An Online Book 

Over 70 well known journalists and media professionals were interviewed for this report. You can read the raw interviews by visiting the Future of Journalism section.

This article is updated on a regular basis, based on our collection of interviews. Last updated: August 12,2010

Newspapers websites: pay up?!

-- Meter Systems, Online Subscriptions, Hybrid Walls

-- Local, Local and More Local

-- Charge for the Crossword?

The situation seems to have stabilized for the newspaper industry after a tumultuous 2009, when erstwhile titans like the Rocky Mountain News and Seattle Post-Intelligencer　vaporized, and others like the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times teetered in bankruptcy, and still others like the Detroit News and Free Press resorted to desperate new measures such as curtailing home delivery to just a few days a week.

And now .. with the demise of the "news should be free" credo for the Internet ... papers are placing a new emphasis on finding additional sources of revenue from online as it becomes more prominent in content delivery.　Astonishingly, despite the sickening financial slide in the industry, very few had charged for their online product.

"Giving away information for free on the Internet while still charging 50 cents to $1 for the print version of the paper was one of the most fundamentally flawed business decisions of the past 25 years," says Prof. Paul J. MacArthur, who teaches public relations and journalism at Utica College.

"Newspapers told their paying customers that the information truly had no value. They told their paying customers that they were suckers. Why would anyone pay 50 cents for something he or she can get for free? This poorly conceived and obviously flawed strategy has helped put the newspaper industry into its current financial condition and hastened the demise of many publications."

In probably the most important development, the New York Times plans to begin charging nonsubscribers next January for online news in what's known as a metering system ... after getting to peruse a certain number of articles a month for free, when the red flag on the ticking meter (virtually) pops up, the reader will have to pay a flat fee for continued unlimited access.

The number of free articles and the amount of the fee are being ironed out, and of course the big question is whether enough new money will come in to offset the advertising-base pageviews that will be lost by readers who discontinue. But as the nation's most popular newspaper site ... 17 million visitors a month ... and with a loyal readership not only in Manhattan but nationally, the Times certainly has a lot to work with to make the venture successful.

Plain old subscription for online is another method, and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has pioneered this, requiring readers to pay $4.95 a month. Newsday and the Newport (R.I.) News are among those who also began using this method last year.

Now we come to the most successful online newspaper revenue method ever devised in this country … it’s what the Wall Street Journal does … it's a hybrid method that makes part of the site free and calls the other part "premium." The Journal charges to look at the premium side … and makes it special. Behind the pay wall, it provides　niche content not available elsewhere. In the WSJ’s case, this is its narrow-focus and extensive business and financial coverage.

Does it work? Well, the Journal’s web version has more than one million subscribers. Former WSJ publisher Gordon Crovitz, in an interview with us, said for many years he has been concerned "that so many newspapers　tried to charge for access to their brands and content in one medium ... print ... while giving it away in another medium, online. This had the unintended consequence of signaling to readers that the value was less online.

"Newspaper publishers hoped that online advertising would be enough to support their digital operations and indeed hoped that it would be the growth engine for the entire news franchise, print and online. Alas, online advertising only grew to the trees, not to the sky.

"Now, with online advertising in cyclical decline, news publishers of all kinds ... newspapers and magazines but also online-only news organizations ... see that it's hard to support a news department with only the advertising revenue stream.

Crovitz is known for turning the Journal around into a profitable operation, and for spearheading the pay site.

"Over the years, there were times when people predicted that readers would never pay to access news online," he says. "By the time the Wall Street Journal Online crossed the one million paying subscriber mark, the critics quieted down."

He makes the important point that while it costs a newspaper money to add a print subscriber, it costs little or nothing to add an online subscriber.

"The profitability of online subscription revenue is very, very attractive. Remember that unlike with print subscriptions, which require buying more newsprint, adding press capacity and using trucks and trains to deliver the newspaper, in the case of digital products the incremental cost is almost $0, making the profitability high."

Crovitz joined another very significant event in the move toward a pay model online last year when he, cable executive Leo Hindery and Steve Brill … the innovative founder of American Lawyer magazine and CourtTV …　launched a venture called JournalismOnline.

Brill wants to build a national site in which newspaper, magazine and online publishers would place their content, and then make money by subscriptions and by licensing fees from Google, Yahoo News and other aggregators ... and by wresting better terms from portable electronic reading device makers like Amazon’s Kindle.

So far, though, it's been slow going for Journalism Online. Looking farther down the road, newspapers may embark on a three-step process to rebuild their financial futures.

STEP 1: Eliminate Print?

Papers are being overwhelmed by enormous newsprint, production and delivery costs ... and a huge amount of staffing associated with them. This is especially so　during the week. If a weekend print edition remains viable, and in most cities it does as it can still attract a lot of ads, that would continue.

The Christian Science Monitor has become the pioneer for this change. Last year, it eliminated its weekday print editions but its weekender lives on.

"While we won’t initially save significant money by ending our daily print publication (costs of printing, distribution, etc. are halved, but subscription revenues fall as well, making the move a wash in the first year), we are able to free most of our editors, reporters, photographers, and designers to continuously update our web site, CSMonitor.com. That should bring us more readers," editor John Yemma told OurBlook.

"Our aim is that over the next five years, our online readership will grow fivefold … from 5 million page-views at present to 25 million … and that that will provide the revenue to sustain our operations."

In the transition from print to online, let's hope that papers have a heart and offer the best severance packages and retraining possibilities they can to their blue-collar workforce, many of whom tend to be long-term, loyal employees.

But obsolescence is obsolescence.

There are four papers that probably can survive as they are in print - of course they're USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

They're in the right place. "I see New York and Washington always having newspapers because they are the seats of financial and political power," says David E. Johnson, CEO of Strategic Vision, an influential public relations firm in D.C.

The "Big Four" have a national base in their financial and/or political reporting and an affluent readership that surely is strong enough to keep them going. In fact, the Times and Journal are stepping up their efforts in print ... the Times has added a new local section in the San Francisco Bay area, and the Journal intends to compete head-on with the Times with a new local section in New York City.

Elsewhere, if print versions can continue economically, then why not.　Even on campus, not everyone is ready to write their obituaries just yet.

"My students do seem to care if newspapers survive," says Marti Harvey, faculty member and student newspaper advisor for the Eastfield College EtCetera in Mesquite, Texas.

"In the past we have talked about going to web-only news due to soaring printing costs, but the uproar from students has quelled that talk. I still see students sitting at tables with laptops; however, they are reading the print edition of the campus newspaper. It's something they can save and it seems they see it as a more official record of campus events than the Internet versions of the same content."

STEP 2: Focus on Local News

What will be the focus of these online efforts? Undoubtedly, local news ... the one special area a local paper has little, if any, competition on.

"I would like to offer a two-word solution to the financial woes of our ink-stained friends: 'local news,' " says business consultant Jonathan Stark, who has consulted for a number of U.S. papers. "Newspapers have real roots in the communities they serve. They have history, tradition and personal relationships. In some cases, they are a source of local pride. If newspapers are willing to let go of their print-based history, invest in their writers, embrace technology and dedicate themselves to being THE source for local news, they will have readers for as long as people can read."

Who else can do it better? Local TV station news anchors and skimpy throwaway weekly papers can't. They feed off the big local paper anyway. And let's get real ... the "start-up" lonely techie sitting in his basement with a computer and a stack of beer cans on one side and unpaid bills on the other poses no threat, either.

"The only way you can charge online is if you have something so special that no one else can re-create it," says

Paul Swider, the former St. Petersburg Times reporter who also did a citizen journalist web site for the paper. "Don't charge for national politics because there's 1,000 other outlets to which the reader can turn, so you're done. But if you have a synthesis or data or other unique quality of content that others can't duplicate, you could charge for it and succeed."

While papers have cut their editorial staffs not only to the bone but inside the bone, there's no excuse for them not coming up with a dynamite local news web site. That's because they can reallocate the staffers who work in national or international news or other areas of the paper to the radically new and different local effort. Local news, local features, local business, local sports, local commentary. It's the chance for newspapers to make up for what they should have been doing.

"The problem for U.S. newspapers is that they failed to invest and innovate during the good times," says Nigel Eccles, co-founder and CEO of the UK web site hubdub.com. "They remained hugely overexposed to print revenues and missed a golden opportunity over the period 2003-06 to increase their exposure to digital."

Utica College’s Prof. MacArthur adds this …"Newspapers need to adapt to the changing realities of the marketplace if they want to survive. So far, most have not.

"Is this deplorable? No, it’s evolution. The emergence of radio changed newspapers. The emergence of television changed newspapers and radio. The emergence of the Internet is changing television, radio and newspapers. The newspaper business just hasn’t figured out the puzzle. If current newspaper management teams can’t figure out the puzzle, someone else will. If no one does, then the daily perishes.

"If that happens, so be it. Not very many people buy reel-to-reel, cassette or eight-track tapes anymore."

That unsettling thought should be enough incentive for papers to cover the community inside out and top to bottom.

"I think that despite all the problems, the major local newspaper still has a strong brand, tremendous institutional depth of knowledge and bonds with the community, and a great opportunity to remain the main hub of information for a community," says Chris O'Brien, a business columnist for the San Jose Mercury News and one of the nation's leading visionaries about the future shape of journalism. He heads the Next Newsroom Project, which works out of Duke University to plan and create the next generation of news coverage structures.

STEP 3: Explore Other Possiblitiies

While tinkering with the formula for their pay websites, it wouldn't hurt for papers to explore other possibilities. While there's no one answer, here are a couple new moves.

Will Shortz has edited the New York Times' crossword puzzles since 1993, and he told Hayley Gold of the Hofstra Chronicle that the online version ... which charges ... is　a moneymaker for his paper, with about 50,000 subscribers paying　$39.95 a year.　That adds up to $1,997,500. Plus there are NYT puzzle books sold in stores.

The Arizona Republic in Phoenix embarked on a new venture last year of offering an enlarged, redesigned TV guide to its Sunday subscribers for an additional 25 cents a week, while continuing to provide a bare-bones version for free. About 40,000 readers signed up for the better product.

The websites could also try adding some different features to a site to raise money, especially those so amenable to the Internet with two-way interaction. That’s what the British papers do, especially with bingo.

Nigel Eccles tells us "the majority of UK newspapers now offer online bingo." Readers pay "via debit or credit card" and "most of the games are for small stakes."

Nonetheless, this represents a significant revenue source for the papers: "At a guess I would say between 25 - 50 percent of UK newspaper online revenues comes from non-advertising sources. Of that a big chunk is online gaming."

Bingo is just the beginning. He says other popular and lucrative attractions on British paper web sites are "sports betting and also fantasy football (soccer) and cricket. The Sun has a Bingo site which I believe is a big revenue generator for them. They also have white labels with a sports book and online casino. The Telegraph runs a number of very profitable businesses, including a puzzle center and premium fantasy league. Also the Telegraph's puzzle centre is popular."

Why Was News Free in the First Place?

All this represents a big shift in thinking. But why did people ever expect newspaper websites to be free in the first place, aside from the fact that papers began them that way?

You don't get free gas from a gas station. You don't get free meals from a restaurant.

You wouldn't walk into the Googleplex ... that's Google's corporate headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. ... and expect a staffer to rush to the lobby with 1,000 free shares of Google stock for you.

However, that's how Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who has been influential in pushing that notion, views it. In an interview with Fortune's Adam Lashinsky, he said, "the culture of the Internet is that information wants to be free."

There is hope. While radio content has been free to listen to, the rise of the pay model in Sirius certainly appears　a viable future direction. While television was free in the rabbit-ears days, HBO paved the way for pay channels, and now cable makes a good living with all sorts of pay options for premium content.

The question remains: can quality news be free and are journalists expected to work for free? When Mr. Schmidt stands in the lobby of the Googleplex and hands out free shares of his company stock, then maybe we can believe the "free" rationale. Until then, newspapers need to start using a model that brings in revenue so that they don't go out of business. Simple as that.

Social Media: From Water Cooler to the World

-- Mass Media Had to Adapt ... Fast

-- Turning Government Upside Down

-- But Will They Endure?

It's all happened so fast with social media ...

2005 ... YouTube, a venture technology startup with early headquarters　above a pizzeria in San Mateo, Calif.,　launches.

2006 ... Facebook, invented in a Harvard dorm room,　goes big-time by　opening up to anyone over age 13 with an e-mail address.

2007 ... Twitter, dreamed up during a podcast company brainstorming session, becomes a separate entity.

And now ...

"People are communicating more often with more people than ever before in history," says Robert Brown, founder of RDB Consulting Firm Inc. in Dallas. "It’s as if the long heralded information revolution has finally reached the streets, and now everyone is a citizen in this revolution. Like all revolutions, we don’t know how this will turn out ... it is at once thrilling and frightening."

It is indisputable that tens of millions of people now use social media as the starting points for dealing with the world, and communicating with it. No longer are mass media the automatic initial gateway.

Publications and social media can be a natural team. But it also means a new orientation for editors and reporters. Namely, from one-way telling the news to being a part of a two-way or multiple-way conversation.

The New York Times appointed Jennifer Preston as its social media editor last year and other papers have begun similar positions. But they're just in the beginning throes of how to figure all of this out, especially in an online landscape that seems to alter by the week, and if indeed anyone can figure it out.

Prof. Sree Sreenivasan of Columbia Journalism School says that social media today are in their infancy - that they can be compared to the advent of radio in 1912 or TV in 1950 or the Internet in 1996. It may be a struggle for old media, though ...　he used to give rounds of sessions at papers about how they could use e-mail, then how to use the Internet, then as the years went on Google ... "and journalists would fight me at every step."

Rob Salkowitz, author of the forthcoming book "Young World Rising," notes that "social media are changing the expectations of how we interact with institutions and people. They inject an immediacy and informality into the way we discuss issues, by taking the conversations that people used to have in small groups around the water cooler or the family dinner table and making them open and public to interested parties anywhere, anytime."

