Note To Profs: Answer Your Phone

The latest post by Chi-town Trib'ber Eric Zorn has been ringing in my ears ever since I read it. In the post, Zorn reprinted the keynote speech he gave that day to the Media Relations Faculty Recognitions Luncheon at DePaul University. And what did he have to say?

World of academia: answer your phones.

With a wink and a nudge, Zorn explains that when an expert is needed for a story, the door-knocking begins on university campuses. The problem? Slow-footed responses, answering machines, and worst of all, complete inaccessibility in the first place. In Zorn's opinion, the relationship between professors and reporters - many of whom originally considered the former profession, naturally - is a mutual one with "win-win" potential.

When I was a news editor, I often ran into late-night walls while attempting to contact a member of academia after office hours. Even though I had the power to interrupt the university spokesman while he was bathing his own children - really - I couldn't get a single member of a given department on the phone.

Now I understand that reporters should ideally not rush their stories, but the reason I'm calling is because I'm in a fix. I don't want to call you at midnight any more than you want to take the call. But when a student in one of your classes is suddenly and unexpectedly killed, I need someone to talk to beyond his or her family. But that's only 5% of the time.

The other 95% of the time, I need your painfully-specific expertise. You spend all of your time demanding interest from your students. I'm giving it to you for free -- and I'm reprinting it on shiny newsprint. It's free publicity for you, your research and your department. Marion Nestle gets it. Do you?

Money, That's What I Want

In an article for D Magazine, editor and publisher Wick Allison suggests that the Dallas Morning News dumps staffers, cuts paychecks, and otherwise shape up or ship out in an effort to become profitable again.

Allison's five steps for saving the paper are widespread: clear the clutter, go local, cut deeper, ditch marginal customers, and talk to advertisers. He writes thoughtfully but abrasively, and simplifies his changes in an Etch-a-Sketch-style shakeup.

Some of his points are viable. Many newspapers, like the DMN, are resting on their laurels and have lost direction - both editorially and business-wise. So his reconfiguring of newsroom and advertising policies - find a voice, yank the contests, and play your strengths - is spot-on.

But some of his unhinged backlash is well-deserved.

While Allison seems to have a good handle on the media business, he's striking down too hard on one thing - pay cuts. Allison recommends cutting down on pay for copy editors and others in the newsroom. But you know what? If a staffer survived a 200-person firing, they should be compensated accordingly. Not only that, but if the DMN wants to attract the best copy editors, pay them better and hire only the best.

Allison, it seems, has forgotten what the word "incentive" means. When most of your newsroom friends have been hired, what's your incentive to stay? A $15,000 pay cut?

To boot, Allison's simplicity in fixing things is easier said than done, and he's got to realize that he's messing with more than just a paper - he's messing with lives and a reputation. The ends may justify the means, but will they really when readers abandon the paper because, after constant pruning, the staff aren't cohesive or energized?

It's true that cutting out AP wire stories and New York Times reruns and offering original content by going local is to the paper's advantage. But Allison, it seems, has been too comfortable in the publisher's chair and forgot that he's an editor, too. Would you be willing to take a deep cut in your own paycheck, Mr. Allison?

The Press: New Face, Same Identity?

Drama, drama, everywhere.

At least that's what seems to be happening in major newsrooms across the country. Last week, Los Angeles Times publisher Jeffrey M. Johnson put his own job on the line when he refused to make layoffs at the paper in the face of a pact made by three top editors to resign in solidarity. In Chicago, the Sun-Times News Group "restructured" its leadership. A few new faces have shown up under the masthead title "owner." And let's not even go into all the newspaper staff firings across the nation as a result of declining profits.

Will the press be the same? And will it be better?

While it's too early to tell what will come of this press renovation at large, the shakeups leave the press reputation - a valuable thing, of course - less than stable. For example, the LA Times is an American story of a small paper's rise to preeminence and great journalism. Will it still offer quality in the next chapter of its life, or has Mr. Johnson delayed the future?

Who knows best? The top executive or the parent company? Or the staff?

Just as I've been intently watching the rise of Hillary Clinton in politics, I think it's worth watching the press - and that's exactly what this blog is for. Will big dogs like the NYT, LAT and WashPo be on top in 10 years? Or will great startup outlets for reporters keep the honored lifeblood of journalism pumping?

