Reverse That

Ethics: You're Doing It Wrong

There is a lot of trust in journalism. Actually, I should say there is a great need for trust in journalism. Reporters are trusted to get the facts straight and make their deadlines. Sources are trusted to provide information and refrain from outright lies. Readers trust news organizations to be accurate and transparent in their work. These bonds of trust are why so many in the industry were dismayed to see reporting and editing functions outsourced as media sought to reduce their operating expenses. Shouldn't goodwill with the audience outweigh the financial benefits of assigning duties outside the newsroom?

My first reaction to the issue of outsourcing in journalism was that it is bad for business; it could diminish audience trust, compromise ethics, and blur the line between legitimate journalists and writers who lack the talent, objectivity and discipline needed to be a successful reporter. Those concerns were put to the test last quarter when I (and a group of my classmates) was assigned the task of arguing in favor outsourcing; specifically, we were asked to debate in written and oral arguments that the financial benefits of outsourcing outweighed the risk to the audience. For the purposes of the argument, we defined outsourcing in journalism as: “ … the conscious decision by editors, news directors and managers to compensate outside organizations and/or writers for professional content at a price that is less expensive than creating or producing the same content in house.”

Our three arguments were:
1. There is a financial benefit to news organizations;
2. Niche, nonprofit and start-up groups fulfill a need that cannot be met by established news organizations; and
3. The audience benefits from the diversity of ideas generated from outsourced material.

We focused much of our argument on operations such as ProPublica, GlobalPost, Politico and the Chicago News Cooperative. By the end of the weeks-long project, I was convinced that the well-managed and limited use of outsourcing would be the future of journalism.

Imagine my disappointment when I woke up Monday to read The New York Times piece on Gannett’s coverage of the New Jersey Devils. Who is the reporter tasked to write about the hockey team? Eric Marin, a Devils employee. The paper’s editor told The Times, “As long as it served our readers and we told them where that content was coming from, the readers were fine with it.” Ok, but at what point were readers told that the journalism they were consuming was in fact produced by a compromised writer? In stories published April 5 and 12, Marin was identified as “Special to the Asbury Park Press.” Three days later his byline read “correspondent.” That is not forthright. That is not transparent.

The editor, Hollis Towns, went on to say, “I think journalists get hung up on certain lines of what’s ethical more than the readers.” Yeah, what a drag. It’s sort of the same way doctors get hung up on the ethical line when patients want Vicodin prescriptions for recreational purposes. Or how the secretary of state should get hung up on the ethical line that prevents driver’s licenses from being issued in exchange for bribes.

Reporters carry the burden of maintaining trust with the audience. We are only as good as our words. Anything short of utter commitment to that trust is failure.

Do You Hear That Clicking Sound?

This email went out to the Medill listserv this morning:

“it is against the law in illinois to record telephone conversations without the permission of the other party.”

Here was my reaction, minus the profanity:

Come on guys, if this is not taught on literally the first day of class then it should be, and it should be repeated on the second, third, fourth and fifth days. Reporters need to know how to protect themselves and follow the law. It is right up there with knowing your rights to documents, public meetings and court hearings. It is the reason The AP gives its reporters the state statutes to cite when a judge tries to kick them out of the courtroom.

When I interned for the newspaper in Whittier, the cops reporter started every morning by calling the watch commander and saying something along the lines of “This is so-and-so from the Whittier Daily News. I’m recording this phone call so I don’t miss any news you may have for me. Is that alright with you?” At the time I thought this was overkill and I can imagine the officer on the other end of the line thinking, “Gah, every morning. Every morning!” But, despite however annoying the whole practice may have been, that reporter was doing exactly what was necessary to cover herself.

Resources:

Illinois Shield Law

Laws on Audio Recordings

Society of Professional Journalists’ Legal Advocacy Network

Everything's Not Lost

There are two things all journalists do well: drinking and complaining. The skills are not taught in fancy lecture halls or found in any book; they are honed as the internships, boring beats, foul-mouthed editors and evasive politicians add up. When you walk into the newsroom at 7 a.m. to hear an editor yelling, “What do you mean bodily fluid? Was it semen? It was semen? Well, just say it was semen!”* you just know the day is going to end with a double gin and tonic at the dive around the corner. In the complaint department, criticisms were usually kept within the confines of a cubicle or newsroom. The Internet, of course, destroyed that. Reporters have audiences by way of blogs, Twitter and Gawker to complain to about money ("What do you mean you're not going to replace this broken keyboard?"), layoffs and the death of good journalism. Every day looks like this, right?

