Thursday, May 28, 2009
News / News Bites MediaTrek -- the next generation
Posted by Michael Miner on 05.28.09 at 06:08 PM
The Chicago Journalism Town Hall in February was intended to begin a conversation on the future of news, and that conversation is moving along. The next advance is the Chicago Media Future Conference on Saturday, June 13, at Columbia College, and it's a response to the strongest criticism of the Town Hall -- which is that the panel of experts, as wise as they were (or not), by and large were a bunch of old farts steeped in old media.
"These aren't the same old voices," I'm assured by Scott Smith, a playboy.com senior editor who's an organizer of the Chicago Media Future Conference. He adds, "We hope to excite our audience so much that they feel compelled to start their own discussions, and help us create future Chicago Media Future events."
The conference will consist of two panels. The first will ask, "How do people consume the news, and what do they do with it?" and the panelists will include Rich Gordon, director of digital technology in education at Medill; Andrew Huff, editor and publisher of Gapers Block; Amanda Maurer, social media producer for the Tribune; and Daniel X. O'Neil of everyblock.com; it'll be moderated by Dan Sinker, founder of the late Punk Planet.
Panel two poses a $64 question: "How do you make money selling the news and who is willing to pay for it?" The panelists are Eric Easter, vice president for digital and entertainment at the Johnson Publishing Company; Brad Flora, founder and publisher of the Windy Citizen; Tom Lynch, director of client satisfaction at IMP!; Steve Rhodes, founder of the Beachwood Reporter; and Patrick Spain, CEO of Newser. The moderator's Barbara Iverson, a professor of journalism at Columbia College and copublisher of chicagotalks.org.
Iverson's recently been a fellow at the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism thinking hard about digital media. On her blog, currentbuzz.org, she says she's working on "an explication of how we can never afford to pay for the kind of news, hard news, that our democracy needs. However, we can produce this news, distribute it, but we have to think outside the norms of money and the economics of scarcity and the Industrial Age." Does that have a doleful ring?
In addition to Smith, who until recently was web editor for Time Out Chicago, the organizers of the Chicago Media Future Conference are Mike Fourcher, founder of Purely Political Consulting, and Iverson.
The Chicago Media Future Conference begins at 1:30 PM at Columbia College’s Film Row Cinema (1104 S. Wabash) and runs to 4:45 PM, with a 15-minute break between panels. It's free and public, but there's limited seating, and half of it is already taken. Register here to attend.
MEANWHILE... A very important conference on the future of journalism that was not public, and was in fact highly secret, was held Thursday out by O'Hare -- or so reports James Warren, a former managing editor of the Tribune. Warren, writing at theatlantic.com, says the subject was "Models to Monetize Content," which sounds like one of the topics mentioned above, "How do you make money selling the news and who is willing to pay for it?" as taken up by old farts trying to hold off the insurgents.
Warren writes, "There's no mention on its website but the Newspaper Association of America, the industry trade group, has assembled top executives of the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication Inc., among more than two dozen in all."
That would be the "If the news wants to be free it's time to yank its chain" bunch in full force. Warren comments, "It's now safe to wager that most attendees, who were scheduled to include Michael Golden of the New York Times, Gary Pruitt of McClatchy and Tom Curley of the Associated Press, will be dragged into charging for at least some online content."
Dragged? Charge was sounded in April, with a declaration by William Singleton, chairman of the AP, that "we can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories. We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it any more."
Said Singleton, "We believe all of your newspapers will join our battle to protect our content and receive appropriate compensation for it. AP and its member newspapers and broadcast associate members are the source of most of the news content being created in the world today. We must be paid fully and fairly."
But no newspaper would dare become the only paper to charge for content. It's all or nobody at all, and I suppose antitrust law is a bridge they'll try to cross when they come to it.