Stay tuned. It's about to get exciting.

Applying Editorial License to Transparency

This weekend, journalist Todd Everett posted this question in his blog:

My question: who, exactly, is served by knowing whether an interview is conducted via telephone, e-mail, lavender-scented note, or carrier pigeon (well, that might be worth a mention)?

Would Buruma be living somewhere else, had he so stated in a phone call instead of that e-mail? Would Smith hold pre-fab term papers in higher regard were he stating his opinion in a telegram? Would Gervais be less impressed had he delivered his response in person?

And he's got a point. For all the transparency that a journalist can have, sometimes it may be unneccessary, especially in an age of tightening word counts. But are the details of a question important to the quote? Say, for instance, you received a quote from a top government official in response to one of your questions:

"In me opinion, teh paperworrk has not yet been filed."

Would you quote him verbatim? Probably not, unless the story found relevance in Irish leprechauns from the ghetto. You'd probably correct the words so as to overcome his or her technological deficiencies and preserve respect out of an expectation that, had you been on the phone, he or she would not have slurred incessantly and reversed their words. Would it then matter if you reported that the official replied via e-mail (by Blackberry, no less)?

Former reporter and Texas Democratic Party chairman Joe Cutbirth once said to me that political correctness shouldn't get in the way of the facts. I think he's definitely right, but in the case of transparency, the lines are just as fuzzy.

What do you think?

How Much Are You Worth, Reader?

Frank Barnako's Media Blog reported yesterday that, among other things, an online media reader is worth 1/3 the price of a traditional media reader.

According to Outsell, Inc., the leading research and advisory firm for the information industry, many online publishers are at a stalemate for new readers, and that newspapers’ online ad revenue growth rate of about 30% masks the larger problem that online revenues aren’t replacing lost print revenues fast enough.

This does not bode well for digital media, even though print circulation continues on its decline. But really, is an online consumer worth less than a traditional consumer?

I'd venture to say no. At least, not as a definitive rule.

The print structure has had centuries to perfect itself and establish a solid foundation for the business, including printing presses, delivery decisions, and marketing methods to keep subscribers hanging on. The new media, on the other hand, is operating in a fairly less-than-stable atmosphere - the internet. With many publishers too slow-footed to act rationally in the long-term in this new atmosphere (after all, isn't Gawker's Nick Denton a pariah of the digital media business model?), I think it's no trend that the online reader is worth less.

In fact, I think the online consumer is worth more.

With a defined ad strategy (banners, etc.) in place, it's my opinion that an online publisher reaps more for less - delivery cost is nearly zero, product distribution is instantaneous, physical product production is nearly zero (such is the business of selling information), and a completely easy way to link someone directly to a consumer (links, links, links!), the digitally-savvy consumer will end up being worth more. This survey comes during a time when the NY Times is seen as the only company pushing foward in the online space and many publishers haven't figured out that most would rather read a clean, classy website than pick up a coffee-stained edition from the bodega on the corner, and I think it's premature to assess a consumer's worth.

Sure, the numbers dictate the reality of it, but I don't check my stocks every day, either.

Journalism's Chasm of Bias

"I think there's a much greater problem than political bias. I see political bias both ways. I don't tend to see as much of it as some people do. To me, the two main biases that affect television news are a bias toward simplicity - stripping a story of its necessary nuance - and toward sensationalism, making a story that really isn't that important seem as if it is. Those are the two primary and most deleterious biases operating in television news today."

-Eric Burns of Fox News Channel's "Fox News Watch"

Aside from Burns' often less-than-fair-and-balanced employer (and underdeveloped response above from a Desert Sun interview), he's made a great point about the state of the media today: it's a terrible hybrid of dry, bias-fearing news stories and yellowed, bias-loving reports. Just as the press is attacked for increased partisanship in its pages and broadcasts, its expressive and creative nature is also under restraint from the political correctness police.

Where to go from here?

Most reporters, no matter who they are working for, strive to do the best report they can - after all, it's their job. And ideally, of course, a news story contains no bias - that's supposed to be left for (occasionally) features and definitely opinion. But as every journalist knows, minimizing bias is the best you can do, since bias appears from the first source you interview and even how you heard about the story in the first place. It's an accepted hazard.

