Tina Brown and the fight to save journalism

If you're a writer, get out of your comfort zone. 

If you're an editor, surround yourself with writers.

And if you're starting an online publication, do so with conviction. It will work.

Eventually.

Sage words from celebrated editor Tina Brown (Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Talk, and now The Daily Beast) last night at Columbia Journalism School's Delacorte Magazine Lecture, a weekly public lecture by notables in the publishing world put on by Victor Navasky of The Nation.

Brown's Daily Beast -- for which at least one friend of mine writes -- has been in the spotlight since its launch last fall. A new media venture by an old-media person, if you will.  An online pubication brave enough to not accept (interns aside) free work. A digital venture (questionably) backed by IAC's Barry Diller. 

But Brown revealed last night that the venture is very much her vehicle for figuring out how publishing can survive in a "free," online-only environment. Correction: not just survive, but thrive. And in this current state of media flux, it's exciting to me to know that someone is pursuing something with conviction, and not floundering about trying to stay afloat.

Highlights which I'd like to pass along to you, readers:

• Deploying narrative journalism on the web successfully is Brown's greatest challenge.
• The Daily Beast continues Brown's tradition of high/low coverage (or "class and trash," as I like to call it.)
• Some of her best writers didn't start as writers at all. Some of her best writers were passionate about topics they weren't writing about for a living. It was Brown's challenge -- and naturally, to her benefit -- to correct this. Example: Dominick Dunne, whom she told to keep a diary; Jeffrey Toobin, whom she simply gave enough time to develop his own (less-than-legalese) voice.
• Editors must "make their world writers," and surround themselves with them. They are immensely creative people, she said, and you must know their strengths and weaknesses and, of course, always have talent on hand.
• A big area for development is in-depth, feature-length business journalism. Not closing-bell coverage, but CEO profiles and such things. "Capture characters," she said. 
• The Daily Beast is doing what newsweeklies should be doing -- analysis and less breaking news coverage -- in the smart and intellectual way that Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report are struggling to transition to at the moment. But, with the added benefit of linking off to the best of the web's stories.
• The advantage of analysis: "People are gadflies, but they're also obsessives." So while hopping on the breaking news train is fine, people are still drawn to long-form, in-depth analysis telling them something they didn't already know.
• "A good editor (at least, one in the vein of Tina Brown -- Ed.) likes a strong staff around them." Strong as in personality: "I have a terrible weakness for irritants."
• Working online is actually less stressful/anxiety-ridden than print, because there are much fewer moments when someone's piece is cut because of limited space. "It's more physically grueling, but it's not as stressful in terms of disappointing people."
• "It's so fashionable to trash the press all the time."
• On the theory behind paying writers and investing in them: "You have to invest in people." Unlike her big-budget Conde Nast days, Brown can't hire writers on contract anymore, so the web environment makes it harder to develop people and give them a financial safety net at the same time. On the other hand, limitless space is helpful in that regard.
• 2009 is the year of the freelancer. "The Gig Economy," she called it.
• The Daily Beast has started to solicit advertisers, which will be its main revenue stream. Ads will appear in the spring.
• On outsourcing journalism: "I think it's preposterous." 

Before attending, I knew little of Brown. I knew she and Arianna Huffington (The Huffington Post) were often cited as brash new editors-in-chief/publishers in the new media/online journalism world. I knew Brown had a fantastic pedigree. I knew she was British. 

But that's about it, honestly. So I was surprised when I heard these wise words come from someone who has been in the magazine business so long -- and who seemingly got into online publishing by necessity.

Brown spoke honestly and thoughtfully -- she wasn't there to publicize The Daily Beast, and didn't really reference it unless it was referred to in a question she was asked.

In listening to her opinions and advice, I came to respect her for this reason: she had a clear view of what she wanted and where she wanted it. An entrepreneur, she was pursuing publishing online, she wanted talented writers, she didn't want to cut corners nor spend funds happily. 

Personally, I don't like everything about The Daily Beast. (For one, I think its design, while adventurous, is a little hard to digest.). But I do now understand why things are the way they are on the site, and the thinking behind those decisions.

An old professor of mine likes to use the phrase, "Acts of commission, rather than acts of omission," when referencing online work. I can see that in operation at The Daily Beast.

Brown's vision may not be an ironclad business model, but it was her conviction that struck me. At a time when so many journalists -- newspapermen and women, freelance writers, editors, publishers, etc. -- are running to the next thing (blogs! Facebook! Twitter!) or just simply lamenting their own downfall (layoffs! cut pages! no ads!), I found it refreshing -- exciting, really -- to hear such a clear voice at such a cloudy time in journalism.