SOCIAL MEDIA AND REPORTING:

It's a two-way street for reporters ... going outward, they use social media to promote themselves, solicit material and build up a base of contacts ... coming back in, they gather tips, sources or story material.

Going out ...

"Many reporters are extending their own personal brand," says Larry Weintraub, CEO of digital marketing firm Fanscape.　"They have blogs, Twitter accounts, Facebook profiles, etc.　Because they are so easy to use, reporters are allowing themselves to become friends with their readers through social media and solicit feedback and answer questions. This helps the publications for which they write as well as themselves should they leave that publication, write a book, or make a public appearance."

Sasha Pasulka finds that "we’re seeing a lot of news operations ... from CNN to small local organizations ... set up Twitter accounts to keep audiences abreast of the news and to drive traffic to their web sites, and we’re certainly seeing audiences take advantage of that. CNN’s Breaking News Twitter account (@cnnbrk) has over two million followers ... that’s a lot of potential to drive traffic.

"It works perhaps less effectively on a local level; for instance, KOMO News in Seattle (@komonews), where I live, has a little over 2,000 followers. That’s a result of the younger, Twitter-using generation taking less interest in local news in general than the generation that preceded them. However, each of KOMO’s individual news anchors has their own official Twitter page and following, and it’s an innovative way to build loyalty with viewers."

Louis Sarmiento as a publisher knows first-hand what social media have brought to conventional media.

"As viewers or ratings go down, so does the advertising revenue to these newspapers and broadcast stations ... social networking is a way to regain an audience and boost ratings," he says. "By doing so, it is a way to attract younger new consumers and also study their habits from likes and dislikes. By connecting with　content and users' profiles, they become advocates of particular interest to their friends/followers ... reposting stories or content on their own page and having an 'influence' in their own circle."

Robert Brown believes that "sophisticated use of web analytics can be used to pinpoint customers. Web analytics will soon drive major news operations as well. Web analytics is the mechanism that will drive the proliferation of targeted messaging across the web to users via the ever-growing array of social media tools, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Digg and so forth. Once you post something, it will be quickly disseminated via social networks to those users who care about the information."

Coming back in ... "Social media have given reporters tremendous access to news stories and leads," Weintraub says.

"The old method was a phone call from a public relations person pitching a story. Then e-mail. Now reporters are pitched numerous times a day via Facebook, Twitter, etc. Investigating those leads can also be facilitated via social media by viewing videos via sites such as YouTube, reading user-generated insight via sites like Wikipedia, or seeking sources via professional social networks like LinkedIn. What would have taken days previously to source can now happen in minutes.

"Authentication still needs to take place utilizing the methodology engrained in a journalist, but lead generation and following trails is infinitely easier."

Weintraub says the best recent example was when "the American Airlines jet crashed into the Hudson in New York. The story was broken via Twitter. Within minutes, people all over the country were alerted to this near-tragedy. The human network of spreading this news led to places like CNN, which immediately jumped on the story that was started on Twitter."

Sasha Pasulka says news-gathering is perhaps where "we’ve seen the biggest impact" in journalism from social media ...　"how news organizations use Twitter and Facebook to get up-to-the-minute information when they can’t or don’t have people on the scene ...　during the November (2008) attacks on Dubai, Twitter was one of the primary sources of information for the major news networks."

Armen Berjikly tells us that "reporters who use Twitter at times utilize their follower tips or content through the direct messaging or the @ functionality on the site where followers can directly send news tips or messages. As for replies coming in from thousands of people, news teams have the option of sifting through all responses searching for the best content (which many of the national news outlets do because of their larger resources) or generate simple yes/no polls on various pressing topics like healthcare reform to get a general (non-scientific) consensus of opinions."

The best advantage, however, is the effect it has had on video journalism and on-the-spot journalism. Jessica Clark explains.

"YouTube also has had a tremendous effect on journalism because it has lowered the bar for on-the-spot reporting. Video used to be prohibitively expensive to produce and broadcast, and now it's almost unimaginably cheap. Live broadcasting is the next frontier; services like Qik make it possible for individuals to create, share and distribute live streaming video, again from pocket-sized devices. Many pundits warn about the fragmentation that's sure to follow from such technologies, but I think the best live shows will filter to more trusted outlets with larger audiences, which will create larger audiences for particular kinds of reporting and entertainment."

Iran, Twitter, and the Disruption of the Media

But by far the most well-known use of social media for journalistic coverage came during election protests in Iran ... a subject that fascinated Larry Elin, a Syracuse University media professor.

"One can immediately see how the public protests over the election fraud in Iran, and its dissemination by social media, are a case study of the　wise crowd theory," Elin says.

"The crowd consists of thousands of individuals who are armed with cell phones, Blackberries and laptops, and who have Internet access to social media aggregation sites like Twitter, Facebook, Myspace and YouTube.

"They report bits and pieces of information from deep within the protests in a decentralized fashion: no one individual influences the rest. The crowd is diverse: individuals are located all over Tehran, and other parts of the country. The crowd is independent: some of the information is 'bad,' in that it is planted by Iranian authorities, but it is quickly balanced by 'good' information. Social media aggregation sites provide the collaboration necessary for the entire world to develop a collective intelligence about what is going on there by seeing all of the individual, small parts."

The effect on mass media has been immense. Social media have cut dramatically into the reach, prosperity and influence of newspapers, magazines and TV networks.

"Social media threaten any organization that functions as a middleman," says Patrick Schwerdtfeger, who has spoken at conferences in Canada, the United States and Europe.

"Traditional media outlets are a good example, acting as a filter between live events and a viewing audience. As we have seen recently in Iran, regular citizen journalists played an important role disseminating developments on the ground.　While their reports fall far short of trained journalists, the appetite for that type of unedited footage is growing. As broadband access continues to grow and video content becomes increasingly accessible through online channels, this trend will accelerate. The media operations that will survive are those that facilitate the contributions of citizen journalists while moderating expert contributions by trained journalists at the same time."

For Rob Salkowitz, social media "have completely disrupted" mass media "by creating so many niche markets and communities, and by making it possible for anyone to reach anyone without having to own a broadcast studio and transmission tower.

"The consolidation of media in the broadcast age also changed the sociology of journalism by turning it into much more of a profession for educated people and, at its highest levels, an extremely powerful and prestigious position. I think an increasing portion of the audience for mass media, especially at the young end of the demographics, is turned off by the self-importance of highly visible mainstream journalists (as demonstrated by the success of media parodies like the Onion and the 'Daily Show'), and resent the inability to talk back in any kind of meaningful way.

"This creates an appetite for the more down-to-earth approach you find in blogs, where comments and conversation are usually encouraged as part of the site features. Members of the Millennial generation in particular find the pomposity and stuffiness of traditional media less engaging than the give-and-take of social channels. I think the broadcasters sense that and are trying to adapt to the new environment by doing things like scrolling a Twitter feed under the news broadcast, bringing bloggers on the air to discuss their ideas, or setting up Facebook pages for the on-air personalities, but those efforts don’t seem terribly authentic or credible."

As a result, Weintraub says, "every day, people become more used to hearing news from people they trust, oftentimes not a professional, just a friend or family member. That person may be originating the news or just re-posting something they heard from another source.

"There is a certain level of trust from within your circle if the news comes back to you multiple times, you tend to believe it. For example, when Michael Jackson died, many of us didn’t hear about it from an established news source, we were alerted by a friend. If we checked our Twitter feeds, multiple voices were stating the same news, 'Michael Jackson has died'"　Thus we tend to believe it.

"So news becomes free. Why do I need to go to the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times?　Aren’t they just re-posting the same information I already know? Do they write it better?　Do they have more experience reporting?　Sure. Do I need that? No. I just need the basic facts."

Still, the impact shouldn't be overstated, nor the disadvantages ignored.

To Rodger Roeser, president of the Eisen Marketing Group, social media are"no different than a press release, op-ed, fax or bylined article. It’s just another way to reach out to news outlets in a format that they may prefer. Twitter and Facebook are just as cluttered as the fax machine and the inbox now. It’s still a matter of weeding through information ... and if anything, it’s yet another item the news operations have to weed through."

The Quasi-Journalist

Prof. Matthew L. Hale, chairman of the Department of Public and Healthcare Administration at Seton Hall University, says "social media make it easy for anyone to become a quasi-journalist.　The Twitter posts from Iran prove that.　More and more news reporting and information sharing will be done this way in the future and that is hurting and will continue to hurt traditional journalism.　Major news organizations will have to figure out a new business model because the old one is dying.

"There are two real downsides to this. One is that while everyone thinks being a journalist is just showing up and saying what is going on, it isn't ... good journalists ask difficult questions and do an enormous amount of research to make sure they get the story right. They have ethical standards that people off the street don't. Full-time journalists have a breadth of knowledge and contacts that regular people don't. Anyone can point a camera or say what they think is going on but that doesn't make them journalists or allow them to produce quality news.

"The other downside is that having millions of individual journalists out there, we lose a sense of collective knowledge. It has been said that the Vietnam war was over when Walter Cronkite said we were losing it. Without a news source that reaches millions and is trusted by millions, we lose a sense of common experience or knowledge that I think is important."

Matt Eventoff, a communications trainer with Princeton Public Speaking, says he disagrees with a number of his colleagues "in that I believe major news operations will always have a fairly prominent place in our society. Major media bring legitimacy to a story, and that won't change. Mainstream media still matter.

"Why? Sheer reach. Mainstream media still reach more individuals than any other single medium. So when a major national daily (the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today) runs an eye- grabbing headline, the public pays attention.

"The reality is that a political campaign will use a positive headline in a major daily in paid broadcast advertising over an endorsement from my blog, or any one of the millions of bloggers out there. The difference now is that a candidate's 'blogging army' of 2 or 20 or 200 can relentlessly comment, post and generate their own content and get it listed on Google news, Yahoo, Bing, etc."

While the industrious journalist may take pride in having hundreds of "friends" out there in social medialand, how does he/she handle it when all those hundreds of people Twitter in with news at once?

During the unrest in Iran, Elin says, "interestingly, it was our very own CNN, Fox News and MSNBC that served the role of synthesizing all of the bits of information, and facilitating a collective intelligence. Much to their own chagrin,　unable to gather information, images, or stories on their own, the professional news organizations relied on all of those 'unverified' sources from Twitter and YouTube to piece together what was happening in Iran.

"We, then, formed our mental picture ... our reality ... of what was happening in Iran because thousands of news sources on the ground acted like the eye of a fly (seeing it from thousands of perspectives), while the cable news folks made a single image of it, which we hope was an accurate synthesis."

Click here to read the rest of Chapter 2 - Future of Social Media  

 Rise of the Citizen Journalist

-- ProPublica the Foremost User

-- Everyone with a Cellphone Can Be a　Reporter

-- Can They Do Anything More Than the Trivial?

Newspapers across America have become so decimated by staff cutbacks that citizen journalists are stepping in to fill the gap in covering the news. Experts also tell us that this is what newspapers should have been doing all along - cultivating and engaging their community, and harnassing the power of citizen journalists

Professor Atkins says, "..Citizen journalism can help local newspapers survive by making them a more interactive product. Readers who post comments, articles and photos on their local newspaper's web site might feel a stronger connection to the paper and be more likely to read the print version and the online version of the paper."

Derek Clark, who runs www.geekpolitics.com - a site that comments on public affairs and media issues, agrees. "The newspapers that survive will be the ones that make the most of the benefits of the online world...Citizen journalism can in many cases provide free content and the internet provides the ability to reach a much larger audience. The old media that combine their resources with the advantages of new media will thrive. The old media that try to cling to their old methods of doing things will die."

Pro Publica

The biggest nationally-based promoter of the citizen journalism movement is ProPublica, the foundation-funded investigative reporting venture. It has current pleas out for contributions from people caught up in unemployment, and ran a stimulus fund startup story last year based on citizen journalists tracking local projects

Bleacher Report, which calls itself "the Web's largest sports network powered by citizen sportswriters," made a big breakthrough for itself early in 2010 ... and for citizen journalists as well.

The company announced it was beginning a partnership with Hearst to introduce local online editions in the newspaper publisher's four largest markets ... the San Francisco Chronicle's SFGate, the Houston's Chronicle's Chron.com, the San Antonio Express-News' MySan Antonio.com, and Seattlepi.com.

This would seem to have a good shot at succeeding. Bleacher Report is bringing in the coveted young and middle-aged male demographic that is vocal and passionate about sports ... and more than willing to write about them for free ...　and these guys are also thought to be open-wallet buyers of　products from the advertisers who'll be lured to the sites.

Elsewhere in newspaperdom, the Washington Times and Hartford Courant offered on extensive citizen journalist efforts in 2009. The Times launched a full, themed page strictly by citizen journalists in its local section six days a week ... and the Courant presented　a project called iTowns with citizen news from a roster of 73 towns in the area.

But an earlier venture by the Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk failed. According to the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, the paper tried a citizen media effort called Co-Pilot that ran three times a week with community news in print and online. It even sent an editor to Spain to study similar projects there.

After a nine-month struggle, the paper pulled the plug in March 2008. Pew quoted editor Dennis Finlay as saying, "Mostly we discovered it is not the savior we thought. It was very difficult to get quality reader-produced content." As for the general base of readers, Finlay said, "nobody cared when we got rid of it."

While the rise of citizen journalists has caused a flurry of excitement and discussion in the journalistic community, there have been precursors for many years. Papers have always relied on what they used to call "stringers" to call in tidbits such as high school basketball scores or news from small-scale events the paper doesn't staff, or using man/woman on the street responses to a set question, or birth and wedding announcements. Via syndicates, papers have also run features by nonjournalists such as doctors with Q&A medical columns or mechanics with Q&A automobile columns.

The citizen journalist movement has attained some organization as at least three major groups have been formed, with even lofty Harvard deigning to get into it ...

-- The Knight Citizen News Network. Out of the old Knight-Ridder newspaper chain, this is an impressively complete online self-help portal to help citizen journalist s launch and responsibly operate news sites.

-- The Center for Citizen Media, a news and issues roundup site. It's run by Dan Gillmor, director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University.

