Posts tagged future of journalism
10:48 pm - Sun, Jun 2, 2013
81 notes
courtenaybird:

Americans spend 58 minutes a day on their smartphones 

Comments

9:16 pm - Sun, May 19, 2013
45 notes

longreads:


Emily Perper is a freelance editor and reporter, currently completing a service year in Baltimore with the Episcopal Service Corps.

1. “The Vice Guide to the World.” (Lizzie Widdicombe, The New Yorker, 8 April 2013)

“My big thing was I want you to do stupid in a smart way and smart…

Comments

11:36 pm - Thu, Jan 10, 2013
99 notes
futurejournalismproject:

AP to Publish News on Restaurant Receipts
Interesting, no? From now on, whenever you dine at the Old Ebbitt Grill in Washington, D.C., your receipt will contain the news you’ve missed over the course of the meal.
From their press release:

The printed updates have several advantages in this venue over the smartphone, providing access to the news without people becoming absorbed in their devices at the same time contributing to table conversation and interaction.

Image: Press Release.

futurejournalismproject:

AP to Publish News on Restaurant Receipts

Interesting, no? From now on, whenever you dine at the Old Ebbitt Grill in Washington, D.C., your receipt will contain the news you’ve missed over the course of the meal.

From their press release:

The printed updates have several advantages in this venue over the smartphone, providing access to the news without people becoming absorbed in their devices at the same time contributing to table conversation and interaction.

Image: Press Release.

(via navigatingmedia)

Comments

2:29 pm - Mon, Jan 7, 2013
223 notes
parislemon:

shortformblog:

washingtonpoststyle:

A Jan. 1936 news item.
(No mention of how newspapers make huge amounts of money through these screens.)
Via T.J. Ortenzi via Phil Rosenthal

Ahead of its time by about six decades.

Future.

parislemon:

shortformblog:

washingtonpoststyle:

A Jan. 1936 news item.

(No mention of how newspapers make huge amounts of money through these screens.)

Via T.J. Ortenzi via Phil Rosenthal

Ahead of its time by about six decades.

Future.

Comments

8:53 pm - Sun, Jun 3, 2012
55 notes
futurejournalismproject:

Warren Buffett buys 63 newspapers, we scratch our heads
About two weeks ago, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett bought 63 newspapers from Media General, a news company that operates throughout the US Southeast. The purchase has gotten a lot of criticism, as you can imagine, and some praise too. Let’s dissect the argument.
The papers themselves are small locals, and Buffett has said he wants to focus on local reporting. Fair enough.
via Buffett:

Our future depends on remaining the primary source of information in certain subjects of great importance to our readers. Technological change has caused us to lose primacy in various key areas, including national news, national sports, stock quotations and employment opportunities. So be it. Our job is to reign supreme in matters of local importance.

Buffett knows that much of what traditionally made a newspaper a newspaper – the classifieds, funnies, world news – is now free and online. So he’s wants to lean on local issues that only a local paper will cover. There’s got to be a market for that, right?
And he wants to charge for online content, probably:

We must rethink the industry’s initial response to the Internet. The original instinct of newspapers then was to offer free in digital form what they were charging for in print. This is an unsustainable model and certain of our papers are already making progress in moving to something that makes more sense.

But he’s missing something, according to the critics. Namely, that you can’t expect subscriptions or paywalls to finance a paper.
 writes Clay Shirky:

He makes much of drops in print readership, but circulation has not been strongly correlated with revenue for two decades now.

Buffett expects that quality reporting will boost readership, boost sales, and then boost business. But it’s not that simple.
Shirky goes on:

Reading the letter, you’d never know that papers make most of their money from companies, not citizens, and have done for the better part of two centuries. It is disruptive competition for ad dollars, not changing reader engagement, that has sent the industry into a tailspin.

FJP: The jury’s still out on paywalls, but if they only sort-of work for the New York Times, then their adoption by a paper in a town of 10,000 doesn’t incite our confidence.
Matthew Ingram of GigaOm puts it well: newspapers have changed. The internet has most of what a paper has always had, and makes it easier to find. And the ad money, which has always financed the news, has followed our collective attention away from print.
Ingram writes:

The real business of a newspaper has been to aggregate content — news, but also comics and horoscopes and classifieds and lifestyle tips — as a way of capturing the attention of readers, and then sell that attention to advertisers. And the problem for newspapers, both hyper-local and national, is that advertisers are no longer as interested in that arrangement as they used to be. Much of the attention that they seek to monetize has gone elsewhere, to websites and services like Facebook — especially the attention of younger readers with disposable income.