Study: Huffington Post Favors Male Bloggers

Or, to put it another way, female bloggers are out of favor when it comes to appearing on the front pages of the massively-popular Huffington Post.

Arianna Huffington.

In a fascinating study by Extra!, only 255 of 1,125 bylines, or 23 percent, of stories that appeared in the 13 "featured blog" slots on HuffPo's regularly-updated home page at a time belonged to women.

Extra! achieved these figures by recording featured bylines twice every weekday for nine weeks and coded them by gender. The study period lasted about two months, from 7/7/08 to 9/5/08.

More insight: Parity is scarce. Arianna Huffington, appearing 57 times, accounted for more than a fifth of all women's bylines; 45 of those occupied the most visible top post. Only once, in fact, did a woman other than Arianna Huffington get her byline in the most visible top slot—Post editor-at-large Nora Ephron.

Former HuffPoster Jessica Wakeman reports at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting:

Women's voices have long been lacking in corporate media. As Internet outlets compete more and more with traditional media as a source for news and opinion, will women's voices be heard there more frequently than in print publications? If the Huffington Post, one of the most prominent and successful blogs today, is an accurate barometer, the answer is no. [...]

While the Huffington Post provides an outlet for certain voices that seldom make it into the corporate media, it falls perfectly in line with elite print media's abysmal gender numbers. In Extra!'s 2005 op-ed study (5–6/05) of major newspapers and magazines, U.S. News & World Report led magazines with a still-dismal 28 percent of op-eds penned by women, followed by Newsweek at 23 percent and Time at 13 percent. Newspapers fared even worse: Women's bylines appeared on 20 percent of op-eds in the Los Angeles Times, 17 percent in the New York Times and 10 percent in the Washington Post. For syndicated columnists, the numbers were likewise low, with women writing 24 percent of columns at the eight major syndicates (Editor & Publisher, 3/15/05)—which still beats the Huffington Post.

Which left me with some simple questions: I acknowledge the scarcity of women overall, but just how many of the Huffington Post's revolving stable of active bloggers are women? I'd be interested to know if there's parity when it comes to the flow of content coming in -- is the lack of women on the front page the result of editorial bias, or are there simply less women writing for HuffPo than men? (I don't have those answers, but I'd like to know more.) And if so, why?

Of course, if Huffington herself is wooing more female bloggers than male, than perhaps these numbers are indicative of something greater. But, as complicated as the Huffington Post site is, so is the ability to root this theory in data: is there gender parity within the politics section, clearly the favored section of HuffPo? Or does the imbalance of, say, "green" stories (and the writers who write them) perpetuate this problem on the site's penultimate front page?

(HuffPosters, if you're out there, I'd love to know.)

Trump Leaves $10,000 Tip, Fools Fact-Checkers Everywhere

See a story in the past few days about Donald Trump denying that he left a $10,000 tip at a restaurant?

You may have. It ran everywhere, including on FOX News and the Huffington Post.

Well, it turns out the the story was a big 'ol prank thought up by Derober.com -- and every single news outlet, MSM or not, ran the sucker without doing the kind of reporting that legitimized the story.

"How many people get on the front page of Fox News with a story that doesn't contain one single ounce of truth?" Derober co-founder John Resig said of the hoax [via Romenesko].

I don't know if that's actually the best way to go about it, John, but I get what you're saying.

The Los Angeles Times took the high road in their article, lambasting FoxNews.com, Defamer, E! Online and the Huffington Post as a rampant blogosphere that can't rein in the fun (or facts). But I would certainly say that a few of those publications lumped into the "blogosphere" are, in fact, not blogs at all. Guess what: they're mainstream publications.

So now what's the excuse? That crazy blogosphere reputation again? No, I don't think so, David Sarno and the LA Times. I think that's a thinkly-veiled potshot. And man, it's mean.

Some were quick to defend their actions, including one Arianna Huffington:

"Let's remember, this wasn't a phony story about aluminum tubes put on the front page of the New York Times; this was a fun, positive story" that passed the sniff test, she said, because it "fit the Trump MO of tireless self-promotion."

Yeah, but the bottom line is, no one checked it out. But Huffington's got a little more room, since she doesn't have the audience of a broadcast news outlet. But FOX?
Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do.

It might be a cute story, but the bottom line is, it's false. And if John Resig hadn't opened his mouth, I bet a few more mainstream publications would have taken the bait.

How NOT To Handle Being Attacked By Gawker: Steve Almond

It's Gawker week on The Editorialiste, folks. I can just feel it.

