city!
But once we caught on and started adding the store address and phone number into the captions, the calls stopped.
Newspapers can face the future by creating a sophisticated way for their advertisers to reach those searchers by buying effective, searchable presence on the newspaper’sWeb site. I’m fairly convinved that the combined credibility of both brands will lift search results and restore profitability.

By Steve Lubetkin - managing partner of Professional Podcasts LLC, an award-winning producer of multimedia content for the Web.

Source: thebulletin.us

United, Newspapers May Stand

BACK when I was a young media reporter fueled by indignation and suspicion, I often pictured the dark overlords of the newspaper industry gathering at a secret location to collude over cigars and Cognac, deciding how to set prices and the news agenda at the same time.
It probably never happened, but now that I fear for the future of the world that they made, I’m hoping that meeting takes place. I’ll even buy the cigars.
Even casual followers of the newspaper industry could rattle off the doomsday tick-tock: a digitally enabled free fall in ads and audience now has burly guys circling major daily newspapers with plywood and nail guns. The Rocky Mountain News is gone, The San Francisco Chronicle is on the bubble, and dozens of others are limping along on the endangered list.
Magazine and newspaper editors have canceled their annual conferences (good idea: let’s not talk to one another). But perhaps someone can blow a secret whistle and the publishers and editors could all meet at an undisclosed location.
My fantasy meeting goes something like this: a rump caucus could form where the newspaper industry would decide to hold hands and jump off the following cliffs together on the following actions.
¶No more free content. The Web has become the primary delivery mechanism for quality newsrooms across the country, and consumers will have to participate in financing the newsgathering process if it is to continue. Setting the price point at free — the newspaper analyst Alan D. Mutter called it the “original sin” — has brought the industry millions of eyeballs and a return that doesn’t cover the coffee budget of some newsrooms.
The big threat would be that newspapers could lose the readers they have, lots of them. The mitigating factor is that a lot of those readers aren’t paying anyway. And keep in mind that people are already paying for quality content all over the Web: The Wall Street Journal, Consumer Reports, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Tiered Web access — from a bare-bones free product to a rich, customized subscription — could be among the solutions.
¶No more free ride to aggregators. Google announced that it would begin selling ads against Google News, with almost no financial accommodation to the organizations that generate that news. The book industry — of all Luddites — has extracted cash from Google, as did the wire services. Google, The Huffington Post and Newser have built their audiences and brands on other people’s labors.
Most aggregators are not promoting newspaper content; they are repurposing it to their own ends. Newspapers’ audiences are harvested and sold divorced from the content that attracted them in the first place. The risk would be making Google, the kingmaker on the Web, angry.
¶No more commoditized ads. Ad markets and remnant sales have been a lose-lose proposition, ginning up more and more ads for less and less revenue, turning a grim dollars-into-dimes model into a hopeless dimes-into-pennies proposition. Newspapers once thrived by selling scarce ad positions. The downside is turning down ads, and who can afford that right now?
¶Throw out the Newspaper Preservation Act. Regulatory reform will allow the industry to consolidate to an economically feasible model and preserve newsgathering. Does Seattle need two newspapers? Did Denver? Sure, it’s preferable for all kinds of reasons. But one is better than none.
Of course, my fantasy meeting will never come true. First, such a meeting would very likely be considered illegal, violating either the spirit or the letter of antitrust provisions, but what’s a little lawlessness when a lot of other major industries are expecting the government to bail them out? Second, at the best of times, newspaper publishers are not a risk-taking bunch, and these aren’t the best of times. Third, newspapers could not investigate collusion in other industries without feeling just a little queasy.
It’s worth remembering that the regulatory apparatus governing the industry was developed back when newspapers were the dominant local ad medium, with very little competition. In recent years, the Newspaper Preservation Act has done precisely the opposite of its framers’ intention, allowing joint operating agreements that let weak papers linger and pull down the alpha papers in Detroit, Seattle, Denver and Tucson.
The Justice Department still holds that combining local dailies is anticompetitive, but if that antiquated logic continues to prevail, there won’t be much left to regulate.
John Chachas of Lazard, a financial advisory company, and Tim Rutten of The Los Angeles Times have both called for an exemption to antitrust regulations as a matter of survival. After all, they point out, there is plenty of new competition for ads and minds.
But consolidation can’t proceed with the current regulatory strictures. The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have two newspapers — The Star Tribune and The Pioneer Press — but both are seriously endangered. History has demonstrated that another joint operating agreement is probably not the answer.
Hearst Newspapers, whose San Francisco Chronicle shared expenses and revenue with The Examiner in a joint operating arrangement, had invested $1 billion in San Francisco and is losing $1 million a week. The company has said that it will sell (fat chance) or close The Chronicle unless half of an already decimated newsroom is laid off. It is not bluffing. As soon as next week, another paper the company owns, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, will reportedly become a Web-only publication with a skeleton staff.
“It is time that newspapers are allowed to collude in the public interest,” said Mr. Mutter, who blogs at Reflections of a Newsosaur. “In order to keep as many feet in the street as possible regardless of how they are branded and preserve editorial voices, the new competitive environment has to be considered. The Chronicle competes against The Mercury News, but it also competes against Craigslist, Zillow and Auto Trader.”
Philip Meyer, who wrote “The Vanishing Newspaper,” concurs: “Technology has destroyed the monopolies that these laws were designed to regulate.”
Of course, advocates of the free, independent press are rightfully chary about wholesale deregulation, but John Morton, the eminent newspaper analyst, said that individual newspaper companies can’t solve this problem by working alone.
“Only newspapers are economically organized to cover a broad swath of events,” he said. “A lot of aggregators have been taking advantage of that, and pretty soon, there will be nothing to aggregate. But that can’t really be discussed among newspaper owners because of antitrust problems.”
What is under attack is the fundamental machinery of the Fourth Estate, not just the local newspapers that some love to hate and others, including many young consumers, are indifferent to.
Whatever the solution, the capacity to produce accountability reporting, investigative journalism and robust coverage of public officials is not sustainable under current revenue models. And that is not a business problem; it’s a civic one.