-- The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, out of the Harvard Law School. It runs the Citizen Media Law Project, training individuals and organizations in CJ law.

So the scope is broad. The immediate question for us here is whether this crop of citizen journalists will replace, not supplement, regular reporters ... and whether their work can be presentable without editing by regular staff or a syndicate.

THE BENEFITS:
Citizen Journalists can broaden out the base of a paper, extend its reach

"Probably some events get reported by citizen journalists that would not be reported without them," says David Weaver, a journalism professor at Indiana University. "Reporters can’t be everywhere and cannot know about all events taking place in their communities. In that sense, citizen journalism may help to broaden the kind of events that are reported."

"With smaller staffs chasing fewer stories, citizen journalists could help local papers keep a broader mix of stories and community reporting in front of readers," says Thom Clark, president of the Community Media Workshop in Chicago. "Citizen journalists can also show editors or remaining beat reporters where there is keen community interest about certain issues and institutions that could heighten reader interest."

What's more, "citizen journalism can be a powerful tool for reporting hyperlocal news (news that is specific to one community) because people care about their community and have a hunger for finding out what is going on. People care about school board and local planning meetings, and these are stories that citizens who attend these meetings can report on and post to a web site. Will it be a completely factual, objective account of what went on at the meeting? Well, maybe yes and maybe no, but at least someone is disseminating the information about it. The problem comes when an investigative or in-depth story needs to be done. This requires a lot of time and resources, neither of which many citizen journalists have."

Roy Christopher, author of ''Follow for Now: Interviews with Friends and Heroes," sees citizen journalism as "viable strictly for its potential in representing a diversity of viewpoints."

Christopher adds: "How viable can the quality of information be if it's only coming from a handful of sources? Whoever can come correct with the news and information in the fastest, sexiest manner will determine the future of journalism. Citizen journalism will certainly be a part of this evolution. I can't say through what communication channel that will be, but whereas our parents read the newspaper, our children certainly won't."

THE DRAWBACKS:

Adam Stone is the publisher of the Examiner community newspapers in Putnam and Westchester counties, N.Y. ... just the type of publication you'd think would welcome citizen journalists But no.

"I don't think citizen journalism should dominate or even play a minor role in the operation of mainstream newspapers," he says. "I'm sure there is a place for it ... a valuable place ... in alternative media. I think it's been the mainstream newspaper industry's embrace of new editorial formulas and approaches that has been leading to its demise (although) my opinion runs contrary to what most inside and outside the industry believe."

Stone says the most relevant place for citizen journalists in a traditional paper is what it's always been ... "the letters to the editor section."

Indiana's Prof. Weaver doesn't even think citizen journalists should be the correct term ... "citizen communicators" would be better because "without the training and education that most journalists have, most citizens cannot qualify as journalists." He thinks citizen journalists, or citizen communicators, "are best at reporting breaking events, and not likely to be very helpful for in-depth, analytical or investigative reporting."

Add Richard Roher to the mix ... he's president of Roher Public Relations, Pleasantville, N.Y. He thinks of newspapers as "brands that bestow credibility, authority, gravitas on their content. I don't think 'citizen journalism' (is there agreement on what this term even means?) can sustain the type of reporting that produces Pulitzer prize winning pieces."

A common concern about citizen journalists is their competence or lack of it, but Roher says, "it's not ineptitude I'm worried about (dolts won't attract or keep an audience; I believe quality will out). It's maliciousness or subversiveness that really poses the greatest risk. Skilful, willful acts of misstatement or distortion are the greater concern. Newspapers aren't perfect in keeping out blatant or intentional falsehood, but they do a decent job."

Dr. Kirsten Johnson, assistant professor, Department of Communications, Elizabethtown College, Pa., has authored several papers on citizen journalism, and is currently writing a book chapter on the subject.

"Local newspapers should not rely on citizen journalists to help them survive," she says. "Most citizen journalists are not paid anything for their work and lack the motivation to help a for-profit entity continue to make a profit. Citizens cannot and should not be viewed as free labor."

Prof. Johnson notes that "with many local newspapers going out of business, there is a void that can be filled by citizen journalists." In her town, the Elizabethtown Chronicle has gone of business. "Now citizens are starting to band together to write and post stories on our citizen journalism web site www.we-town.com" ... a site she helped establish.

Citizen Journalists and Ethics

A big concern with the use of citizen journalists is the lack of journalism training and quite possibly journalism ethics. However, there are many things newspapers can do keep a high quality standard.

"Newspapers could hold regular citizen journalism training sessions at the newspaper every month that could focus on newsgathering techniques and media ethics," says Larry Atkins, adjunct professor of journalism in Arcadia University's English, Communications and Theatre Department. "They also could post a podcast or video presentation on their web site giving reporting tips and ethical advice. Have a newspaper staff member regularly monitor the citizen journalism submissions much like a newspaper message board to keep an eye out for content that might appear biased, dishonest, false, defamatory or otherwise objectionable."

Brian McNeil, Wikinews pioneer agrees. "Regardless of the newspaper, I think one of the most important things they should consider is nurturing talent. Are you a local newspaper? 90%+ of your income from print adverts targeted at people in the area? Then you should be looking for the local citizen journalists who sit next to their police scanner and report on the drug busts and local fires. Assume you will have to invest in improving their writing skills, be relaxed about them publishing elsewhere, and pay them enough money to make it worth their while to give you first option on material. If they could afford to, they would be on the scene at these fires and such;"

LEARN FROM TV.

We come right back to Prof. Atkins: "Local newspapers could take advantage of citizen journalism much like the manner in which cable television outlets like CNN have used I-Reports. Newspapers could encourage citizen journalists to send photos and write first-person accounts of their experiences in observing a news event. For instance, people who attend a local July 4 parade could send photos, video and written impressions to be posted on the newspaper website. If there are over 50 local July 4 parades in a metropolitan area, one reporter can't get to all of them. Through citizen journalism I-Reports, a newspaper could post information about most, if not all, of those parades."

Click here to read the rest of Chapter 3 - Future of Citizen Journalists  

No Secrets Anymore?

-- A Way to Guard against Governmental Misdeeds

-- Easy to Abuse the Privilege

-- What Exactly is a Journalist?

As the new decade began, Congress considered a major new power for journalists ... it began moving federal media shield legislation that would protect them from being forced to reveal their confidential sources in court. Many states already have such shields.

Ironically, the drive for it comes just as the mainstream media have been declining precipitously in readership and finances, are at an all-time low in public believability as measured by academic research, and have relatively few ace investigative reporters left who would avail themselves of a media shield law.

"Too many journalists today are still in denial about how they are perceived by most of the public," says John Hamer, executive director of the Washington (State) News Council, which hears complaints by the public about the media. "They think they deserve special protections and special treatment because they are doing such an important job. They proclaim that their motives are noble and pure, that they defend the 'people's right to know,' that they 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,' and that they 'speak truth to power.' They don't realize that many citizens mistrust the press as much or more than they do other major institutions."

How does an ethical journalist use such sources, and when? Stephen J. Farnsworth, an assistant professor of communication at George Mason University, used to be a local government reporter with the Kansas City Star and Times.

"I routinely used confidential sources as part of my information-gathering process," he says. "But they weren't always used in the story itself. I always tried to find an on-the-record source or official documents whenever possible to quote in a story that may have started with a tip from a confidential insider, but that was not always possible."

Farnsworth says "the biggest problems for me with on-the-record sources involved getting information about public employee misconduct. Since many of these cases involved potential criminal activity ... stealing, bribery and so on ... by city and county workers, investigators and other city officials were not willing to speak for attribution. So I used unnamed sources in such circumstances. The public had a right to know, but even when I used unnamed sources I tried to provide at least some detail ... 'law enforcement sources,' 'city investigators' or something like that to give people at least a sense of where the information came from.

"I always worried that the paper's credibility, and nothing helps a paper's credibility more than the use of named sources whenever possible. So for me the use of unnamed sources as attributions in stories was not common, maybe a few times a year."

Here are pro and con arguments about having media shield legislation.

PRO: "Unfortunately, all governments at times try to conceal information, often covering up misdeeds, just plain lousy decisions, embarrassments and corruption," says Len Shyles, associate professor of communication, Villanova University. "Government officials sometimes even try to make it illegal for people to tell the truth. Without robust shield laws to protect professional journalists from revealing their sources, access to the truth would be hampered to an unacceptable extent."

The American Society of Newspaper Editors has been lobbying hard for this legislation.

Martin Kaiser, president of the ASNE and editor of the Milwaukee Journal, believes the main benefit would be "the creation of a legal protection for journalists that currently does not exist. While this is not a perfect bill, it will provide protection for journalists subpoenaed to testify in a federal proceeding. Recent federal case law indicates that the journalist has no choice but to testify or go to jail (or face significant, often personal, fines). The Free Flow of Information Act will make things, in a word: better."

Prof. Mary Alice Molgard, who teaches communications at the College of Saint Rose, notes that "reporting on issues of public importance is vital in communities both large and small. Sources put themselves at risk if they expose a wrong (loss of job, influence, prestige, family complications) without the promise of confidentiality. Sources also don't have means to reach a wide audience, and therefore need the media to do it for them. The shield enables the reporter to credibly inform the public. Without it, the story doesn't get told, and the public is at a disadvantage."

She also points out that "news organizations all across the country are afraid of doing controversial stories. Lawsuits are expensive, in financial terms, in terms of time and energy. Local television almost never does investigative reporting any more; newspapers are reluctant but still do some stories. However, if cutbacks and layoffs continue, the numbers of such stories will dwindle. Business managers will not spend limited resources on potentially difficult stories requiring confidentiality and lawyers."

Matt Duffy is a Georgia State University Ph.D. student who's writing his thesis on confidential sources and has a website on this topic ... http://www.anonymoussources.org.

"Nobody wants to live in a country where the government can coerce the press into divulging where it gathers its information," he says. "The press needs to act as a watchdog to the government and may not be able to do that job properly if reporters are worried about going to jail because they refuse to divulge their sources. The fundamental mission of the shield law is to prevent the government from infringing upon the press' First Amendment right to report the news in an unfettered manner."

To Prof. Farnsworth, "The pros outweigh the cons by a huge margin. I'm much more worried about the chilling effect of the status quo on public disclosure than the negative things that might result with such a law. Quality of journalism seems likely to suffer without more protection for journalists. As it stands now, government officials can pressure reporters and jail them if they don't get the information the government feels entitled to obtain. In these difficult financial times for the media business, only the richest media companies can afford to face the legal challenges. So, many good stories might not get the green light, or they might get watered down. The public's right to know can suffer."

John Hamer feels "it is valuable to have protections for confidential sources of important information that the public deserves and needs to know, IF those sources are genuinely in jeopardy of serious repercussions such as job loss or demotion, financial harm or physical threat."

CONS: This privilege can easily be abused.

"The danger is that confidential sources may have ulterior motives that are not apparent or revealed to journalists who are seeking a 'good story' and often hoping to win journalism prizes," Hamer says.

"Some sources may manipulate journalists and use them for their own purposes. Too many journalists are naive or inexperienced and easily manipulated. With the declining number of experienced editors and the deadline pressures of online media, this problem is exacerbated.

"Journalists can be easily misled by sources with ulterior motives. Witness the CBS Dan Rather/Mary Mapes stories about George W. Bush. Witness the New York Times stories about John McCain's supposed affair with a lobbyist. Journalists need to be much more skeptical of confidential sources' motives ... and even consider laying out those motives in public. In retrospect, even 'Deep Throat' (Mark Felt) had ulterior motives because he had been passed over to head the FBI after J. Edgar Hoover's death. Should the Washington Post have told its readers that fact? Would it have made readers think any differently about the Watergate stories?"

Matt Duffy says that "anyone can pick up a New York Times or Washington Post every day and read confidential information. Given this environment, it seems information is flowing pretty well without extra protection for journalists. I think a federal shield law would give journalists tacit approval to use more unnamed sources in their reports. I think that method of reporting is already overused."

Prof. Farnsworth: "Confidential sources shouldn't be a way for partisans to wage political attacks without being named or held accountable for their remarks. I worry that there is too much of that in Washington reporting."

Prof. Molgard: "A federal shield law is only of major importance to the media. It is not understood or considered important by the general public.The public already has a strong negative perception of reporters and the shield law may be seen as a way to avoid accountability."

The other commonly cited problem is just who gets covered by this protection ... and just who is a "journalist."

"A federal shield law would create the de facto licensing of journalists," says Duffy. "If journalists have special protection under the shield law, then the federal government must decide whether the person in question is a journalist so they know whether they can legally demand to know where information originated. In this fast-changing media environment, I'm not sure I want the federal government determining who counts as a journalist and who doesn't."

Prof. Shyles says, "The biggest disadvantage of the bill, and this debate has a long history, is that the press can surrender to the government the definition of who is and who is not a legitimate reporter or journalist, and this gets into the whole licensing debate."

Martin Kaiser: "There is always a danger in letting a government entity of any type define who is and who is not a 'journalist.' " He says the definition should be the simplest one ... that of whoever carries out "the act of gathering information with the intent to transform that information for public dissemination."

Note to readers: THIS CHAPTER IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

Note to readers: THIS CHAPTER IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

Government bailout, poof ... foundation money, maybe 

-- The ProPublica Solution

-- Dealing with the NPR/PBS Factor

-- Help for the Business Side of Papers?

When federal government bailouts took shape in 2009, wishful thinking floated up and down the Internet for newspapers and other publications to get in on the action.

That didn't happen, as there was little enthusiasm for it either inside the industry or outside.

"It’s a terrible idea," OurBlook was told by Dr. Douglas Perret Starr, a professor of agricultural journalism　at Texas A&M. "If government bails out newspapers, even with a blank check, government will control not only newspapers, but also every other news outlet — radio, television, World Wide Web, and whatever else the mind of man can invent."

"Government should not control media," says Mickey Alam Khan, editor in chief of Mobile Marketer, a trade publication in New York. "That’s what happens in Russia and Venezuela and other tinpot dictatorships. Newspapers will have to figure out their own business model. If they take government dollars, they will surrender the right to speak freely and without fear."