I just read a terrifying post on The Huffington Post by erstwhile author Steve Almond about how Gawker is somewhere along the lines of Sen. Joe McCarthy, Bill O'Reilly and Star magazine.

Star magazine, OK. But two of those three things, I feel, are amiss on that list.

In his post, Almond describes having no prior experience with the site until he got a heads-up that he's been the subject of a few posts. Evidently, this steamed him -- so much so that he quickly read the somewhat-maligned Grigoriadis-penned article that my dear guest columnist Mitchel Stevens referenced in his last post...and, now with a complete background in all-things Gawker, he wrote this scathing piece in HuffPo.

"They don't pretend to care about 'objectivity' or even accuracy for that matter," he writes, offering up a YouTube video of editor Emily Gould saying the same thing verbatim as proof. But then he reaches too far:

"Gawker readers remind me of all those aggrieved citizens who continue to fall for the GOP's hate campaigns -- and to vote against their own economic interests."

Now I'm no huge Gawker-waving fan, but these things are so far off-base that it made me cringe...and comment on his post. I couldn't stand reading something by someone who got steamed from getting attacked on Gawker and then strikes back without understanding what he's attacking.

Turns out the "pomposity" line in Gawker's post was prophetic.

To Almond's defense, he does get a few things right on the money: That "the payoff for Gawker bloggers is that they gain enough notoriety to land jobs within the media empires they claim to despise" and that the site is "an entirely amoral zone." But what he fails to do is raise any points about Gawker that haven't already been raised in every article ever written about the site ever.

Oh yeah -- and somehow, he equates it with the right-wing, and takes the high ground by signing off with the advice that we should be concentrating more on national issues than media-socialite-blather.

On this argument, I'm in Emily Gould's court. She's been forced to carry far too much responsibility for the misunderstanding (Gawker = McCarthy? Seriously?) of occasional readers. To me, it seems like the only person who's fear-mongering is Almond himself.

Being A Young Journalist Is Like Living In A War

In celebration of my starting a side project writing tech for The Huffington Post, I'm posting on a subject that one of my fellow writers covered in a different section of the site: It's a Confusing Moment To Be a Young Journalist.

Ain't that the truth.

Occidental College research fellow and journalist in residence Steven Barrie-Anthony, a mere three years older than yours truly, says despite the confusion (and all that hubbub about the Internet), the young journalist won't complain.

"I am outraged by corporate owners who, with little understanding of how journalism works...approach the uncertain future with their eyes strictly on the bottom line...this is clearly the worst of times. On the other hand, I sometimes find myself delighted by all this chaos and ferment."

"Could this be - dare I say it - the best of times?"

With his commentary, he invites other reporters to weigh in: Reporters of the LA Weekly, LA Times, Village Voice, and others. Some great commentary from old and young journalists alike follows his post.

So I thought it would be appropriate for The Editorialiste to take a whack at it.

Allow me to start by saying that I am not one of those people that always thought they would be a journalist. I found no interest in the profession until I got to college, where a great political journalism course lit up my pen and sparked everything.

In his post, Barrie-Anthony completely painted an accurate picture of the times, at least for us in our 20s, and maybe everyone else, too. In my own experience, I am constantly barraged with conflicting advice and concern from many of my colleagues, friends and mentors.

Some say journalism is bunk.

Some are amused.

Some find it noble.

Some think journalism school is $60,000 down the drain.

Some think it's opportunity.

Some think it's a poor profession.

Some think we should just be doctors or lawyers.

Some think it's a lot of work.

Some think we're spoiled, plugged-in brats.

Some think we're an exciting digital generation.

Some don't know what to think.

And there's truth in it all, to some degree. But if I had to say something about all this, what would I say, besides everything I've already said on this very blog?

First I'd say that Kathleen Nye Flynn, 25-year-old reporter for the Los Angeles Downtown News, got it right: "Call me blind or stupid, but I can't give up on something that I have so much invested in."

It's that kind of passion that will change everything, and it's that kind of passion that the ones who really care to succeed are fueled by. Right now, I'm strung out by my teeth in the most expensive city in the nation, cobbling together freelance assignments and a day job to do what I want to do. If I didn't have that passion, I'd probably be living at home (which, financial relief aside, is not something I consider a help to my attempted career trajectory).

Tom Brokaw called those WW2 G.I.s the 'Greatest Generation' because they fought in a great war. And call me on being ridiculous, but in this latest incarnation of the war on journalism -- sometimes partially a civil war, so maybe the war of journalism -- I think the multi-talented, writer-producer-webmasters that come out on top are really gonna change the way things are done, rooted in the old. Call us whatever you want, but we're definitely a generation worth naming.

That's what I think. What do you?