Source: The New York Times

Why nobody clicks on your home page links

DURING my last trip to Boston, I asked a friend: "When is the last time you picked up the Boston Globe and read it cover to cover, every story?"
He starred at me blankly, not comprehending the question.
It was a stupid question, because pretty much nobody ever reads a newspaper cover to cover, not even a small newspaper.
We all read a newspaper the same way -- we scan, looking for interesting headlines, skimming the leads, looking for something interesting.
Once we find something interesting, we will start to read and maybe even follow the story past the jump, but the vast majority of headlines that pass before our eyes are merely a blur as we hunt and peck for a useful nugget or two.
Yet, some people seem to think that just because a link on a home page exists, it gets clicked.
If you run a newspaper web site and are under the false impression that just because you put a story link up, people will follow the link, I invite you to open your login to Ominture and study the Paths report. You'll be disappointed in what you will find.
What you will find, unless some sensational story hit that defies the rule, is that not a single story link is among the top-10 paths followed.
What you will find is the vast, vast majority of visitors hit the home page and left. They didn't click a single link. The next most frequent path, at between 4 percent and 8 percent of your visitors, will be home page to obituaries. The third most popular path will be home page, obituaries, home page and then exit.
The rest of your top 10 paths will round out with home page to another section front and then exit -- meaning, still not a top 10 path that leads to a story click, not even home page, sports section, story link.
When you do get to a home page-to-story-link path, that path will represent little more than 1 percent of your site traffic.
Before you start blaming your site design for this lack of story traffic, stop again and think about how you read a newspaper.
People go to your home page not to find stories to read, but to harvest headlines on the off chance one or two of them will be of sufficient interest for a click.
That's one reason newspaper.coms are foolish to let aggregation sites such as Topix display all of their headlines and leads.
Topix is in the business of creating a substitute home page for your community news.
By aggregating all of your content, as well as other media covering your town, they are aiming to create an experience for users that says, "You don't need to visit all of these other sites. We're all you need. We've got all of the headlines (which you will only scan) and free classifieds, to boot (not that Topix free classifieds seem to get much traction).
At GateHouse Media we asked Topix to stop aggregating our content because we couldn't figure out what value we derived from Topix trying to steal our audience. It would have been different if Topix actually generated traffic for our sites, but referrers from Topix never rose much above 1 percent of our overall traffic.
Some would argue that Topix is paying for its headlines and leads by the traffic it generates, but if it's not generating much traffic how do you measure whether it's hurting more than helping?
Compare Topix, however, to a site like Google News.
Google News drives a significant amount of traffic to news sites. Why? Because it has one primary purpose: to drive traffic to news sites. It's a click-away site, meaning Google believes the greatest value it provides its users is to serve up links worthy of a click.
My bet is that most of the clicks driven by Google News are derived from search, not from the automated aggregation pages. People click on headlines when they express a specific intention through search to find a particular story.
As I've said before, the web is intention driven. If your home page is designed to meet the intention of headline skimmers, that's going to be the majority of your audience. But if your home page is designed to get people into your stories, like a blog does, then you will design your site accordingly.
Think of how you read a newspaper and don't be surprised that few people click on your headline links. Think about how you want people to use your web site, what intention-driven mindset you want to satisfy, and design your web site accordingly.

Source: Howard Owens

Washington Post forms new strategy for future

IN a memo to staff obtained by Politico, Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth discusses the long-term strategy of the paper: to make its product "indispensable" to its customers.
The strategy includes three-pillars, to focus the paper "on Washington, for Washingtonians and those affected by it," to provide "utility, engagement and convenience for local readers" and "extend the brand with new products and new platforms."
To achieve its goals, the Post will address readers' "core needs," and increase its "practical utility" online. The paper will "diversify" its business model by creating new, relevant products. Weymouth emphasized speed in the transition, saying that the paper's mission of "making sense of Washington has never been more important."
Over the summer, a team of 40 WaPo staffers from various departments created a detailed analysis of the paper, evaluating its effectiveness for both readers and advertisers, its cost-effectiveness in how it publishes and its competitive "advantage" compared to other news outlets.
Despite a growing online market, Weymouth wrote, the results are not enough to "offset the larger declines in print revenue and profitability."
Weymouth said the strategy review was not to find a quick "fix" for the business model, but instead propose an "integrated set of choices" to maintain the paper's quality and position the company for a financial rebound.
The intention is to prioritize what is important for readers, Weymouth wrote, to focus "increasingly scarce resources." Based in Washington, Weymouth reminded staff that the paper's market is "not only an affluent, highly educated, growing market, but that it is, of course uniquely, the nation's capital and the seat of government."
The changes, Weymouth concluded, do not change the paper's "bedrock principles." She outlined that the Post needed to be "creative, adaptive and resourceful" in the way it positioned its business.

Source: Politico