But Warren Buffett is a business man, and as one of the world’s most successful investors, it’s not surprising that he’s not in much danger of losing money.
via Devin Leonard:

Yet it’s also important to look at the price Berkshire is paying for the Media General papers. As recently as six years ago, newspaper companies sold for more than 9 times Ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization). Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Stephen Weiss writes today that Buffett’s company paid around 4 times Ebitda for the Media General assets.
At that low price, Berkshire Hathaway could make a nice return on its money. As the Wall Street Journalreported earlier this month, it has done surprisingly well since purchasing the debt last November of Lee Enterprises, another troubled newspaper publisher, from Goldman Sachs.

And there you have it, for now.
Image: Fiscal Muses.

futurejournalismproject:

Warren Buffett buys 63 newspapers, we scratch our heads

About two weeks ago, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett bought 63 newspapers from Media General, a news company that operates throughout the US Southeast. The purchase has gotten a lot of criticism, as you can imagine, and some praise too. Let’s dissect the argument.

The papers themselves are small locals, and Buffett has said he wants to focus on local reporting. Fair enough.

via Buffett:

Our future depends on remaining the primary source of information in certain subjects of great importance to our readers. Technological change has caused us to lose primacy in various key areas, including national news, national sports, stock quotations and employment opportunities. So be it. Our job is to reign supreme in matters of local importance.

Buffett knows that much of what traditionally made a newspaper a newspaper – the classifieds, funnies, world news – is now free and online. So he’s wants to lean on local issues that only a local paper will cover. There’s got to be a market for that, right?

And he wants to charge for online content, probably:

We must rethink the industry’s initial response to the Internet. The original instinct of newspapers then was to offer free in digital form what they were charging for in print. This is an unsustainable model and certain of our papers are already making progress in moving to something that makes more sense.

But he’s missing something, according to the critics. Namely, that you can’t expect subscriptions or paywalls to finance a paper.

 writes Clay Shirky:

He makes much of drops in print readership, but circulation has not been strongly correlated with revenue for two decades now.

Buffett expects that quality reporting will boost readership, boost sales, and then boost business. But it’s not that simple.

Shirky goes on:

Reading the letter, you’d never know that papers make most of their money from companies, not citizens, and have done for the better part of two centuries. It is disruptive competition for ad dollars, not changing reader engagement, that has sent the industry into a tailspin.

FJP: The jury’s still out on paywalls, but if they only sort-of work for the New York Times, then their adoption by a paper in a town of 10,000 doesn’t incite our confidence.

Matthew Ingram of GigaOm puts it well: newspapers have changed. The internet has most of what a paper has always had, and makes it easier to find. And the ad money, which has always financed the news, has followed our collective attention away from print.

Ingram writes:

The real business of a newspaper has been to aggregate content — news, but also comics and horoscopes and classifieds and lifestyle tips — as a way of capturing the attention of readers, and then sell that attention to advertisers. And the problem for newspapers, both hyper-local and national, is that advertisers are no longer as interested in that arrangement as they used to be. Much of the attention that they seek to monetize has gone elsewhere, to websites and services like Facebook — especially the attention of younger readers with disposable income.

But Warren Buffett is a business man, and as one of the world’s most successful investors, it’s not surprising that he’s not in much danger of losing money.

via Devin Leonard:

Yet it’s also important to look at the price Berkshire is paying for the Media General papers. As recently as six years ago, newspaper companies sold for more than 9 times Ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization). Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Stephen Weiss writes today that Buffett’s company paid around 4 times Ebitda for the Media General assets.

At that low price, Berkshire Hathaway could make a nice return on its money. As the Wall Street Journalreported earlier this month, it has done surprisingly well since purchasing the debt last November of Lee Enterprises, another troubled newspaper publisher, from Goldman Sachs.

And there you have it, for now.

Image: Fiscal Muses.