In fact, there might have been problems even in reporting the terms of a bailout, as the papers themselves might have wanted to keep their financial information private and confidential. Talk about tying yourself in a knot ...

"If the federal government opted to include loans to the media in a bailout plan, the issue of prior restraint could become problematic," says Cailin Brown, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Department of Communications,　The College of Saint Rose,　Albany, N.Y. "How would the industry report about the deals? Would all of the information get included, would some get left out because of the proprietary nature of the industry?"

But the idea of a "foundation press" in the wake of widespread media cutbacks did gain a bit of a foothold, especially with the establishment of the ProPublica investigative reporting venture. It's bankrolled primarily by San Francisco Bay Area billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler. It has a staff of about 40,　is headed by former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger and does not only its own reports but also works jointly with newspapers.

Another example ... a lot smaller one ... is It's a state government news bureau in Oklahoma City funded by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs..

"In the mid-1990s, nearly 1,000 reporters covered state capitols　across the 50 states," says CapitolBeatOK editor Pat McGuigan, who formerly ran the editorial page for the Oklahoman newspaper. "Today, capitol press corps numbers have shrunk to around 300 in all. In Oklahoma, falling advertising revenue and paid subscriptions have led publishers of many newspapers to reduce staff, causing cutbacks in both statehouse and investigative reporting."

To fill the gap, the Oklahoma council "contracted with me to do journalistic research ... to provide incisive news reporting from 23rd & Lincoln on areas of broad public interest."

All this comes amidst concern about whether we as a nation and our concept of democracy would suffer if newspapers were to go out of business and disappear.

PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE:

So to help save them, we seem to have a public vs. private debate. But it's a lot more complicated than that, and tough to figure. The fact is, the U.S. taxpayers have been bailing out two of the electronic media for years. They get federal dollars and lots of them ... about $400 million worth a year, in fact.

"We have National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System as examples of direct government support, in tax money, for journalism," says Prof. Charlotte Grimes, who holds the Knight Chair in Political Reporting at the Newhouse School, Syracuse University. "I’m not wild about how vulnerable that makes them to government pressure."

Both NPR and PBS indeed have their legions of devoted fans and have earned a reputation for erudite, high-quality fare. While　mistrusted or criticized by some conservatives for their news/political programming, it's fair to say in the end that NPR and PBS enjoy substantial public support. To their credit, they work hard to gain other income from advertising and those ceaseless but apparently effective fundraising pledge drives.

So how could our society say yes to government funding of NPR/PBS and no to newspapers?

Well, for one thing, to a certain extent they are different situations. The airwaves have always had more government regulation and interference because of their limited spectrum availability than the press with its unlimited availability.

"The government ‘subsidy’ for broadcasters stretches much farther back than the introduction of public broadcasting; we note the governmental allocation of publicly owned broadcast frequencies to commercial interests for a revenue stream that empties only into a commercial pond," says Bruce Austin, chair of the Department of Communication at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

"The application of public broadcasting’s method(s) of financial support to that of the printed daily newspaper or, for that matter, printed magazines (published at varying intervals) seems misplaced. It is a ‘solution’ for a single dimension to someone’s (newspaper publishers’) narrowly defined problem (an economic/revenue problem."

For another, one situation is national with NPR and PBS … and the other is local, as it is local papers that have emerged as the prime candidates for bailouts. The four big national papers … USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal … have thus far escaped bailout talk despite the economic woes of the first three.

"I suspect there’s more support for government spending on NPR/PBS than on straight newspaper bailouts because both NPR and PBS are national news operations," Prof. Grimes says. "It’s easier for the government to support two national operations than all the local newspapers that need financial help.

"And it’s also actually easier to keep an eye on government intrusion or attempts at censorship when you only have to keep track of what government’s doing or trying to do to PBS or NPR. Who could keep a protective eye on all the newspapers that could be censored or influenced or pressured by government funders?"

PURELY ECONOMIC AID:

Of course, newspapers in a basic sense are merely economic products. Thus, there might be viable, legitimate government help for them if it was a part of something available to all businesses.

In other words, if the assistance had an economic purpose rather than ideological.

Newspapers as far back as the Postal Act of 1792 have enjoyed favorable postage rates. The Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 fostered joint operating agreements in many metro areas … exempting papers from anti-trust laws so that they could share a common business operation while maintaining competitive newsrooms.

Those are two examples of government support. The first no one complains about. The second drew both praise and criticism for propping up the weaker of two papers, and in the end some of the papers failed anyway as with the recent demise of the Tucson Citizen while the Arizona Star survives.

"My instinct (on a bailout) is to say: Not on your life!" says Syracuse’s Prof. Grimes.

"But newspapers need some life support these days … government MIGHT ... and I stress the MIGHT ... be able to do some things like tax breaks for newspapers as they adapt to the digital revolution, tax breaks for start-ups of new news organizations ... online or in print ... or tax breaks for the wonderful brave souls willing to buy a going-out-of-business newspaper."

The intricacies of the issue came to the fore last year in the state of Washington, where Gov. Christine Gregoire signed into law a 40 percent tax break in the state’s main business tax for newspapers and printers.

It had a plausible economic justification in that Boeing and the timber industry previously had gotten a similar break.

"If other businesses get preferred tax treatment, why not newspapers?" asks Prof. Grimes. "Surely newspapers contribute as much to the economy and far more to democracy than most businesses."

On a smaller scale, the Carrboro, N.C., Citizen, a two-year-old weekly covering an area near Chapel Hill, obtained a $50,000 small business loan from an economic development fund after the town’s Board of Aldermen approved it.

There’s a twist to this one, though, because instead of being just another paper gasping its last breath, the Citizen actually wanted to expand its staff and headquarters and increase the press run from 6,000 to 10,000. The expansion aspect, rather than tossing a life-saving ring to a failure, made it less controversial.

One other idea to mention in this discussion - lifting the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban.

This could "benefit both newspaper and radio industries," says Michael Saffran, adjunct professor of communication at Rochester Institute of Technology.

"However, rather than serving as an open-ended gift to media conglomerates, repealing the ban should be tied to stricter radio ownership limits.

"According to an FCC study, newspaper/television station cross-ownership enhances the quantity and quality of TV news and public-affairs programming. Radio could similarly benefit from partnerships between broadcasters and publishers because most newspapers (with a few notable exceptions) are, much like radio, inherently local.

"Thus, the addition of print reporters to the small news staffs (if they exist at all) of cross-owned radio stations could enhance local-radio news ... an area in which local radio is currently underperforming, according to many experts. Local newspapers (along with broadcast stations) could realize economies of scale, increased cross-promotional opportunities, and heightened visibility within local communities (as "faceless" newspaper bylines transform into "disembodied" radio voices, and vice versa)."

Freedom of the press fans will have to hope these efforts will help. Because if papers don't make it …

To lose even one major paper "will diminish the intellectual lead that America has had over the rest of the world," says Mickey Alam Khan. "A population that is not well-read will not think critically. Newspapers, be they in print or online or on mobile, offer edited, moderated and unbiased news and balanced opinion so necessary for debating between good choices and bad in personal life and at work."

"The United States as we know it will disappear; it will no longer be a nation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," adds Prof. Starr. "One by one, all of our freedoms will disappear; the Bill of Rights, of freedoms, will be meaningless because there will be no freedom of speech or of the press. Without a free press, there will be no one to keep an eye on the government and to tell the people what the government is doing and is planning to do."

Click here to read the rest of Chapter 7 - Future of Government Subsidy

Note to readers: THIS CHAPTER IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

Future of Digital Delivery and Readers

-- Digital Delivery Could Save Papers, Mags

-- E-Readers: Whole World in Your Hands

-- The Revolution Has Just Begun

"He's got the whole world, in his hands ...

"He's got the whole wide world, in his hands ..."

And now, for the first time in history, this old gospel song has come true.

You can have the whole wide world right in your hand of anything you want to read, watch or listen to with the advent of the iPad.

The iPad and similar electronic reading devices "are more significant than any invention related to the display of information since the Gutenberg press," says Kenneth R. Pybus, assistant professor of journalism and mass communication at Abilene Christian University. "I know that's a strong statement, but these types of devices combine the best technology of the past 100 years for the dissemination of information."

This has to be the ultimate in communications for leisure, serious intent and everything in between. Not only can you read newspapers, magazines, books or anything else with printed words, it will also bring you movies, TV shows, videos, games, music, the Internet and e-mail.

What else would you want?

That's at the reception end. At the production end, the impact is substantial as well.

All told, the future of reading will be much more powerful, varied and individualized.

DIGITAL DELIVERY BENEFITS

For the publisher, this means a current product can be delivered, with considerable cost savings.

"Up-to-date information is probably the biggest benefit," says Andy Petroski, director and assistant professor of learning technologies at Harrisburg University of Science and Technology. "At the rate information changes and the pace of life/business in general, anything that needs to 'go to print' has a high probability of being out of date by the time of 'consumption.' "

In the near future, he believes, "print newspapers and magazines will be 'lead-ins' to stories that can be found online. This will enable the newspaper and magazines to print editions with less physical volume, but just as much (or more) content."

Broadcast journalist Rich DeMuro, an editor for Techmeme, finds "it's the instantaneous aspect of the delivery that I enjoy most. Information can be updated in real time. By the time a newspaper is delivered to your doorstep, some of the information in it is already out of date. This doesn't have to happen anymore with digital delivery."

Mary M. Glick, associate director of the American Press Institute, says "the fact is that if you want to follow the audience, you must deliver your content digitally. Here at API, we've been talking with forward-thinking publishers who recognize that the real divide isn't between print and digital, it's between the first wave of digital content (web pages, e-mail, search, and all the things we've been doing online for the past 20 years) and the social, real-time web, where content is immediately shared and continuously updated."

Jim Gaines has been a leader in both sides of the media world. He's founder and editor-in-chief of online StoryRiver Media, but before that, he held the title of managing editor of Time, Life and People in their print heyday.

He told us, "Benefits include saving the cost of paper, ink and distribution, instant revisability, multimedia capability, collaborative functionality ... make a story into a conversation ... ubiquity (no carrying it around; it's as close as your device), etc. The real question for me is why a lot of printed material is still being printed when most communications are more powerful, less expensive and more functional in digital rather than printed form."

DeMuro also mentions "the huge savings on distribution costs to publishers," and among these Petroski adds "reduced equipment needs and reduced energy consumption and waste" to the list.

Would these savings be enough to save failing newspapers and magazines if they totally switched to digital?

Greg Smith, chief information officer for George Fox University, thinks so: "The greatest benefit will be saving the newspaper industry. Newspapers not only need the lower cost distribution model but they also need a way to compete for the 'timely access to news' market. Newspapers have a tremendous opportunity to re-invent themselves to fit the Internet world of information at your fingertips. A media rich digital version of the newspaper incorporating the latest in their region's social networking is all that is needed."

But to Prof. Pybus, "Newspapers and magazines are dealing with problems beyond just the printing and delivery costs, so a simple change in delivery method will not save them. They are trying to produce a product with an outdated business model, and they are going to have to radically restructure their employee base and information-gathering models to survive. In some ways, newspapers especially are facing the problem of disconnect from their audience, and they can't regain that just by delivering via mobile device."

Mary Glick agrees: "This delivery method alone will not save failing newspapers and magazines, and that's because the very nature of our relationship with audiences has changed. If publishers recognize this and are committed to learning as much as they possibly can about engaging people in new ways, collaborating wisely with appropriate partners, and serving the needs of the businesses that support them ... in addition to reaching audiences across multiple platforms and channels ... now, you're talking digital future!"

Vince Kern is right on the firing line for these questions ... he's senior director of technology/innovation for the Detroit Media Partnership, which is the financial arm for the struggling Detroit News and Detroit Free Press.

He's more optimistic about print media not fading away just yet during the electronic transition.

"I really don't see this happening for some time, he told us. "People still love the printed product and will pay for it. You'd be surprised how many folks between 30 and 50 still want to read the newspaper. Perhaps not as often, but they do not want it to go away.

"Does that mean I think newspapers and magazines will continue in the same format? No. I think the next phase in the print world is something that is happening in Europe right now: Print time on presses between runs is being brokered to small independent publishers and these ''micro'' newspapers are being snapped up in quantities up to 50,000 or so. But these newspapers and magazines are more niche oriented and small independent and separate businesses, not major conglomerates trying to cover a broad base. I think it will be at least 10 years before the tablet, e-reader and still-to-come platforms become commonplace."

DIGITAL DELIVERY DRAWBACKS

There are several. The main one is m-o-n-e-y.

"We haven't found a way to make enough digital dollars," Glick says. "The paradox is that the printed publication, which still pays the rent, can act like a ball and chain when it comes to digital innovation. Unless publications are organized for continuous innovation and training or hiring tech savvy workers, keeping up with all the changes will exhaust resources fast."

To Vince Kern, "the biggest drawback is the ticking clock. It remains to be seen which business models will emerge as successful for content providers in this new universe of providers, procurers and platforms. ... And until some of the companies like Skiff, Olive, LibreDigital and others who want to serve as a one-stop shop for publishers come online with their pricing and services, we won't know how this plays out. Meantime, consumers may well get increasingly used to newspapers, magazines and book publishers being on the fringe."

Pybus notes that the main drawback for publishers "is the same problem the music industry faces. For decades, people have been paying for music and getting it in tangible format. So psychologically they were paying for the vinyl or the plastic or the cassettes or CDs, and the music just happened to be included. Today it's hard for people to pay money for the zeros and ones that are electronically delivered to their computers or iPods. Newspapers and magazines will face the same hurdle. People always thought they were paying for the newsprint or the slick paper and will have to be convinced that they need to support all the reporters, photographers, freelancers who do the work readers don't want to do to get the information and news they want."