Maybe not, according to a column from USA Today titled “As Journalism Changes, So Must You.” Here are some of my takeaways from the piece:

· Our relationship to news is “becoming portable, personalized and participatory,” according to a survey by the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism;

· Reporters need to know that “all information is not created equal” and “understand why the distinctions matter”; and

· Teenagers and young adults are “ill-equipped to process the hard news stories they encounter,” according to a study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard.

The portable aspect of news consumption is well-known to anyone with a smartphone. When I look around the L during rush hour, I see a handful of riders reading RedEye, and most everyone else scrolling through their Blackberries and iPhones. It is actually quite revolutionary. We’re coming out of a time when people subscribed to major dailies and then complained they did not have time to read them. People can now consume news and media whenever and wherever they want. The personalized and participatory nature of this consumption is the truly exciting part. What if instead of a one-way lecture on the day’s events, we generate true conversations and debates among readers? When I was writing about complicated civic issues – permits, budgets, etc. – I would start by thinking how I would explain the issue to a friend. When I go home today, what will I say I wrote about? Simple, conversational writing coupled with the interactive nature of the Internet has the power to change conversations and actions among readers and viewers.

I think that speaks directly to the third bullet point from the USA Today story. There have always been programs in place to encourage news consumption among children and teenagers. It was an easy way for management to increase newspaper circulation and boast that the company participated in public good. However, instead of focusing on the short-term upside, news companies are in a position to teach a generation how to become involved in the news -- even interested in the topics. Young adults know how to find news – how do we teach them to think about the materials we are giving them?

Finally, the importance of knowing all information is not created equal. Need I say more?

* Yes, this really happened.

Reporters Do It AP Style

A spokesman for The Huffington Post told Time Out Chicago the online publication "has over 70 full-time writers, reporters, and editors who are paid."

You have MORE THAN 70 full-time writers (allegedly). MORE THAN!

"On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog"

There is much to criticize when it comes to experiencing newspaper content on the Web. The layouts are usually terrible, internal searches return inadequate results and, oh my favorite, the “comments” that editors foolishly allow to appear at the bottom of their stories.

Commenting is a fine idea but the execution has brought out trolls, idiots, fear-mongers and the like. A Daily News story on elections in Glendale and Silver Lake was accompanied by two readers’ comments. One was this gem: “I see the ACLU is raising their Ugly head again, I pray someone destroys that whole UN AMERICAN organization.” Over at the Chicago Tribune, a story on the costs of treating veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder prompted one reader to write: “It's a scam. Actual combat troops amount to 10% or less. most of the rest never heard a shot fired in anger, left the base or saw an enemy combatant. It's all just an extension of our neurotic victim, entitlement culture.” Taking a step back from the opinion each commentator was attempting to express -- the first appears to object to the fact that a liberal organization is bankrolling candidates in local elections and the second questions the extent of injuries suffered by enlisted men and women – neither comment elevated the conversations that resulted from the articles. In both instances, readers were able to hide behind online handles, and were published without regard for content or clarity.

Allowing readers to comment anonymously on news Web sites is a practice media companies should end immediately. This is one area where I think editors and managers have really lost control. Often the comments section that follows an article turns into a hotbed of politics, name-calling and incoherent ramblings. In a recent New York Times article on the subject, William Grueskin, dean of academic affairs at Columbia's journalism school, said, “ (A) lot of comment boards turn into the equivalent of a barroom brawl, with most of the participants having blood-alcohol levels of 0.10 or higher … People who might have something useful to say are less willing to participate in boards where the tomatoes are being thrown.”

I think Grueskin makes an excellent point. What intelligent, well-spoken or well-written person would dare wade into the swamp of commentators? The atmosphere of anonymity does more than chill speech. It emboldens readers to ridicule and denigrate others without having to attach their name or face. As a reporter, I would not allow a source to anonymously criticize another person in my story. If a source, reader – or even a friend – wants to speak out against another person or idea then do so, but have the dignity to attach your name. It becomes much too easy to throw around words when one doesn’t have to face the fallout.