But it's a growing trend that the press has either grown so weary of accusations (even legal ones) that the story itself suffers, or has simply thrown caution to the wind and produced a piece that makes no attempt at being ideal/moral/whatever-you'd-aspire-it-to-be journalism at all, even bordering on advocacy journalism. These fights and flows are equally as damaging.

In today's media climate, it can't be the public's fault, or even the government's. Each journalist, be it writer, editor or publisher, harbors his/her own regulatory agency within. It's their job to put their foot down and keep the craft on track - even if it means publicly denying a presidential request.

Maybe this won't happen before the next administration or cultural shift - when the overused terms "liberal media" and "media bias" have the chance to become less buzzworthy - but that doesn't mean journalists shouldn't listen to themselves. It's part of the invisible pact you make with your readers when you become a journalist.

What do you think of the state of the press today?

Glossies for the Gizmo Age

A new trend has emerged among magazines in heading to the web to attract college students with a digital edition that puts high-quality scans of the magazine's pages online.

Will it change the way magazines are designed?

Since college students are one of the most difficult groups to have as subscribers, given their transient nature of residences, this completely makes sense. Additionally, as I mentioned in a previous post, magazines (especially those geared toward younger audiences) have already begun to migrate to the web.

But will a significant increase in digital subscriptions prompt magazines to themselves offer the service? What's more, will its potential popularity carry over to the magazine's pages?

At the moment, magazines are optimized for the page. With big, glossy, colorful images, their layout grabs the eye as they are held in hand. And while it still sounds farfetched, digital editions of magazines (and newspapers) aren't that far off - many magazines make digital references in their text.

But will there be a reverse influence, prompting the design of the magazine to change?

In my opinion, it's possible that such influence will show up in subtle ways. But what's most likely to happen is that a digital edition, optimized for the digital experience and not just a pixel-for-pixel upload of the magazine's pages - will gradually replace its printed sibling.

Popular Mechanics' EIC Jim Meigs says a magazine is, above all, a collection of information. Yet MPA president Nina Link says her organization believes that one medium doesn't replace the other. Currently, she's right - digital editions are just one more choice augmenting the field. But has she taken notes on the migration of news subscribers to the web, or CD consumers to iTunes?

The newsstands want to know: at what point is a medium "replaced"?

"Free"-dom of Information

Another free paper has hit the streets as pay-for papers downsize, this time in London and courtesy of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

In the future, will all newspapers be free?

The battle between News Corp.'s thelondonpaper and its competitor London Lite echoes that of Metro and amNewYork across the pond - and no surprise, since NY Metro launch editor Stafano Hatfield helms the new project. Now, I've criticized Murdoch for sticking to print before, but the fashionable freebie is the only news publication grossly bucking the trend of declining revenue/circulation/ad sales.

A BBC News article asks today, "Does this spell the end of the paid-for paper? Who will stump up 50p for a Sun, Guardian or Times when they can get their news, sport and a couple of cartoons for free?"

Maybe. But begrudgingly.

To preface, there is a large difference between a Times and a Metro, and it's simply impossible to compare. Metro readers glance, Times readers read. Free dailies distribute directly to the public transportation "hotspots" and are comprised of a slew of reprinted AP stories with some cobbled together editorial content. As a result, the masthead of a free daily is expectedly miniscule.

But there's no need to trash (no pun intended) free dailies: their influence is astrounding. They serve their function, and serve it well - better than most standard papers, even the big 3. So if not for the printed page, what will be pay for? Content?

How do we get news, anyway? For me, it's RSS feeds that, on their own, serve as my own "free daily" and the articles they link to that serve as my "full-content paper." Nary a printed page in sight. So information is what we pay for in this age, not the printed page. OK. On board there. But content will always be paid for by someone. Right now its mostly, but not completely, advertisers. The New York Times is learning how to balance this seesaw as its own writers refuse to go behind the TimesSelect wall. Newspapers face increased competition from those free sources - you guessed it, blogs and their ilk - so maybe advertisers will carry 100% of the load. After all, we're on a slippery slope of losing the printed page, aren't we?

Maybe the BBC should be more specific - will all newspapers be free? For the subscriber, probably. But certainly not for the newspaper.