For Petroski, another major drawback for publishers is that their product is "no longer 'in front' of the reader. A print piece can sit on the coffee table, the night stand, etc. ... waiting to be read. Digital information delivery requires fighting through the clutter of other digital information that's delivered to the e-mail inbox, RSS reader or content aggregator ... or requires the reader to go out and get it."

He also points out that "digital delivery requires a different content and business model. And, that model is still evolving with new generations of technology, software and devices. Those who want success with new delivery mediums really need to think of them as tools for changing the content and the way that readers interact with that content (and the publisher) vs. just an alternative delivery mechanism for the same old thing."

Greg Smith: "The type of digital delivery is the most important question. This probably breaks down into a version for subscription and one for purchase models. Subscription publications will strive to make distribution as flexible as possible due to their dependence on circulation driving advertising revenue. The challenge for the publisher of market specific magazines will come from the need to justify advertising revenue based on actual reader clickthrough rather than just the circulation list ... although magazines and newspapers that are able to command a subscription price will still be able to leverage advertising revenue based on circulation. The key to this all: without distribution barriers, the competitive playing field will be leveled favoring the digital presentation as much as the actual content."

Click here to read the rest of Chapter 9 - Future of Reading

-- Age of Trialogue: Narrowcasting, Not Broadcasting

-- The Customer Becomes Your Pal

-- Media Must Blend Print, Website Efforts

Talk about your world being turned upside-down ... if you're a print media ad person, that is ...

It used to be One-to-Many ... one powerful advertiser sending a message to many quiet recipients.

Now it's One-to-One repeated many times ... with　advertiser and customer　on an equal footing, and the conversations reverberating through social media.

"Advertising used to be a one-sided approach where the brand sent out a message and the consumer had to accept it," says Gunter, known as the "Stuzo guy" as CEO of Stuzo. "Now it's a whole new approach" ...　a two-way conversation ... "an engagement."

Just as print media writers have experienced a revolution in how they communicate with readers, so have the advertisers in how they communicate with consumers.

"In the 'olden days,' consumers more or less passively absorbed ad content force-fed to them by marketer," says Zac Brandenberg, co-founder and CEO of Hydra Networks in Beverly Hills, Calif. "Now, empowered by media technology, consumers are choosing, controlling and even producing the content they consume. Smart PR and marketing firms are responding by producing content and apps that facilitate　people's desires to self-express and connect, and taking advantage of social media platforms to get it distributed by consumer to consumer."

DJ Edgerton, CEO of Zemoga, an agency with offices in New York City and Bogota, tells us that "advertising has moved from a push model to more of a 'dance' with the consumer. In online media, through the use of video and branded entertainment,　companies can really drive engagement and　encourage consumers to participate in the marketing through relevant, entertaining and useful content that advertisers, and more often lately, consumers create. If brands have a story to tell, that will resonate ... they will be successful."

What does this mean for the ad industry? "Within the next five years, we’ll see more change in how advertising is created, consumed, tracked and paid for than we have in the last 50," says Scott Creamer, who's president/founder of The Screamer Company in Austin, Texas.

He boils it down to the three C's ... connectivity, creativity and control ... to show how social media and new technology are changing it.

CONNECTIVITY:

David Kissel, a partner of Zocalo Group in Chicago, worked on campaigns like "I'm Lovin' It" for McDonalds and "Like a Good Neighbor" for State Farm. Such slogans, he says, show "the good side" of a company. Now, in the online world, "you talk about what is honest and complete about a brand." Kissel calls Zocalo a "word of mouth" agency because　"we've always heard that word of mouth is the most powerful influence" ... what friends say about a brand means more to people than advertising. "But until recently, we couldn't do much about it. What's changed is the Internet."

Marian Salzman, president of Euro RSCG Worldwide PR, North America,　is known as a leading "trendspotter" and for popularizing the term "metrosexual" into American culture.

"I read about the Maldives and can click through and book a vacation; I skim an article on Springsteen and can buy music or a ringtone. Everything will be connected and refer me from one venue to the next, with products and services for sale in micro-bytes," she says. "Craigslist is efficient and easy to master and that's what people seek ... one to one connectivity with products and services they want, hyper-local search engines to maximize ease of access."

Connectivity is important because there can be many messages to many consumers to be linked.

"Instead of mass media, you have niche media and micro-targeted media," says Andy Abramson, CEO of Comunicano. "It's not how many people, it's who is watching or who is reading ... you end up with a more direct marketing vehicle."

Salzman: "Broadcasting isn't where it's at; at best, narrowcasting over human mediums is the near future. We're all billboards, and we're all for sale."

Creamer notes that "followers of Facebook and Twitter have an immediate and constant flow of information between businesses and their customers. This is permission granted, direct one-to-one conversations.　Interesting content spreads faster than even e-mail generated content used to a few years ago. Because of the popularity of mobile devices, it is no longer necessary to have a computer in front of a person to get their message out. This can make a significant difference for companies since in a matter of a few taps on a keyboard, a customer can tell hundreds if not thousands of people their experience with a company."

Michelle Bonat, founder and CEO of marketing firm RumbaFish in Palo Alto, Calif., contends that "as a product of　traditional ad-supported models, each of us sees more commercial messages each day than we can process.　It’s simply way too much and as a result the advertising is not persuading us to buy.　Clearly, these media organizations need a way to cut through the noise.　It would greatly help them to leverage social media through 'word of mouth' or evangelist marketing, whereby customers do the promotion instead of the company itself."

A thought from Andy Abramson, CEO of Comunicano in Del Mar, Calif.:　On a newspaper website, have an online ad for a pizza parlor. The reader clicks　on it and gets　connected to the shop for an order ... "and the newspaper would get a portion of the sale."

CREATIVITY:

Says Creamer: "Today’s technology allows for user-generated and/or peer-delivered creativity. The public can create content and post it for people to see, review and comment on. This type of creative freedom has spurred Super Bowl spots where concepts are provided by the public instead of advertising agencies. Super Bowl ads use to be the Holy Grail of advertising, now they’re being created by 'everyday' people."

The keys to this element are the flourishing of social media and the willingness of advertisers to listen to reader input and encourage it.

"Social media are fast becoming a given of every communication effort," says Roger Beasley, vice-president and director of strategic planning for Erwin-Penland.　"In fact, 'Let’s make sure we have a social media component in the plan' has to be the most common phrase in marketing these days.　All of a sudden, the attitudes, opinions, wants, needs and desires we used to have to glean from focus groups and gut instincts are right at our fingertips.　All we have to do is plug in and listen to what real people are saying in real time."

Stephen Elser, a partner of Elser & Aucone, finds that "many public relations and marketing campaigns are shifting dollars away from traditional media and toward social media because of their intrusive nature and measurability. Obama’s use of social media to connect with his audience during his campaign is probably the most recognizable, successful example.　I think the Obama case study highlights an important tenet of social media marketing ... younger consumers have been the early adopters. However, recent research is showing tremendous growth in social media usage with older consumers. So stay tuned, the environment changes very quickly!"

Salzman: "We've entered the age of the trialogue, where the conversation begins when the third and the fourth voice weighs in and revises and refines the 'story' making it their own, constantly tweaking it."

CONTROL:

An advertiser controlling the message ... that's so 20th century. In fact, "it is not about the brand saying ‘Hey, this is who we are’ " instead, Stuzo sees brands as "being friends with the consumer ... it's a whole new relationship" ... an advertiser is "providing experiences its 'friend' wants to engage in. The consumer will be involved in shaping the experience."

Creamer explains that "in today’s advertising world,　consumers have more control over what they see, how they see it and when they see it. We can now watch our favorite TV shows on our computers and without the normal commercial interruptions. We receive our news from online sources instead of the daily paper or the evening news. RSS feeds give us information from the sources of our choosing. We no longer have to accept information from small, highly controlled media groups. We choose what information comes to us and when we see it."

As an example of the control shift, Kissel points out that in the old days, complaining consumers would dial an 800 number or write a letter ... "that was private." Now, they post a video ... "and it's public" ... and thus a lot more powerful. He advises companies to contact such people right away to fix the problem. "You'll get a lot of credit from consumers for just being a part of the conversation."

Another example, from Abramson: the search engine "has leveled the playing field ... now a blogpost can be ranked first ahead of a story in the Wall Street Journal" in the almighty Google's assessment if the writer is an expert and specializes in that topic.

To Edgerton, "The thinking by brands is no longer led by fear of what might be said, but rather,　'How can I become a participant and direct the conversation in a beneficial way for my brand?'　The organizations that do not make an effort to engage online in an honest dialogue with their core customers are in for a surprise when the growing stable of influencers online have a greater impact on consumer behavior and brand perception then any traditional push advertising will be able to match, regardless of the spend."

NEW WAYS FOR NEWSPAPERS:

The future of journalism is inextricably linked with the future of advertising, though newspapers are trying to become less dependent on it. Papers, struggling to survive, have been eliminating discounted subscriptions and stopping　delivery in unprofitable circulation areas;　they also have been raising prices at the newsstand and for home delivery, hoping to gain a greater share of their revenues from readers instead of advertisers

"Contrary to popular belief, advertising and print media aren’t dead," Beasley says.　"How else are we going to discover new products, new services, new opinions and new news if we’re only participating in conversations about things we already know about?　Online conversations in the social space aren’t replacing passive communications as some would lead you to believe, they are being fueled by it.　To that end, advertising and print media may actually be more important than they were 10, 20 years ago."

Zac Brandenberg thinks "there will always be a place for magazines, newspapers and books. They have a lot of appeal as objects and are incredibly convenient for reading on the plane, on the beach, etc. But from a business standpoint, printed media publishers are fighting a losing battle against the Internet. How can any single publication or even handful of publications compete against a vast global library ... a searchable, customizable, and media rich library... that is also largely free? They’re going to have to find a new place for themselves in the new media world order by focusing on what they can do different or better, or become extinct."

Salzman: "Leverage local. Local is the new global. Local is what matters and resonates."

Brandenberg: "What doesn’t work is to cover broad news that’s easily available everywhere else for free. The reality is, news is now a commodity. Newspapers need to employ the same strategies as any business fighting to combat commoditization in their market. They must focus on providing unique and exclusive content and/or a premium experience that serves the needs of a particular audience. The Wall Street Journal is an example of a publication that has succeeded doing this. They’re able to charge on a subscription basis both on- and offline."

Blending a traditional print venue with its new online enterprise seems vital.

Larry Freed, president and CEO of ForeSee Results: "One potential strategy would be to have two levels of information available, one that is free and one that is paid for. We’re seeing a little of this with local papers and even trade publications where they have a paid version that is available to their print subscribers and then a free version　available to anyone. In other industries, the integration of various channels has been successful and may be the answer for keeping print advertising alive as well. Some print publications are already doing this ... not selling print and online as separate, but selling it as an integrated package."

Edgerton: "Traditional display ads are a byproduct of an engagement model that is dead. Consumers want more than the short-lived vicarious dream a print ad facilitates. They want true brand interaction and engagement that makes them feel special. It goes to the core of the human condition. The　Web facilitates that connection through multiple opportunities we have just begun to understand and experiment with.

Journalists need to understand that content creation is no longer a one-way street;　the story　is the spark that creates a firepit the readers congregate around. The ensuing conversation and commentary are often what readers appreciate most, especially when the author participates actively. This presents opportunities, not only for content providers, but　also　the advertisers that illustrate their endorsements through advertising."

Elser: As newspaper websites "evolve into the main source of information for their audience, they must find ways to drive readers to their website and get them involved. When newspapers maximize the integration between their print and online versions, advertisers will want to take advantage of that. This has been happening with many publications, particularly those who were quick to develop an online presence. Publications must encourage their readership to become directly involved with the news through forums, video uploads, etc. to keep them engaged."

NEW WAYS FOR MAGAZINES:

While the woes of prominent titles such as Time and Newsweek have been no secret ... just looking at how thin they are now tells the story ... it was still a shock when Gourmet Magazine suddenly folded. Fat and prosperous like its readers, it seemed that as long as people loved to eat, Gourmet would be around to help them enjoy it.

Instead, its demise might serve as a microcosm of the entire industry.

"People used to read Gourmet Magazine largely for recipes," Brandenberg says. "Well, you can get access to an enormous and searchable database of recipes at epicurious.com and others and it doesn’t cost a thing. People are not going to pay for content that they can find online for free. Magazines need to focus on what they can provide that’s different ... content-wise or experientially ... that will allow them to serve the needs of a targeted market segment better than anyone else."

Edgerton believes Gourmet failed "because it did not attack the opportunity to move its expertise to the place where most people now get their recipes, how-to's and reviews of culinary content. They get it from the myriad of options online. It had a chance to leverage the one thing it had over the competition, and that's brand equity. It did not act fast enough or bravely enough and the ad dollars went where the engagement is:　online. You should get used to writing the obituaries of content providers that don't drive their engagement with consumers online."

Bonat: "Magazines have the additional challenge that their readers engage on a less frequent basis than newspapers, unless they are connected to an online presence. So increasing that level of engagement through social media and strategic interactive marketing campaigns would help."

Creamer: "A magazine’s content is traditionally very specific (i.e., cooking magazine or a home design publication). Subscribers are relatively small groups of people who share common interests. This seems like a natural conversion to some type of online, social media resource where the magazine still provides content, but allows subscribers to submit articles, participate in forums, post questions, videos, etc."

Elser: "Many magazines have been able to create a compelling combination of printed and online versions because the information they provide readers is more detailed. They’re offering their subscribers additional unique content that complements their printed information. For example, Acoustic Guitar Magazine will discuss various guitar-playing techniques in print and then offer video examples, plus additional information, through their website. As magazines find new and interesting ways to offer their subscribers additional content online, as with newspapers, advertisers will be eager to take advantage.

Click here to read the rest of Chapter 10 - Future of Advertising

-- Network News Going, Going But Not Gone
-- CNN Probably OK, Fox in Good Shape
-- But There'll Always Be Local TV News

Both parts of TV news are changing hard and fast.

The TV part ...

And the news part.

You don't even need a TV anymore to watch TV news as it has spread to Internet, phone and hand-held device delivery.