The New York Times article points out that the current trend is moving away from anonymous commentators, and that is a good thing. Every minute, people use Twitter and Facebook (and Google Buzz? Is anyone using that mess?) to express their opinions, and they do so by showing their name and face. With Facebook Connect and other interfaces available to news sites, there is no reason for editors to continue to allow anonymous comments. As Jen from Chicago wrote at the end of the NYT story on this subject: “I hate anonymous comments because when I read them, I start to think that the comments are representative of humanity and it causes me to have zero faith in people's kindness and decency.”

What Would an Integrative Thinker Do?

I am now three quarters into my program at Medill and one thing I have tried to do with each class, be it Medill, IMC or Kellogg, is to view it through the prism of my end goal. How will this course help me once I graduate? How is this directly applicable to the projects I plan to tackle in another few months? Those have been among my thoughts this spring as I find myself in Managing Integration, discussing “The Opposable Mind,” a book by Roger Martin that is intended to teach us how integrative thinkers think and act.

Martin writes that there are six aspects to an integrative thinker’s stance (the first three apply to the world; the next three apply to the self):

1. Existing models do not represent reality; they are our constructions;
2. Opposing models are to be leveraged, not feared;
3. Existing models are not perfect; better models exist that are not yet seen;
4. I am capable of finding a better model;
5. I can wade into and get through the necessary complexity; and
6. I give myself the time to create a better model.

The second, third and fourth points most resonated with me when I read them. Obviously the print media model continues to be decimated for a multitude of reasons – the loss of classified ads, prolonged decreases in circulation and massive debts. Also, one only has to look to the future and see there is no reason to believe audiences will continue to pick up paper copies of The New York Times or Chicago Tribune when the same material – sometimes enhanced material – is available on computers, Blackberrys, iPhones, iPads, Kindle and so on (and that is to say nothing of the fact that you cannot email or retweet paper!).

Ok, so …

Opposing models are to be leveraged, not feared and

Existing models are not perfect; better models exist that are not yet seen

Every week I read, listen to and engage in arguments over pay walls, subscriptions and ad-supported sites. Should start-ups be nonprofits, so they can accept foundation money? What about getting a venture capitalist to invest? I predict the most successful models in the next decade will find a way to combine – leverage – the benefits of each financial model. The Chicago News Cooperative is basically taking this approach and throwing everything against the way to see what sticks. It is a nonprofit (through WTTW), it receives money from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, a fee from The New York Times, and its leadership is considering a pay wall or subscription structure once the site goes live.

I am capable of finding a better model

This was my answer when people asked me why a sane person would quit a job during a recession to go back to a program dedicated to field where many feel we're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. BECAUSE I CAN DO IT BETTER. That’s what I am working on and that’s what I will hopefully have to show for myself come August. I should be able to squeeze in a few more integrated management courses before then.

iReporters

(Thanks to my mother for finding this.)

Are Bloggers Journalists?

Everyone’s a writer. Apparently. I’m going to go ahead and give myself a headache by going on record and declaring that bloggers are not journalists. Nor are “citizen journalists” journalists, either. You know what a “citizen journalist” is? An eyewitness – a valuable but singular part of the reporting process.

A new study out from PR Newswire found 52 percent of bloggers view themselves as journalists. Perhaps a handful of them are reporters who also blog but my questions for these “journalists” are:

1. Are you objective?
2. Is your work balanced?
3. Is your work transparent?
4. Is opinion or bias ever inserted into blog posts?
5. To what extent do you use documents, statistics and FOIA requests?

The study also looked at the extent to which reporters and bloggers use social media for research. It found 91 percent of bloggers and 68 percent of online reporters “always” or “sometimes” use blogs for research, compared to 35 percent of newspaper and 38 percent of magazine reporters. Twitter was also used as a research tool. I question what constitutes research for the purposes of the studys. Is Twitter a tip sheet, a way to know when there is an earthquake or shooting? Or is it a way to conduct “man on the street” interviews? Are bloggers pulling facts from Twitter?

For me, the issue of bloggers as journalists comes down to this: who is doing the legwork? Are bloggers sitting through hours-long committee hearings and reading 100 page-reports? Are they listening to police scanners and following up with late-night calls to the watch commander? That is really the nuts and bolts of journalism. Reporters take pride in their work; they do not quote other reporters’ work unless the other guy has an exclusive and you’re under deadline pressure. And even then, your editor will probably scream through the phone and tell you to figure out a way to get into the story. That’s the reality of the field.