Comments

7:13 pm - Thu, May 31, 2012
100 notes
Twitter is where news breaks; Facebook is where news goes. This is something that members of the media, who live on Twitter and regard Facebook with removed interest, take for granted. The coverage of and discussion about Facebook’s IPO may have been the clearest demonstration yet of one of the few things the service can’t seem to do: Lead the conversation.
BuzzFeed’s John Herrman • Making a wise point about how the Facebook IPO was really a much bigger story on Twitter than Facebook. Part of that, to us, is due to the way the networks work. “The site, as is, is great at building after-the-fact, heavily filtered digests,” Hermann explains, “While Tweets are like free-roaming units of information, Facebook posts live in the context of each users’ friend bubble.” We noticed the same trend when the IPO broke. And it is very telling — a level of engagement FB could never hope to have, even if it’s with a smaller audience. (via shortformblog)

(via futurejournalismproject)

Comments

9:36 am
65 notes
We are no longer a newspaper company.

Wow, they just came out and said it.  This is a watershed moment…Pay attention.

Jim Kirk, Editor-in-chief, Chicago Sun-Times Media Holdings, in a memo to staff. Crains. Sun-Times shuffles newsroom, stresses digital moves.

The ever important pivot that every traditional newspaper publisher is realizing: “We are a technology company that happens to publish a newspaper. We deliver content. And we will deliver content on many platforms and in ways that we haven’t yet fully considered.”

(via futurejournalismproject)

Comments

11:43 pm - Thu, May 17, 2012
13 notes

futurejournalismproject:

Via Experian Hitwise:

  1. Facebook.com received 9% of all US Internet visits in April 2012.
  2. Facebook.com received more than 1.6 billion visits a week and averaged more than 229 million US visits a day for the year-to-date.
  3. 1 in every 5 page views in the US occurred on Facebook.com.
  4. Facebook.com has received more than 400 billion page views this year in the US.
  5. The average visit time on Facebook.com is 20 minutes.
  6. The Facebook.com audience skews more female (56%) than male.

Read through for nine more Facebook stats.

Comments

7:59 am - Mon, Apr 23, 2012

Programmers and journalists create similar value — or they could. Each makes sense of information. Technology brings order to the flow of information; journalists ask the questions that aren’t answered in that flow. Each brings new abilities to people — functionality (in software terms) or empowerment (in journalistic terms). But programmers don’t produce products so much as they produce ability: your ability to get what you want. Shouldn’t journalism act like that? Shouldn’t we teach them to?

Imagine a perpendicular universe in which an organization or community says: “We need someone to help make sense of this information, who can add context to it or find and fill in missing pieces or present it in a way that will make sense to people — as a narrative or a visualization. We need to get us a journalist.

Comments

3:12 am - Wed, Apr 18, 2012
37 notes
The ongoing death of newspapers is not about changes in journalism, or the need for them. It is about a business model that has ceased to be relevant in the face of present technology. It used to be a poorly kept secret, but amid a vast array of competing histories, it’s been forgotten like last year’s canceled NBC sitcoms: What made newspapers successful was never the news. Newspapers provided vital services in people’s lives: their connections with their hometown, the notices of local events, the daily topics of conversation, the latest thoughts hovering over Snoopy’s head as he snored atop his doghouse. Many of these services were syndicated, and those that were not - like the classified ads - were intensely well managed. The front page, and the headlines therein, were merely the container…

…The Internet commandeered the services that newspapers once championed and delivered each of these services on an a la carte basis. In an earlier era, it made sense to bundle these services in a single package - the newspaper - and deliver it fully assembled. Today, the Web itself is the package, and each of the services now competes against other similar services in separate, often healthy, markets. And this is as it should be - this is not somehow wrong…

There is no rational business model that can be formed around solely the production of news, just as many artists will attest that there is no stable business model around just an artist producing art that does not involve dying first. News must be bundled with a service. And that’s a problem, because the Web model is to unbundle everything, reduce every service to its basic and fundamental form, and present it to you as a site or, more recently, as an app. If you ask southern California venture capitalists what types of investments they’re searching for, they’ll tell you they’re looking for that one thing - not six things bundled together, not three existing things that complement one another. One disruptive thing.

And that thing tends to omit the word “news.”
Scott M. Fulton, III, ReadWriteWeb. On the Difference Between Google and Journalism.  (via futurejournalismproject)

Well, that about nails it. Disruption is the name of the game.

Comments

Install Headline