The news on it is lessened, fragmented and not nearly as powerful as before.

"It's reminiscent of the '50s classic sci-fi film 'The Incredible Shrinking Man,' " says Tom Madden, founder and chairman of TransMedia Group.

"Today it's The Incredible Shrinking once-upon-a-time Oligopoly called Network News. Each news operation shares a smaller and smaller piece of the economic pie, hence news operations will generally shrink and morph into fresh, more practical online formats. Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds, as today serious news consumers can find information from an ever widening array of sources and viewpoints and it's all readily available 24/7 and as close by as our i-Pods and maybe eventually from chips in their brains."

Madden exemplifies the change from the old ways of TV news to the new ways. He used to be assistant to legendary NBC president Fred Silverman and director of PR at ABC. Now he has left the networks for the Internet, having started a humorous shopping site www.shoplaughing.com ... which he calls "where 'American Idol' meets QVC and for the first time brings entertainment to the genre, which until now hasn't changed for many years."

Here's how he and other experts view the future of TV news and what might change some more for the networks, CNN, Fox and local stations.

THE NETWORKS

Despite gloom-and-doom scenarios, the once-dominant CBS, NBC and ABC will always be around ... but how big and in what form?

"The three networks still represent the largest combined early evening numbers, and remain way ahead of non-network competitive audiences," says Phil Beuth, president of ABC-TV's entertainment division for eight years, during which he ran the "Good Morning America" program.

"For advertisers, they still represent mass audience, and national coverage. The networks have huge investments in their news operations, and the evening news is their major golden goose ... they are never likely to stop those broadcasts, because they are the heavies which pay the bills."

Paul Conti, an assistant professor of communications at the College of Saint Rose and former news director at NBC affiliate WNYT-TV, says the networks "still have audiences, just not as large as they used to have. The problem is paying for what they do. The size of the audience that remains is becoming too small to keep the ad rates high enough to pay for the cost of the newscasts."

Judy Muller used to be a correspondent for ABC News and CBS News ... now she's an associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of Southern California.

"Your phrase 'once-dominant' says it all," she says. "The commercial networks have been scrambling to hold onto audience for many years now, and since their business model has basically been one of selling advertising based on ratings (which are declining every year), they are in a radical period of adjustment. Most networks have closed all but one or two foreign bureaus ... and Americans will be the poorer for not knowing more about what's happening around the world. That said, the three major network news programs still command an audience in the millions ... and that's nothing to sneeze at. I think they will survive, but they will never regain their dominant position in the media world."

For Bill Hayes, the decline for the networks is nothing new ... "it started a long time ago." Hayes has been in the business a long time himself as president of the Broadcast Technology Society of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ... the world's largest technical professional association ... and director of engineering and technology at Iowa Public Television.

He tells us, "In 1992 author Ken Auletta published his book, 'Three Blind Mice: How the TV Networks Lost Their Way,' which documented the new technology challenges facing broadcasting in 1985 which were cable and the explosion of VCRs. All of the networks had just changed hands and cost containment seemed to be the driving force, sometimes at the expense of quality and integrity. Once again, the broadcast networks are facing new technological challenges from the Internet, wireless services and even more sources of content."

Is it good or bad for America to lose, or see withering, a central source of news considered by most to be competent, reliable and trustworthy? "It really depends on the people of America," is how Hayes answers this one.

"One of the strengths of the original network news operations was their focus on journalistic integrity and accuracy. Gathering the facts and reporting the news was paramount. Many people in the news industry have seen that change as the push is to be the first on the air with the exclusive story. The problem comes when people have a multitude of sources and they cannot differentiate between them. The Internet is the classic example of an essentially uncontrolled medium. How many instances of misinformation being taken as fact are there? If the end users don't differentiate between the fact and the fantasy, it certainly could be bad."

Predictions?

Lisa Weaver, former CNN International correspondent and now a lecturer in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Iowa, believes the Big Three "will move more into magazine style or long form television journalism ... or infotainment. News coverage may be outsourced to entities so that the nets are relieved of that cost and investment. For instance, there have been talks for years of CBS News striking a deal with CNN to provide some sort of news coverage package for CBS air."

Tom Madden flatly says it will happen: "CNN will merge with CBS, which will produce efficiencies and save the 24-news cycle from extinction. Television network news in a traditional sense is an endangered species. And the only way to survive is to marry and remain faithful to your principles."

Prof. Conti thinks along the same lines: "Synergies could be helpful, like the ones NBC is using between NBC News and its various cable components (MSNBC, CNBC and The Weather Channel)."

Besides the regular evening newscasts, special efforts like "60 Minutes" and "48 Hours" have long been mainstays.

"Both of those shows have demonstrated an ability to keep a healthy audience through compelling narrative technique and expert investigative reporting, despite the fact that so many of the reporters are older than 55," says Prof. Muller. "Some are in their 80s! This is a huge testament to the public's hunger for substantive journalism and should encourage broadcasters to continue this tradition. But this kind of journalism is expensive, so we may see more collaboration in the future. Even '60 Minutes' has joined forces on a few stories with the investigative website ProPublica.com ... which is funded by philanthropy."

Not so fast, says Prof. Conti. "Sometimes I ask about stories that I've seen on '60 Minutes' or 'Dateline' in class. No student ever watches those programs. I doubt they ever will. They don't seem to want the depth on an issue. They are headline oriented and think 140 characters of a story are quite enough. Long term, the prospects for those kinds of magazine shows are not all that robust."

WHAT'S NEXT FOR CNN, FOX?

These two major cable competitors for the networks' news operations draw a glum assessment from Phil Beuth: "They will survive ... audiences are far from sophisticated ... dumber and dumber seems to win. They are important, however, especially Fox, which attracts loyalty."

He explains: "I have little use for CNN, which might be a good second source for special events like elections, but for regular wide range news coverage, I think they are very weak ... just tune in on a Saturday, and see how much they repeat all day long. They do not devote much manpower to everyday events, or compilations of the previous week. Fox is worse, but has a following so politically motivated, I wonder if they would recognize the truth."

Prof. Muller notes that CNN "has been struggling lately against its competitors on cable ... MSNBC and Fox ... and that's primarily because the audiences have been prone to tune into shows that support their biases (Fox for conservatives, MSNBC for liberals). CNN always shines during major breaking news stories because they cover the story (i.e. Haiti) like a blanket, 24-7. So I believe CNN will hold its loyal audience, as well as those who turn to it at times of national disaster, etc."

Prof. Weaver says discussing CNN's future depends "on whether you're talking about CNN domestic or CNN International. CNN domestic will likely continue to creep toward 'edge' and television personalities, in order to keep up with the brash polarization common to most cable news services. CNNI's future is more secure in that it doesn't have to constantly keep up with anything other than BBC World, which is the only other service that really competes at that level. A lot of the developing world still watches television as opposed to i-phones."

Prof. Conti brings up a complicating factor few outside the industry are aware of ... "CNN is reliant upon local TV stations across the country for material. CNN Newsource is a service that many of the local stations use. It is an interesting business model. Local stations pay a fee and run barter ads. In exchange they get access to most CNN materials, including sports highlights. The local stations also supply material to CNN Newsource upon request. Sometimes all of the local stations in a given market subscribe to it.

"If CNN and one of the broadcast TV network news operations form a business relationship, it could change things for Newsource and therefore CNN. Currently, if a local station gives material to Newsource, it can require that competing local stations in the same market will not be able to use it. That mechanism of protection is already in place. I wonder how interested local stations would be in feeding material to Newsource if it ended up on one of the competition's broadcast network newscasts?"

He also makes this point: "CNN Headline News answers the need for most cable viewers interested in the CNN brand. It is difficult to imagine a business scenario where both will be viable in the future."

As for Fox, our respondents see no viability problem.

Madden: "Fox News will continue to dominate cable news as it has successfully blended information and entertainment and it consistently delivers what it knows so well its audience wants."

Conti: "Fox News started the opinion oriented cable news model. MSNBC uses it now, too. For the present, I think both of those cable news networks continue, successfully, as is."

Muller: "Fox has carved out a niche as the cable network to turn to if you want your conservative values bolstered (I am talking here about the talk shows, not the straight-ahead news reporting, which is often quite balanced and professional). In financial terms, I would think Fox is in a very good situation."

Weaver: Fox "appeals to the sort of anti-intellectual populism that is at a particular high right now in the United States. Looking at Fox and conservative talk radio and certain blogs together as a piece, it makes sense to me that there will be a future for Fox. And in fact even more so, in that Fox doesn't really have to shoulder the costs of serious international news coverage because they don't do very much of it."

Click here to read the rest of Chapter 11 - Future of TV News 

-- Going the Tradigital Route

-- New Journos Better Be Versatile

-- Readers Become Part of the Show

Let's meet one ... a journalist of the future, only she's doing it right now. She's Kirsten Miller, senior Web producer and interactive manager for Fox Chicago News.

Are you ready? Here's what she does.

"Every day changes ... this is the news business, after all. But every day I know I’ll have to do the following:

• "Ensure our site is up to date.

• "Manage a team of Web producers and coach them.

• "Think about how to improve our site strategically (design, usability, search engine optimization).

• "Plan and execute a way to build more traffic (i.e., find a way to get our stories in front of eyeballs that don’t come looking for us).

• "Work to tell stories in new, different, engaging and interesting ways.

• "Monitor search patterns on Google and Yahoo! to ensure we have what the people want, or to see how to push a story further.

• "Write, edit text, edit photos, edit video.

• "Read industry sites to stay on top of trends and best practices.

• "Work with other departments on sales, marketing or promotions initiatives.

• "And I know, without a doubt, that I’ll be thrown a curveball with news, so I will have to ditch my to-do list and roll with whatever comes my way."

Whew! But how do we get from the past to the present to the future? - By becoming a tradigital journalist

That's a "traditional journalist with a digital overlay," says Sree Sreenivasan, dean of student affairs and professor at Columbia Journalism School and one of the nation's leading theorists about the future of journalism.

THE TRADITIONAL PART:

"A great deal is the same" about being a journalist, says Mike Hoyt, executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review.　"The job is still to figure out what is significant and interesting ... and go report on it and tell stories. Now we have an array of ways to tell the stories ... but the baseline is still intellectual honesty. Learn the new tools but don't be hypnotized by them. Learn the old tools, too."

Dr. Cassy Burleson, a professor in the department of journalism at　Baylor University, says old skills that are still　needed would include "accuracy, objectivity, creative interviewing, writing and the ability to think on the fly. Journalists have analytical skills and think multi-dimensionally to sort information. They still need to know that putting some extra miles on the shoe leather ... both at the computer or out on the street ... is important. And they have to be fast AND good. Not just one or the other."

But being stuck in the old ways ...

"Old-school journalists, while a good lot, are feeling the change because they haven’t figured out where this ship is headed and if they have a seat onboard," says Paul Swider, a former St. Petersburg Times reporter.

"That’s to be expected in any transforming industry. My father was a hot-type printer from his early teens and managed, without a college degree, to move with the industry to cold type and even to photographic processes before he retired in the ‘80s. He couldn’t embrace digital technology, but that was mostly because he’d found a niche and was biding his time until retirement, something a lot of journalists are doing now.　If you live through a critical point in your profession, you have to adapt or move on."

To Bob Garfield, co-host of the "On the Media Show" on National Public Radio and　author of "The Chaos Scenario" about journalism's transition, "mine is the last generation of a population of highly compensated, full-time journalists."

With the demise and shrinking of newspapers and magazines, "we're going to lose a horrifying amount of experience, judgment, talent and sort of the culture of journalism which for the most part made it a very ethical enterprise. (With the loss) of tens of thousands of journalists, we're also losing their sense of how to stay relatively pure. While the Web offers a certain amount of transparency that maybe the old media obscured, there will be tremendous pressure to give positive coverage to people who are paying the bills or to suppress negative coverage about people paying the bills and to give certain people special treatment and certain people not, and that is a huge risk."

Mitch Joel has been described as Canada's rock star of digital marketing. He's president of Twist Image, a Digital Marketing agency based in Montreal,　and author of "Six Pixels of Separation."

Do young people have worse communication skills than previous generations? Joel says no.

"New technology always pushes us to say people are stupid, they're doing less .. but to be polite and kind, that's total BS ... When I was a young guy, I came home from elementary school and threw my schoolbag down in the hallway and ran in front of the TV and watched Batman until I was drooling out of one side. I wasn't engaged. (Now) I look at my 14-year-old niece who comes home and who's got a laptop and a Blackberry and an I-Pod and she is typing and reading and creating content ... she's got multiple windows open ... she's doing video projects ... she's creating audio .. she's uploading pictures, sharing images ... I don't think I read (back then) a tenth of what young people are reading today. It may not be on paper as much but they're reading more than they ever have before. They're better communicators than ever before. They may say BRB instead of be right back but they are using technology in ways we never would have imagined."

THE TRADIGITAL WAY:

"Even as little as five or six years ago, it was enough to be one kind of reporter," says Chris Brown, the National Press Club's vice chairman on new media and professional development. "It was enough to be a TV reporter, or be a print journalist or work for a wire service or be on radio ... but unfortunately that's not the case anymore.

"The firewalls between the newsroom side and the interactive side have really fallen down. If you're going to do a story, you need to produce it on several levels. It could be as simple as shooting video while you're doing interviews for your print story or tweeting about a breaking story as it happens ... you need to manage to tell a story on different kinds of formats. And it may be a different story in different formats."

Prof. Burleson finds that "today’s journalists are convergent journalists. They can find the story on Twitter, write the story, shoot Flip video, post it on the Internet, upload it to the page ... then go live from the newsroom on the next newscast. And then dialogue with reader responses. We don’t have a 24-hour news cycle. We have to tell it as it happens. Not easy."

Jody Brannon is national director of the Carnegie-Knight News21 journalism initiative at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

She tells us, "Online journalism to me is the deepest, richest of any journalism. When it’s done well, it engages the eyes, ears, mind and soul more fully than the others since it can combine appropriate and judicious use of elements of audio, video, text, graphics, interactions, interactivity and ... the most powerful ... visuals, taking into account layout, design, headline font, style and placement in light of photos, graphics, etc."