"A Trunk Stuffed with Newspapers"

I love this article. A great read on a reporter who pounds the pavement. "I've got an assessment of the presidency that others don't...I'm amused by it."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704089904575093980044817118.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter

Murdoch's Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal is one of the most esteemed publications in America. When it was purchased by Australian billionaire Rupert Murdoch two years ago, many reporters and media critics feared the paper would lose its prestige. Murdoch’s other American news outlets – the New York Post and FOX News Channel – are well-known for their slanted and tabloid-esque coverage. Would the same become true of the Wall Street Journal? The answer, so far, is no. Not only as the paper continued on just fine, some would say the coverage has improved.

This week’s announcement that the Journal would start a Metro section for New York coverage is the latest in Murdoch’s efforts to compete with The New York Times, a newspaper he longed to own, according to Michael Wolff, author of “The Man Who Owned the News.” Murdoch himself said as much in announcing the new section. “We believe that in its pursuit of journalism prizes and a national reputation, a certain other New York daily has essentially stopped covering the city the way it once did.” (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jgH2uWQbLCKBoh-0HDLBR24S2X_wD9E6N1GG3). Way to be direct.

I think more coverage in a particular area is almost always a good thing. The fact that the Journal will provide more coverage on politics, business, culture, sports and real estate in New York, according to The Associated Press, is a benefit to readers and newsmakers. That said, I do wonder whether this will change the DNA of the newspaper, which prides itself on its financial coverage. The breadth and depth of financial stories has traditionally been seen as a reason why the Journal can charge subscribers for online content. As was mentioned in class on Monday, it is a large niche.

It sounds as though new reporters will be hired to provide Metro coverage. Assuming the financial coverage is maintained, then there is something to be gained. However, a 2008 study by the PEW Research Center found that under Murdoch’s ownership, the Wall Street Journal deemphasized financial coverage and gave more space to domestic and political stories. “Since the front page has a finite amount of space, that increase in political coverage seems to have come largely at the expense of business news. In the Murdoch era, coverage of corporate America has plunged by more than half—to 14 percent of the front-page space from 30 percent in the months before the sale,” according to the study. (http://www.journalism.org/node/10769).

Another sign the Journal may be reaching out to a wider audience? Look no further than today’s (March 3, 2010) edition. On the front page is a story on graffiti/street artists Banksy and Robbo. The article is about the feud the two have going on on the streets of London. As a Banksy fan, I thought this story was interesting, and very unexpected given the publication. I figured the paper was attempting to appeal to a younger demographic. And then my mother emailed me on the story – called it an “interesting read.” She also reminded me of the Journal’s history of running odd-duck type stories on the front page. So, maybe the more things change the more they remain the same?

(Originally a post for Medill class; March 2010).

More FOIA Requests, Please

Newsrooms may be slashing content and staff but one thing has (apparently) not suffered – Freedom of Information Act requests. A New York Times article found The Associated Press and Hearst Corporation have actually increased the number of FOIA requests sent to the federal government (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15hearst.html?ref=business). “Some big companies, like Hearst and The Associated Press, have been quietly ramping up their legal efforts, by doing more of the work in-house — and saving costs by not hiring outside lawyers — and being more aggressive in states where they can recoup legal fees and at the federal level, which also allows plaintiffs in such access cases to sue for legal fees when they win,” according to the newspaper.

Hearst is now pursuing more First Amendment cases than ever before, according to the Times, and The AP was a part of 40 lawsuits in 2009 – up from about 30 four years ago.

This is a very good sign – for reporters and readers. Investigative work is one of the most important things journalists do. Reporters have a social and, I think, ethical duty to hold government agencies accountable for their deeds and dollars. I understand how expensive and time-consuming investigative work can be but it is vital to a strong, democratic society. It will be an enormous loss if this sort of work is lost in the breakdown of mainstream media, social media and the Internet.

These stories also show why professional journalists and their skills are so important. Professional reporters have access to files, people and information that is not otherwise available to “citizen journalists.” If an informant, whistleblower or disgruntled employee has an anonymous tip, is he going to call a blogger or a reporter at The Washington Post? A Post reporter will have the greatest impact. A professional (compensated) writer will also have the time and know-how to dig deep into documents. What is a blogger going to do with tens of thousands of pages worth of documents? Is a “citizen journalist” going to have the financial resources to appeal denied FOIA requests?

