making money online?

AP reports that bunch of newspaper execs got together in Chicago yesterday to try to figure out how to make money off online content as a way to save newspapers. Possibly, that ship has sailed. Another vision is called for, maybe?

Perhaps the better question would be, should have been, how do we save journalism in the event that we can't save newspapers?

James Warren, former Managing Editor of the Chicago Tribune blogs about the meeting -- he wasn't there -- on the Atlantic's website. (Be sure to read the comments.) From his post:

Now, more than ever, is a time for creativity and nerve, not just hunkering down and crossing fingers that safe harbor will appear on the horizon. [Newspapers are a] wonderful and important product, vital to American communities. Unlike a lot of jobs, you can look yourself in the mirror and know you're doing some good. Many newsrooms remain filled with a sense of mission even amid the looming dread.

At the behest of new corporate superiors (yes, some from radio), I helped oversee the painful layoffs of about 100 in the Chicago Tribune newsroom last year, before being dispatched by someone the Marlon Brando character in "Apocalypse Now" might characterize as "an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect the bill."

Fine. It was now their company. I just wish that what would have ensued might have been a strategy beyond a rather pedestrian one, rife with talk of "relevance" and "utility," with a multitude of lists, consumer reporting and de facto aping of local television; all the while needlessly undermining the loyalty of tried-and-true older readers while chasing after youth. It's less what the late philosopher Hannah Arendt tagged the banality of evil than it is the evil of banality.

Free market editting?

AP reports that 55 reporters and editors at the ailing Chicago Tribune have sent an email to the bosses, asking why the paper was allowing the marketing department to survey subscribers to find out their opinions on stories BEFORE they were published. Ugh.

Those who signed the email cited a number of problems with the practice, including ethical ones. I guess.

From the AP story:

"It is a fundamental principle of journalism that we do not give people outside the newspaper the option of deciding whether or not we should publish a story, whether they be advertisers, politicians or just regular readers," the e-mail read. "Focus grouping as done in the past is one thing. But this appears to break the bond between reporters and editors in a fundamental way."

The reporters and editors also said many have become uncomfortable that the marketing department appeared to be playing an undefined role in the newsroom.

No one will say what stories were under consideration or whether reader response shaped editorial decisions. Still. Scary practice that is unlikely to end well: It's like measuring news value by the click. bk

pr vs j

This here makes it easy to understand the difference between journalism and PR, and why as a society we need the former:

Newsweek and various other sources report on a year-long AP investigation of the $547 million the Pentagon is paying to feed news "stories" about the Iraq war into the American news media. Here's an excerpt, which I find sickening:

On an abandoned Air Force base in San Antonio, Texas, editors for the Joint Hometown News Service point proudly to a dozen clippings on a table as examples of success in getting stories into newspapers.

What readers are not told: Each of these glowing stories was written by Pentagon staff. Under the free service, stories go out with authors' names but not their titles, and do not mention Hometown News anywhere. In 2009, Hometown News plans to put out 5,400 press releases, 3,000 television releases and 1,600 radio interviews, among other work — 50 percent more than in 2007.

The service is just a tiny piece of the Pentagon's rapidly expanding media empire, which is now bigger in size, money and power than many media companies.

In a yearlong investigation, The Associated Press interviewed more than 100 people and scoured more than 100,000 pages of documents in several budgets to tally the money spent to inform, educate and influence the public in the U.S. and abroad. The AP included contracts found through the private FedSources database and requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. Actual spending figures are higher because of money in classified budgets.

The biggest chunk of funds — about $1.6 billion — goes into recruitment and advertising. Another $547 million goes into public affairs, which reaches American audiences. And about $489 million more goes into what is known as psychological operations, which targets foreign audiences.

Do we really want the Pentagon telling us what to think about Iraq? For that matter, do we want anyone with a vested interest in the outcome of a message -- from peanut butter to health care -- to control that message? I find this latest Pentagon maneuver hideous in the extreme.

The disturbing thing is that I'm not surprised. Just fired up: This is why we can't let journalism die, why we have to figure out a way to pay the folks who do the work. Otherwise, I give you press releases. Or Joe the Plumber. bk


Photo of newsroom of Joint Hometown News Service In San Antonio, Tex. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

and more...

Back in J-school, we were required to take a class in Precision Journalism in which we learned how to conduct surveys and polls, how to interpret them, and how to write about them. It was tons of work and I'll be honest. Everyone of us hated the class in every possible way.

But what I learned lingered. Which is why i am, er, perseverating on the "white women" poll. A couple of quick linx might help put those -- and other -- polls in perspective.

First, some background: NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen writes about political reporting in general, and herd reporting in particular. He also discusses the "horse race" narrative in political reporting.

Second, some quick rules on writing about polls from the American Association for Public Opinion Research.

Third, Sheldon R. Gawiser, Ph.D. and G. Evans Witt, cofounders of the Associated Press/NBC News Poll, layout "20 questions a journalist should ask about poll results." (Some of you may recognize some of these questions from comm 40.)

Finally, University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin, co-developer of Pollster.com, talks on polling techniques and issues on Minnesota public radio. A little dull, a little dry -- we're talking numbers, after all -- but informative nonetheless.

You also might want to check out the link in Andrea's comment on yesterday's post. It offers a different perspective on the white women phenomenon. That's all. bk