Denise Polverine, editor-in-chief of Cleveland.com, the most trafficked news and information Web site in Ohio, notes that "the great thing about the Web, you can incorporate multimedia into your storytelling with the use of photos, text, interactive polls, charts and graphics and video and audio."

Even more so, this process is two-way ... far more than with traditional media: "It is also rewarding to provide a platform on which the community can participate and post their comments, photos and opinions. News is no longer just a one-way street. ... A student needs to show that they can create a website, write a blog, upload photos, shoot a little video and tell a good story. A student also needs to know that the audience is now a big part of that story."

John Yemma, editor of the Christian Science Monitor, has seen first-hand how versatile his staff had to become as the paper transitioned to online only during the week while retaining print for the weekend.

"While all journalists will have to think multimedia in the future, some will naturally be more skilled at one medium than another," says Yemma.

"A photographer may be especially good at web video, for instance. An investigative reporter might excel at databases. A graphic artist may be drawn to mashups and interactive applications such as Flash. And one of the most valuable new skill sets is the hybrid journalist/developer who can build new storytelling tools on the fly. But the core function of the news operation will still be reporters who dig up information and present it to the public."

Will learning these new skills be easy? Bill Handy thinks so. He's a visiting professor of journalism at Oklahoma State: "The new skill sets are actually very, very easy. Being able to shoot video in today's day and age is phenomenally easy. Just point and click. Writing a blog ... how difficult is that? It's super easy to blog. If you can type, you can blog!"

And what about the newsroom of the future? It will be a far different place than the traditional newsroom with first its array of typewriters, and then computer screens, amidst a bunch of messy desks and cigarette butts.

Chris O'Brien, a business columnist for the San Jose Mercury News, is one of the nation's leading visionaries about the future shape of journalism. He heads the Next Newsroom Project, which works out of Duke University to plan and create the next generation of news coverage structures

"One of the early insights we had was that there would NOT be a single ideal newsroom, but rather, that we were entering an era of many next newsrooms," he says.

"These would include everything from metro newsrooms to bloggers to nonprofits to citizen journalists platforms. So the next step was to identify a handful of principles we thought should be embraced by any of those newsrooms:

"1. The newsroom should be multi-platform.

"2. The newsroom should be a center of continuous innovation.

"3. The newsroom should place its community at the center of everything it does.

"4. The newsroom should collaborate with other newsrooms in its local ecosystem.

"5. The newsroom should practice transparency to build and maintain trust.

"There’s not a one-size-fits-all solution to these principles. The key is to figure out how they could be applied to your circumstances to fit the way you’re trying to serve your community."

Well, the desks might still be messy.

SPECIFIC TIPS FOR THE NEW JOURNOS: Here are some ideas from our esteemed panel for training to get a job, getting a job and succeeding in it ...

Chris Brown: "Certainly if you don't know how to shoot video or edit video, you have to learn, as video is now a part of this experience in a very rich way. People like to see whatever video you've shot because they like to see what's going on ... see the unspoken characteristics in video that are difficult in the print setting ... people can live it and experience it for longer than the few minutes it took to read it in the paper. (Also) you can tell a great story in 1,000 words in print ... you have to also learn to tell it in 140 characters on Twitter. You always have to be thinking about what's the next skill to learn."

Thursday Bram, a prolific freelance writer:　 "There is a major stylistic difference between writing for print and web: length is the most obvious example. Articles written for the web can be quite short ... despite the fact that there is more room for a lengthy article online than in print, many readers find it harder to read long articles online."

Sandra Ordonez, site designer/communications consultant/all-around technical whiz for OurBlook: Writing for online is "completely different. For the Web, you have to write fast, and you have to be as direct and to the point as possible. I treat writing for the Web like writing for people who have a severe case of ADD. Your headlines have to be very informative and catchy, and you need to pack as much information in as few lines as possible. Additionally, you should be able to link your article/piece to other useful and pertinent articles/web pages. Having a traditional journalism background helps, but you need to complement that with a knowledge of search engine optimization, knowledge of audience online behavior, and speed. Additionally, I would say that web writing can be much more informal and (IMHO) allows for more comic relief."

Prof. Handy: About the comment box at the bottom of online stories ...　"Some reporters are using this wonderfully ... there's a reporter at USA Today who does a wonderful job of engaging his readers, then taking his readers' comments and going back in that story and reporting over and over again."　Instead of walking away from the story after you've written it, go back and read the comments "and if someone is asking for more information, that's your audience ... provide it to them and I guarantee to you under this new culture, this two-way culture we now have, if you do that, these readers will continue to need you and continue to want you."

Bob Garfield: "We've going to have the greatest reservoir of journalistic content ever produced ... from amateurs and hobbyists and passersby and semi-professionals and professionals. An extraordinary amount of reporting, of opinion, investigation and hyperlocal coverage we never had in the old world order.　What we are gaining are the eyes and ears and ingenuity of untold hundreds of thousands or millions of people (new journos and citizen journos)."

Prof. Sreenivasan: " 'Thought leader, social media expert, guru' ... don't put those in your bio ... let other people call you that."

Prof. Sreenivasan: "Earn every reader ... one of the things you can find out on Twitter is why someone leaves you."

Prof. Sreenivasan: "Clear subject lines in an e-mail ... this is something very basic, ... I send a lot of e-mails, and you'll know what my e-mail is about without even opening it."

Jacky Myint, interactive designer for MediaStorm, a website sponsored by washingtonpost.com:　"I think it helps to do know both design and programming. Even if you're working purely on the web design, it’s important to know what one can or can't do with the code."

Jennifer Sizemore, vice president and editor-in-chief of msnbc.com: "Students need to have open minds ... to what, how, when, where journalism should happen. That is the No. 1 character trait I look for in job applicants. I’d get experience doing whatever I could get experience doing. The grounding in the basics you get working at a newspaper ... and insisting on being involved in the paper’s website ... is invaluable, wherever your career goes. And broadcasting gives you similar grounding in the basics of video storytelling and speedy newsgathering."

Kirsten Miller: "Be resourceful. Wear a lot of hats. And try new things. Report well, shoot video, gather audio, write well, edit for AP style, know some HTML or CSS. The more skills you possess, the more valuable you’ll be to potential employers. Also, I have a lot of students who remind me of my parents when it comes to technology, and it surprises me. Everything I know about code or technology, I learned on my own. I wasn’t afraid to break technology and that’s how I figured it out."

Sandy Ordonez: New journos "need to have a solid foundation in the following:

• "Writing for the Web (both being able to identify topics and style).

• "Search Engine Optimization.

• "HTML.

• "Social media and community management.

• "Production (video, slide shows, and graphics, etc).

"These are basics. There are many additional skills they can add to their repertoire, which will be determined by their interest and/or work opportunities."

Click here to read the rest of Chapter 12 - Journalist of the Future 

All content in this "blook" has been written and assembled by Gerry Storch, editor/administrator of www.ourblook.com, a public affairs discussion/media analysis site that bridges the gap between a blog and a book. He has been a feature writer with the Detroit News and Miami Herald, Accent section editor and newsroom investigative team leader with the News, and sports editor and business editor for Gannett News Service. He holds a B.A. in political science and M.A. in journalism, both from the University of Michigan.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (38)

The jurnalist like a fruit?
written by Sorin Adam, August 12, 2010

T I M E without RIGHTS
.
My Castel dressed
in skin
and blood of Devil incarnate
Rise every morning
on a heallside
in Bucharest,
The Red House.
.
On this Land of Choice of Dracula,
Splashed by the blessing water,
By the Crosses of our history,
Rise each day the red trees.
.
And the "ananas" is blonde,
The legs are long
smiling in the Sun
of our paradise (?)
.
And the black water is salty,
The dolphins are black as well,
My heart is red of blood and ill - treatments,
My Freedom is in your hands
And the lies words are
In my romanian camp of life!
.
I just sing with the "handcuffs" on my hands
"Dignity and justice to all of us"
Human Rights!

author:VIP & fellow writer Sorin Adam
Writer's Digest University USA / 2010

• 
• +0
• 
• 

asdwe
written by sderer, July 07, 2010

android

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by jorgen, June 18, 2010

Step 1 to make newspapers worth buying: stop being biased! Stick to the facts.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

crisis? what crisis?
written by jason brown, June 12, 2010

Sheesh. 15,600+ words and not one of them "crisis" as in "journalism in crisis." Americans like to refer to such blind spots as the gorilla in the room. Well, this particular gorilla lurked in the corner so long it got bored, smashed out the window and loped off with several trillion courtesy of the Global Financial Crisis. Would such a thing have happened if journalists were free to report truthfully on free markets. I think not. Yet journalists have been conned into not only ignoring that sad fact, but in focusing instead on a gloriously digital future that, so far, is earning online pennies compared to print pounds.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Humberto Hernandez, May 11, 2010

How much does editors to blame? Also Journalist write and the headlines are different from the news. What ever happends to the old 5W?

• 
• -1
• 
• 

FOJ Journalism is not dead, but quality is.
written by Julia, May 06, 2010

Go back to basics. Why does journalism exist?

To monitor those in power, find out the real facts and to report on what everyone is doing.

That's it. That's what people 'need'.

Stick to simplified business process - supply a need. As long as the need to report and expose the incompetent and corrupt people/organisations in power exists, there will be a need for journalists. The geographical location of the news may change, but the need will, sadly, always be there. So fill it. Simple.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Make your own newspaper
written by V, May 01, 2010

You can now make your own newspaper using free materials from www.extranewspapers.com

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Newspapers died before the internet
written by sabcarrera, April 30, 2010

Newspapers made big losses before the internet. The y only survived on advertising and sugar daddies. The internet has only made it painfully obvious that anyone can set up his own news site.
Here you have a long blog/article on the death of newspapers, and yet, much of what has been written is provided free by a few readers. I bet many articles on newspaper websites aren't read but merely scanned, for the reader to go down to the reader comments for a good old natter.
By the way, am I being paid for those erudite comments? Do I have any copyright on what I post?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

the future of journalists
written by shereen, March 29, 2010

I believe that journalism is quite a broad type of career, there are editors, reportera, news anchors and television presenters to name but a few. To state that journalism has a bleak future is nonsense. I know most people state that looking at print media, that is still nonsense because when the television was invented people said that the newspaper would be obsolete! Do we not still have a newspaper today? When the internet was first introduced people feared the death of the book! there are more and more people who read the book for leisure and research purposes now more than ever because of easy access to the book. Without journalists we would be an uninformed society.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Androcles, March 12, 2010

Your conceit blinds you to the obvious - people expect journalism to be free because they do not believe it is worth paying for

• 
• +0
• 
• 

information
written by salim, March 09, 2010

hi i wan work with international comunity .i have experiences politic and visi ..how can you advice me.
thank you very much

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Not sure that'll work...
written by Kevin, March 07, 2010

It seems to me that since we're so used to free news, not enough of us will start when asked to. There might always be services that remain free, for one thing. And local news, in this globalized world, might be a tough sell, at least until a local disaster, which might bring a temporary boom, followed by a bust.
But what if news subscriptions were offered with the internet package? That is, the price would be the same regardless, but you'd have the option to choose which newspaper(s) your $4 or whatever would go to.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Click here to understand., February 19, 2010

THE SORRY STATE OF JOURNALISM !

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Journalism has no future and it has no past.
written by Jill, February 19, 2010

It has a present, but you have to know where you have been to know where you are going:

http://surftofind.com/lie

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by This is what you call Journalism !, January 29, 2010

Check this out, you need to understand YOUR responsibility.

http://surftofind.com/news

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Free?
written by Manifest Desires, January 26, 2010

It is simply not true that news are "free" online, just as news are not really free on TV. It is paid through advertising of course. Google's search engine is a "free service", however it is also financed through advertising. So what exactly is the problem? The problem is that news outlets are routinely used for government propaganda. The "truth" does not matter as much to journalists as securing their income and priveleges. THAT is not the future of journalism and a big part of the reason why corporate media are losing their audience to independent online news sources and blogs.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Cost Benefit Analysis
written by Kim, January 07, 2010

The moment you ask people to pay for journalism they will perform a cost benefit analysis . Publications that have low informational value will not be worth subscribing to . Yes , hopefully , this will result in a return to traditional high standards of journalism . It will also result in a lower yearly cost versus paper versions . People these days multi-source , if a single publication is being paid for they will expect that the range of content is very extensive . Multi-layering will be important - local , national & international , this will mean that single sources will be published in multiple publications . Copyright will have to revert to the source .

• 
• +0
• 
• 

World Press
written by Seneka Ross, January 02, 2010

Future of journalism was predicted thousands of years ago.
As it was the second 'oldest' profession...
http://japan-russia.jimdo.com/world-press

• 
• +2
• 
• 

don
written by tiravino, December 02, 2009

modernism, post modernism, liquid modernity, super modernity, post history, and so on. names, names we like to give to things to make look radical. journalism is no dead, is not dying out. free electronic news are a good thing.
to take R. Murdoch press as an example is as bad as taking A. Hitler. do not insult our intelligence in such a fashion.
I would better suggest to learn how to cook or opening a restaurant. I have wasted some precious time on this point less affair. get real.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

...
written by sagne, December 02, 2009

bonsoire moi je suis un jeune burkinabè j'ai voulais faire formation gournaliste

• 
• -1
• 
• 

Journalism is dead in St. Lucia
written by Stephanie Queen, November 27, 2009

I don't know what you would call what passes for journalism in St. Lucia in the Caribbean. There are a few journalist, but those who own the press have hijacked ethics because of their debt to foreign government involved in local politics.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

To Whom It May Concern,
written by Trevor Michael Velzeboer, November 25, 2009

Oh, you poor, poor newspapers. With egg on your face, a foot in your mouth, and a boot up your readers' ass you still manage to hold out a hand and mumble, "Can you spare me a dollar?". Meanwhile, your other hand, tucked deep inside your designer jacket (purchased years ago, during the "the good ol' day") is yanking away to vivid memories of when you first watched All the President's Men.