Smaller and mid-sized news organizations still have resources, though, even if they don’t have big bucks or high-profile attorneys. In California, there is the First Amendment Coalition (http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/legal-hotline/), which provides reporters with free legal consultations.

And closer to home there is good work being done at the intersection of journalism and the law: the Medill Innocence Project (http://www.medillinnocenceproject.org/). Through the project, undergraduates have the opportunity to investigate “possible miscarriages of justice.” The work done by these students have led to the release of wrongfully convicted men. Though prosecutors in the Andrew McKinney case are going after students and the program in some horribly misdirected expedition, it does not change the significance of the work being done by the project.

(Originally a post for a Medill class; February 2010).

Advertisers Sponsor TV Movie

Wal-Mart and Procter & Gamble – the world’s largest retailer and consumer-products maker, respectively – are partnering to produce and air a television movie that executives believe reflects that values embodies by the two companies. “Secrets of the Mountain” will air on NBC in April. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Secrets of the Mountain” is the story of a single mother and emphasizes generosity, honesty and togetherness. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703455804575057551112653666.html?mod=djemMM_t)

Wal-Mart and P&G executives make the argument that the companies are judged by the company they keep – the company in this case being the television shows during which their commercials air. This idea isn’t new. More than a decade ago, marketers (which included P&G and Wal-Mart, according to WSJ) formed the Alliance for Family Entertainment in an effort to create family-friendly programming. Out of the Alliance came the WB’s long-running “Gilmore Girls.”

In some ways this is a throwback to the early days of radio when companies like P&G sponsored soap operas so the company would have another place to advertise. Both Wal-Mart and P&G ads will air during the movie. Their products will also be shown within the movie itself. According to “Business Week,” featured products will include Duracell batteries, Iams dog food and cereal from Wal-Mart’s private label. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-11/wal-mart-p-g-to-produce-family-friendly-television-programs.html).

The Wall Street Journal quotes Wal-Mart’s chief marketing officer as saying: "We're at a point where we really couldn't increase our advertising significantly from here unless we have more programming options … (Marketers) really worry about the last 10% to 20% of the ads that they have to place, because they're squeamish about the reaction they might get from the audience.” The marketing office singled out the Super Bowl and the Hallmark Channel as examples of family programming. (I would like to hear how the Super Bowl qualifies as family programming given the sexiest and “sexy” commercials that aired during the game.)

It will be interesting to see if families do in fact turn in to see the movie. On the one hand, parents may welcome a program they can watch with their children and teenagers. A study by the Association of National Advertisers (cited by the WSJ) said only 23 percent of parents were satisfied with the amount of family programming currently available on TV. At the same time, I wonder whether kids will have any interest in watching TV with their parents (just because parents feel one way doesn’t mean children do). “When you self-consciously set out to make it family friendly, you almost already have given it a kiss of death,” Robert Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University, told the newspaper.

Also, to what extent will the product placement be a distraction? A camera zoom onto a package of batteries will hardly feel organic or natural to the telling of the story (remember “You’ve Got Mail?” The entire movie was like a commercial for late-90s consumer goods).

“Secrets of the Mountain” will air April 16.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; February 2010).

Columnist Forgets Stewart Isn't a Journalist

Howard Kurtz’s weekly media column is usually a pretty good read as I find him to be fair, critical and interesting. However, his column on Feb.1 set off alarm bells in my mind for two reasons: Kurtz’s apparent confusion over Jon Stewart’s humor and political leanings and the failings of broadcast news. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013102338.html)

First, I feel exasperated by the mainstream media’s apparent surprise that Stewart and the cast of “The Daily Show” are able to make fun of President Obama. There is always humor in power and politics. Have these reporters forgotten that Obama is just another politician? Writers for the Weekly Standard and FOX Nation questioned (perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek) whether the jokes were a sign that Stewart is not as liberal as we presumed. The director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs is quoted in Kurtz’s piece as saying, “He’s clearly become an important cultural arbiter. He’s pulled off the trick of being taken seriously when he wants to be and taken frivolously when he wants to be.” Yes, that’s because he’s a comedian.

Let me say that again – Jon Stewart is a comedian. NBC anchor Brian Williams is quoted as saying, “A lot of the work that Jon and his staff do is serious. They hold people to account, for errors and sloppiness.”