Comments (6)
Showing 1-6 of 6
Why would the New York Times want to tarnish its brand by associating itself with such journalistic rabble, unless it thinks they might add something to a greater understanding of Lottery hostesses, stadium cats and 'American Idol' scandals (of course, it's fixed ... read the small-print legalize ... they all are to some degree). The NYT is having a difficult enough time staving off bankruptcy, while defending its columnists' patently unethical behavior and penny-pinching. "Models to Monetize Content," indeed. What content? Wouldn't it make more sense for the Times to affiliate itself with the BBC, Le Monde, Reuters, CNN, ESPN and other such media players, instead of the papers that have already surrendered? Then, it could sell something of real value. Being lumped with the Sam Zells, Brian Tierneys and Dean Singletons of the industry hardly seems the way to go. I'm guessing the Times' presence at the summit was simply an act of noblesse oblige ... a sop to the helpless and crippled. Considering what the Times has done to the Boston Globe, however, one could suggest, "physician heal thyself," first.
like
dislike
One wonders how many of these young online insurgents envision themselves doing the same thing for the same crappy rate of compensation (if any) 20 years from now. Any model for journalism that doesn't include the possibility of real careers--with such exotica as pay increases, opportunities for advancement and decent benefits--is not a serious model. The model of scattering a handful of responsible 20-something half-starved journalists in the online ocean of fakery, garbage and pornography and expecting readers to sort through the mess doesn't, somehow, paint a very inspiring picture of the future. But, still, the focus is on the internet. These newspaper executives just wish like hell they could dump their unionized pressmen and unionized truck drivers, so one imagines they'll keep beating their heads against the online wall until they've bled the print product dry.
"For anyone with a crazy idea for a Web business, the way to make it pay was once obvious: get a lot of visitors and sell ads... Now advertisers have cut back their online spending. " 'Ads are an inefficient business model, making indirect revenue as a result of behavior and advertising to people who don't want to see them or for whom they're irrelevant,' said Jeff Bonforte... 'I didn't believe in the longevity of the advertising model for media, with rates falling and budgets getting cut,' Mr. Shah said." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/technology/start-ups/25startup.html?ref=technology And, um, with all due respect... should a guy who works for Hefner really be talking about "old voices"? Pot, meet kettle.
Jen: No on is saying ads are the be-all, end-all of online revenue, but neither are they saying they should be abandoned. As the Reader's Whet Moser says - and as Jim Coudal's Deck Network demonstrates - ads could still be viable, you just have to change the nature of them: http://www.chicagomediafuture.org/?p=145 http://decknetwork.net/ But again, they're not the only way to make money online, and I think will get into some of those possibilities on June 13. As for your ad hominem attack on me, I don't see how working for Playboy automatically equates with an inability to speak to the current trends in online media just because our editor in chief is a gentleman of a certain age. A storied history in publishing doesn't mean you're out of touch. Eric Easter, one of our panelists, is a VP at Johnson Publishing, a company whose founding dates back to 1942, pre-dating Playboy by more than a few years. I'm not pompous enough to think he has nothing to contribute because of that. I think my co-organizers and I recognize that age has nothing to do with having all the answers. Neither the young nor the old have it figured out yet, which is why we're inviting everyone to trade ideas during the conference, and at our website: chicagomediafuture.com. Perhaps you'll attend as well?
Whoa. Dude, chill... Wasn't trying to make an 'ad hominem attack' on you personally. I don't even know you personally. I won't say anything about Playboy or its storied history. But I will say (with an amiable half-grin, which is by no means directed at you or anyone in particular) that "gentleman of a certain age" is one way to put it. Anyway. I did not suggest that ads should be abandoned or seen as the holy grail, nor that anyone else had said those things. I read a newspaper article that was useful and informative, and I was simply relaying where to find it.
Um, Jen, yeah you were making an ad hominem attack (which by definition means at him personally, so say 'ad hominem on you personally' is either repetitive or shows you don't know what you are talking about), and your point seems to have been "you work for an old guy, Smith, and are therefore not allowed to speak" That's what "pot, meet kettle" means. It's an attack, and an a classic example of ad hominem. So, nice of you to back off Smith, but yeah, you attacked him and tried to suggest that he had no right to speak in this debate. He's a web editor with a decade of experience at Chicagoist, Time Out Chicago and now playboy.com. What are our credentials?