There are men (and women) who sell newspapers, and there are men who write newspapers. Dare you call yourself a journalist and defend the "business" of the news? If your newspaper ship is sinking then I suggest you abandon ship. Always be wary of the "unsinkable" or, the "too big to fail". Your job was great, but if it's almost gone now, don't tell me how safe watertight compartments are, I am just a passenger, and if you don't mind, I'm trying to find a life raft.


Love,
Trevor Michael Velzeboer

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Why should advertising pay for a newspaper?
written by John Grimes, November 23, 2009

Newspapers need to report the facts - of court cases for example, of council meetings, of international trade treaties - and this requires money and some sort of consistency. Originally newspapers were started by concerned individuals to get their message out and wouldn't necessarily charge for advertising or ownership of the sheet. I'm talking about the 17th and 18th centuries here. So the question is, do we need multimillion dollar operations run by corporate gatekeepers to achieve what we want - get factual news and insightful commentary?

Clearly what we have got is oligarchs with ridiculous levels of control over what the people are allowed to see and hear. Why should we pay for that tosh when there are so many people with excellent insight and factual commentary telling us what's really going on over the internet for free - in economics for example Mike Shedlock and Mike Whitney or the guys who write articles for marketoracle.co.uk. 4 years before the economic meltdown these guys had put me right on what was going to happen and why. Any fool following the mainstream media would have lost his shirt.

I notice your essay above has the usual clichés - the sneering tone towards citizen journalism, the dismissal, via caricature, of those who are starting up a weblog or site on their own. There's also rather a smell of contempt for your readership - how dare they not pay us, the chumps!

You just don't get it. Better journalism is now to going to arise. The only concern is for consistent factual reporting and who's going to pay for the guy to turn up at the court to note down proceedings. It's just a question of money. If an online paper can affiliate with its advertisers to get 50% of whatever sale they may make online as a result of a clickthrough by a reader, or if papers have a 'donate' function which actually brings in revenue (but clearly hurts your pride as you flail around hopelessly trying to get people to do what you want), then information - which is all that is important - will thrive.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

Belisa News - World News Information
written by Belisa News, November 20, 2009

The future of journalism is the future of the human beings... in every moments in the world history the development of tecnology cross the media... that interactivity open the new window of knowledge on contemporary society... specialy on «mass self communication».

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Dr. Jones, October 17, 2009

Journalism is alive! It depends on your defination of journalism. I live in Sweden. Sweden has one of the best press in the world.

• 
• +4
• 
• 

It's the economics, stupid!
written by Greg Stielstra, October 07, 2009

I believe newspaper's problems are economic, not editorial. The pesky law of supply and demand is turning traditional dollars into digital pennies and no amount of snappy writing will thwart it. That's Bob Garfield's (Ad Age & NPR) message in his new book The Chaos Scenario. (Full disclosure: I am helping him publish and promote the book.) You can watch the video and download three free chapters of the book at www.thechaosscenario.net.

Here's a quote from a presentation Bob gave recently.

"In the past year, the papers you see here have either folded, gone online only or declared bankruptcy. Chicago's vast Tribune Co. was valued at $12 billion in 2000 when it took on debt to acquire the Times-Mirror Co. for more than $8.3 billion. Now its in Chapter 11. And, my God, The New York Times. To defray its crushing debt, decided to sell off 75% of its shiny new headquarters, suspend stock dividend, cut salaries and borrowed $250 million at usurious rates from Mexican oligarch Carlos Slim, whom a Times editorial not long ago condemned as a "robber baron." And if not Slim, who, loanshark.com? Industry wide, revenues are at 1965 levels.

On the plus side, thanks to the internet, newspapers have seen their total readership soar. And with every new set of eyeballs, they lose money.

Why? Because long ago newspapers based their online strategy on advertising, at which point traffic became the Holy Grail. This despite two structural facts of online life: 1) Nobody clicks on ads, because why would they? 2) The virtually infinite supply of online ad inventory will always depress the price even the best publisher can fetch.

That’s why Rupert Murdoch and others are now saying online content must be paid for. Sorry. Too late. You’ve trained us to think otherwise. The audience doesn't imagine that all cars want to be free, or that all toasters want to be free, or that all paper towels want to be free, but it somehow believes that all content wants to be free. That's an indefensible ethic, but moral high ground doesn't repay the creditors."

• 
• +3
• 
• 

The future of the newspaper industry
written by Bulent Keles, June 08, 2009

You might also find these presentations useful. Regards,

http://www.slideshare.net/bkeles/grateful-to-newspapers-1421068

http://www.slideshare.net/bkeles/newspaper-readershift-1515435

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Bogus analogy
written by Mike, June 04, 2009

There is a big difference between gas/food and information. Information has much lower marginal cost associated with it. Quit your Google hating already, your business model is dead.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Flawed Analogy
written by Kathy E Gill, May 18, 2009

Like many discussions (hand-wringing) focused on "the future of news" ... this essay begins with a flawed analogy.

I'm using an out-dated pedagogical tool, but here goes. Write on the (chalk)board 100 times: bits are not atoms.

What do I mean? Comparing food or gasoline (or even stock) with digitized information is flawed on many levels.

First, with goods made of atoms, it is (usually) possible for the owner to prevent an unauthorized person from "possessing" the good (theft excepted). Thus, the owner of a restaurant can require that a customer pay (usually in currency) for a meal. Economists characterize these types of goods as "excludable."

Second, goods made of atoms are "rivalrous" -- which means that if I check out a book (or order the last piece of apple pie), then you cannot "consume" the book (or pie) ... unless I "give it up" to you (or you you wrest it from me by force).

These two characteristics underpin our economic system (and traditional economic theory): these goods are "private" (excludable) and "scarce" (rival).

Digital goods are neither. I can read this web page at the same time as someone half-way around the world; the constraint on our experience relates to connectivity. There is the individual's connection speed/hardware and the web server's ability to supply the web page to multiple readers. Anyone who has content that has been "Slashdotted" understands that access to an individual webpage is limited by the physical (atoms) webserver and internet connection. Anyone who is forced to use 28K dialup on a 5-year-old computer knows the frustration resulting from hardware/network constraints (atoms). But the information -- the zeros-and-ones that form the webpage -- exist independent of these physical constraints.

In their native form, digital goods -- news, music, photographs, Wikipedia -- have the characteristics of public goods: non-excludable, non-rival. This is why DRM systems eventually fail. For more on this topic, see http://www.slideshare.net/kegi...nformation

Finally, this argument also rests on the flawed assumption that the great unwashed consumer base has always paid for news and is somehow getting something for free. That argument is false.

We have paid for convenience (the paper on the doorstep) and quality (terrestrial TV via "cable"). In both channels -- and with most magazines as well, Consumer Reports being a notable exception -- the media organization had a monopoly on "eyeballs" and used "content" to "marry" advertisers with those eyeballs. The cost of distribution (printing presses, broadcast licenses and studios that provided access to consumers) was such that dailies and TV networks/stations enjoyed a geographic-based monopoly. The bulk of the cost was born by advertisers who needed these monopolies to get their messages to potential consumers. This cost model also contributed to media consolidation; many scholars argue this consolidation has led to a corresponding decline in quality. I'm not talking about "entertainment" here -- I'm talking about *news that is needed for a functioning democracy*.

For more see: http://wiredpen.com/2009/03/08...e-content/ and http://wiredpen.com/2009/03/15...e-content/


There are serious issues around "news" and "democracy" -- but arguments resting upon such a false premise are unlikely to yield useful (for democracy) results.



Kathy

PS - I tried to register for the site. (1) I did not receive the "confirmation" email. (2) I tried to re-create the account; I was informed that those credentials (user name, email) were in use. (3) I then tried to login anyway; the rejection message asked: "Did you not get an activation e-mail and follow the validation link?" My answer is "no" but there is no "resend the confirmation mail" option. Anywhere. Nor is there a "report a problem" link/form that I can find on the site.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Miriam, May 17, 2009

___why do people expect newspaper web sites to be free?___

You are asking the wrong question. The correct question should be 'why do people publish information for free?'. To rephrase that question: Why did you publish this article on a website that can be read by anyone for free?

The answer, I think, is because people have a message and they want other people to read that message.

___Quality news doesn't want to be free any more than gasoline wants to be free or food wants to be free.___

So... why can I read this article for free? Is it the quality of your article or is it because you want to be heard?

• 
• +9
• 
• 

Is white day in moon lights at economics?
written by Engerneer Oong, May 10, 2009

The spaces are filled of material . What's useful same to newspapers. Wondering the News maker little than reader.As ecomonics is Marc theory to come news ? Is the question in ability handleing materials. Nor the CEO neither Advisor of ecomoeicist new not issues.Either elephines groups or Democracy party working of journalist career. The "RT'.. AS'..CO'.." togather consuencesion is economics issues.
It is not clean turn right. The Bourgourver classes conposited by Chinese, East Asia peoples , South Asia peoples . The meanings based fundation of politics views. Going nowsadys , Asia is more richer than IMF (international Money Foundation) establishment.The Money theory of lonable funds is limlitetation monetory. They consist money interest rates cooperate to development economics. They were not GM dealer or buyer, so lefts groups hand away. They reporter simply looks at spelled words that are materials.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by GL, May 08, 2009

It has probably dawned on readers that they should not pay to be swayed by the views of others in news journals.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

Future of newspapers
written by J T McMark, May 04, 2009

Cathy MacLeod is right: for newspapers to survive, they have to be worth reading. This may seem obvious, but it has not been obvious to the money men in newspapers - that is, the accountants - for at least a generation. The accent over the last thirty years or so has been to economise on journalists and concentrate on short-term shareholder returns, viewing editorial content as mere stuffing between the adverts. It has been a disastrous policy.

Though the internet is frequently blamed for the decline of newspapers, the truth is much simpler. They have been sabotaged by poor management, people with no real regard for journalism who saw newspapers as just another business, like jam manufacturing or pickle bottling. In fact, newspapers have traditionally been more than news providers, they have been the consciences of society, the catalysts for debate, the only institutions capable of keeping corrupt politicians in line. Unfortunately, newspaper managements since the 1970s-80s have misguidedly seen these roles as too costly for serious consideration.

I dread to think what society will become without newspapers, even in their current denuded state. TV doesn't cut it - I have always regarded television news as Mickey Mouse journalism, a repository for fifth-rate journalists who can talk but can't write. The real journalist is the guy or gal who can sit down at a keyboard and produce sublime, provocative prose that lures readers to the newsstands and tells people what they otherwise wouldn't know. There is no substitute for such people.

Forget blogging and so-called 'citizen journalism' - these are for spotty-faced wannabes who have neither the ability nor discipline to be real journalists. Any semi-literate oaf can be a blogger or 'citizen journalist'. Comparing these people with real journalists is like comparing street corner buskers with the professional musicians of big city orchestras. There IS no comparison.

• 
• +8
• 
• 

No one believes the news anymore
written by Voland, May 02, 2009

I agree with the first comment here - newspapers and even their websites aren't worth paying for because people no longer they're being given anything other than a load of masqued advertising and a pile of corporate government propaganda. It ceased being news a long time ago.

If you want us to pay for news, then provide some. Provide proper, insightful, courageous investigative journalism, instead of kow-towing to your corporate governmental overlords. Otherwise you're just asking us to pay to be spoonfed propaganda - no thanks.

Strangely enough, western newspapers have come peculiarly to resemble those of the Soviet era. No one believed a word in those, either.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

...
written by denotsKO, May 02, 2009

Sadly, the death of American newspapers has less to do with the delivery method and a lot more to do with what is delivered. If I actually thought the information found in any newspaper, news show, news channel, etc was different from any other I would gladly pay to read it. Death began creeping into the industry when it became acceptable to allow media monopolies. If the majority of media outlets are all controlled by the same group of rich men, why would anyone believe there would be any difference between them? Major news outlets are dying because the information in them is crap. It's that simple. You should instead be fighting to regain your integrity. The new media outlets on the internet worth my money are not names familiar with my father or grandfather. Those names are as old and impotent as the men that control them.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Journalism isn't dead, it's in Heaven
written by Cathy Macleod, April 30, 2009

Most people get their news free now, from television or radio. It doesn't mean journalism is dead. First, of course, these free sources need journalists to supply them, but here's the real big news: Journalism is in a new print Heaven, where readers are hungry for news analysis, in-depth comment, and entertaining articles.

A printed newspaper providing these to its niche market (local, national or world) will continue to sell and thus continue to attract paid advertising. In short, if a newspaper or magazine is worth reading, it keeps its readers. The scope for good journalism, as opposed to "news-holes" between the advts, has never been greater. This from Cathy at booktaste, where journalism thrives amid book news.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

Stop the bias
written by Nick, April 28, 2009

I did not read the raw interviews. But did any of those over 25 journalists realize that maybe the demise of many newspapers is because "big" journalism does not print news, but just political comments? The bias we saw in the last election campaign in US (I'm not living in US nor I'm US citizen) all over print media and visual one was disgusting, reminding me of communist media from 20 years ago. People who are staying in queues to receive government hand-outs does not pay subscriptions. Illegal immigrants neither. Middle-class does, people with daily jobs and businesses. Call this class on daily basis racist, red-neck, bible-clinging, capitalist pigs or whatever and they will stop pay for this non-sense. Revert to unbiased, non extreme left points of view and investigative journalism (how many stories were followed regarding the murky past of the present POTUS by big media?) or you will either disappear, or become property of government. Long live the Dear Leader!

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Future of Newspapers and Journalism
written by Creativity For Gaining Success, April 15, 2009

The road to journalism and newspapers is making a huge turn around. Coming up with new ideas for joining in with the newest trends of online media news,writing for print and the web. Both have to get creative and develop their own road for achieving success. At http://determined2.com Interactivity that promotes successful pursuit of life goals.Working on goals helps the process of gaining success and determination.

• 
• +1
• 
•