This brings me to the second issue that came up in Kurtz’s piece and that is what is happening at cable news networks. (I would distinguish between reporters and commentators but the fact that both FOX and MSNBC are readily identified by viewers and members of the media as conservative and liberal stations overshadows whatever objective reporting may actually be taking place at either network.)

To Williams’ point that Stewart and his crew of producers and interns are able to hold people accountable, why don’t the mainstream media do this more? Why does it take a half hour program on Comedy Central to show clips of politicians doing one thing and then doing (or voting) another? “The Daily Show” does not have access to any resources that aren’t already available to MSM outlets.

As to the quality of broadcast news, here are some of the clips recently shown on “The Daily Show”:

· Fox News hosts celebrating Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts;

· MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann referring to Brown as “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women;”

· CNN’s “best political team” displaying Twitter comments to evaluate the president’s State of the Union address (I would also add the fact that there were at least 10 “commentators” and “analysts” to break down the speech for viewers who were either too lazy or unengaged to draw their own conclusions); and

· MSNBC’s Chris Matthews saying that while he watched the SOTU, he forgot President Obama is black.

We would all be better off without cable news. News outlets that follow a script in the way of expectations and then report the news through the lens of those expectations offer nothing of value to viewers.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; February 2010).

Syndication After Oprah

Oprah Winfrey’s departure from daytime television will do more than leave a hole in the pop culture landscape. Ending “The Oprah Winfrey Show” leaves holes in programming schedules and bank accounts. A New York Times article from Jan. 25 details CBS’s struggle to produce and sell a new franchise program (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/business/media/26grace.html?emc=eta1).

Traditionally, programs like “The Oprah Winfrey Show” are sold to affiliates, who pay a license fee to air the program. Not anymore. CBS is selling a new program with Nancy Grace titled “Swift Justice.” (Reporter Brian Stelter writes that CBS and Grace do not want this to be seen as another court show even though Grace will “resolve conflicts between participants, the same way other TV judges do, and her arbitration decisions will be binding” So … how is this unlike Judge Judy? I digress). To sell “Swift Justice” to 90 percent of the market, CBS made “barter-arrangements” under which the syndicator and the station each sell half the advertising for the program, without the additional license fee.

The bad economy means that “Swift Justice” will be made on the cheap – filmed in Atlanta with an executive producer and staff shared by another CBS court show. The arrangement makes sense – basic economics – but I wonder if that will translate into a higher profit margin once the economy picks up and advertisers bring their money back to TV. Also, if Grace’s show turns out to be a hit – which is entirely likely as her other show is HLN’s most popular program – will CBS be able to negotiate a license fee?

Another thought I had as I read this article was what it means for local news. In most markets, Oprah is a strong lead-in for the 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. news. (Chicago is an obvious exception as the show airs at 9 a.m. and is followed by “The View.”) Will local news suffer a ratings loss without Oprah? It may seem unlikely but look at what happened to the local evening news when Jay Leno replaced hour-long dramas on NBC. The Times article says syndicated shows may shuffle to new time slots once Oprah leaves for cable.

Maybe this is just another sign of problems in syndication-land. “The Martha Stewart Show” will jump from syndication to the Hallmark Channel in September, according to AdAge (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=141752). The executive chairman of Martha Stewart Living noted that the deal means the company will no longer pay a distribution fee to NBC Universal.

Variety’s Cynthia Littleton wrote about syndication on the macro level in a Jan. 23 article: “The fortunes of the 9 a.m.-3 p.m. traditional daytime TV frame have been hammered during the past decade by everything from a generational shift to the post-boomer era to the audience fragmentation spurred by the rise of so many niche cable outlets. From food to gardening to environmentalism to extreme sports, there are themed channels to serve every interest and aspiration.” (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118014204.html?categoryId=14&cs=1)

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; January 2010).

AP, Yahoo Negotiate Fee for News

The Associated Press and Yahoo are in the midst of negotiating restrictions and payment for wire stories that appear on the search engine’s news site. This appears to be the latest step toward charging for online news. Similar talks with Google have prompted the company to temporarily stop posting AP contest on its news site. In a Jan. 14 Wall Street Journal article, an AP representative says the current deal with online portals “helped make AP material ubiquitous … also diluted the value of the AP’s news offerings by not limiting availability or distinguishing articles that were unique.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703672104574654741484604838.html?mod=djemMM)

I think this article relates to a number of interesting issues. The first is AP’s assertion that portals like Yahoo and Google News do not distinguish between the quality of articles. In aggregating news, all news is created equal. How can a media company make its material stand out when it is an algorithm that determines its placement on a news search? Popularity may be a factor in that equation but popularity is not the same as objective, accurate reporting and writing. (In “Googled,” Ken Auletta describes the creation of Google News. “The placement and selection of stories is made, Google announced, by ‘computer algorithms, without human intervention.’ … It would, Google said, broaden newspaper readership, and allow newspapers to sell advertising once a user clicked on the newspaper’s link. … However, newspapers didn’t all jump up and down with glee.”)

I think that aggregate news sites only hurt online news sources. Let’s say a Google News search directs a consumer to a Chicago Tribune article on the earthquake in Haiti. While that is one more hit on the Tribune’s site, there is a slim chance the consumer will stay on the page or click through the rest of the Web site. I predict the consumer will click out of the site and search for more articles on the earthquake (that is, search through Google News). What can news organizations do to keep consumers on the newspapers’ page? I think it starts by conditioning consumers to go directly to the original site for news and bypassing aggregation sites all together.

Setting aside the issue of quality and access, the Wall Street Journal article explores another important topic – payment. The owner of the WSJ, News Corp., is in talks to eliminate its excerpted content from Google’s search but allow it to remain on Microsoft properties. The Wall Street Journal is one of the few publications to charge for online content and as a result, executives do not want to see any of its work given away for free through an aggregated site. I agree. I strongly believe that consumers should have to pay for online news in some way. It is pragmatic – news organizations need to make money – and it forces the consumer to have some skin in the game. It is easy for a consumer to think, why should I have to pay for content when I can go to Yahoo or Google?

I think people are so overwhelmed with content that they do not even realize how much news, entertainment, music, television programming, blogs, movies and so on they actually consume. Faced with the option of paying $50 a month for a bundled package of the previously mentioned media or a complete shutout of content, consumers will pay.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; January 2010).

Google, India and Freedom of Speech

Google, which does not create original content, is being asked to exercise editorial control over the information its search engine and affiliated sites make available to Internet users in India. An article in the Jan. 4, 2010 edition of the Wall Street Journal explores the issue of free speech inside the world’s largest democracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126239086161213013.html?mod=djemMM). According to Indian officials quoted in the article, censoring potentially libelous or inflammatory Web sites and articles is intended to prevent violent outbursts from religious and political groups.

This is an example of how new media companies, including Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, need to adapt to cultural norms and laws overseas. In the United States, Google will not remove material from its search results regardless of its defamatory or offensive nature unless it violates the company’s user agreement. This was evident in November when the top result for a search of “Michelle Obama” pulled up a photograph that depicted the first lady as a monkey. Users complained to Google and the company posted this statement above the photo: “Sometimes our search results can be offensive. We agree.” The Web site was eventually removed from Google’s search because it contained a virus, which is against the company’s policy. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/6737933.html).

India seems to be somewhat of a balancing act for Internet companies. On the one hand, it is a democracy that allows its citizens the right to free speech. On the other hand, speech in India can be restricted to maintain “public order, decency or morality.” Is Google at the mercy of Indian authorities? Material is preemptively removed because of what may happen, not what has happened.

From a business perspective I can understand why Google would work with Indian officials to censor information but I think it can be a slippery slope. Google is setting a precedent that it will remove any Web page, article or blog flagged by users and government officials – without argument. There is a potential for abuse there. Google’s attorney in India, Gitanjali Duggal, points out that the company’s does have a standard. “Saying ‘I hate Shiv Sena’ is one thing, but saying ‘I Hate Shiv Sena because they hate Muslims’ is another thing … (it) brings in the concept of religion.” I think that distinction is somewhat irrelevant. What other qualifiers are out there?

What responsibility does Google have to steer clear of the country’s religious and ethnic struggles? Perhaps a social one. Perhaps a financial one, should the company wish to continue business in India (and with an estimated 52 million Web users, why wouldn’t it?). I question how long Internet companies can limit information before savvy users find more and more ways to go around filters. I think this just the latest example of new media finding its way through a world that has yet to catch up.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; January 2010)