Shirky Does Newspaper Biopsy: Terminal
Another great piece by Clay Shirky. I mean, if newspapers fail, who’s gonna be left to write the horoscope, get local high school football scores and write Granny’s column on apple cider and the month of May? The horror.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:38 am
From the Shirky link: …6 reporters out of a staff of 59. SIX!
Wow.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I don’t know how in-depth accurate this take is, but I happened to have caught Tom Brokaw on Morning Joe (yeah…I know!), and he’d been out to visit the Emporia Kansas Gazette – founded by journalistic legend William Allen White. It’s still owned and run by his family and, while they had to shut down their own press operation recently and share printing facilities with another nearby paper, they seem to be doing pretty well by focusing on local news. This seems to me to be the salvation of local papers – even in large cities. The Emporia Gazette journalistic principle is to put lots of names on the front page that locals will recognize. It so happens that I bought an SF Chronicle at the BART station for the first time in months simply because it had an article on our local parking controversy (extension of meter times to 8pm, which merchants and shoppers hate). Local papers can’t compete with the national and international papers or wire services and most of that news is stale by the time they reach print – but excellent local journalism – even reaching down to lots of coverage of school sports, the state of local education, issues like parking and policing, great features on local people and enterprises, would amplify their readership. And, like the schools, they need to use staff and resources to maximize payoff to the public and streamline administration. In some cities this might mean an expanded website and maybe a twice-weekly print edition that reads more like a magazine or a bundle of special features than a daily newspaper. It was interesting that the Emporia Gazette has three formats now – the traditional daily, the website and a Spanish language edition aimed at a large immigrant community which gravitated to that part of Kansas to work at a Tyson plant (!) That’s smart and innovative, not to mention helpful to extend as sense of inclusion to the broadest community, and suggests that the White heirs are very likely to keep a great journalistic legacy alive.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Did any of you see the PBS doc the other night on the Chandlers and death of the LA Times?
According to that version the Times, under Otis, was a thriving, profit making, award winning second only to the NYT up until those few years ago when the majority weirdo right wing family members decided to dismantle it.
Majority of the board rich, right wing and although nothing was said to this end– one can only imagine some of them may have been in cahoots right wing power brokers who wanted to see the paper undermined. Sounds like a plan to me.
All this hoo ha about loss of advertising revenue and internet didn’t really seem to apply and it was only a few years ago that family coup undid the underpinnings of what, according to that version of events, Otis had masterminded.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Re Steve Coll link:
His fantasy seems to support Nader’s as outlined in his new book Only The Super Rich Can Save Us.
I have suggested before that journalists or the “core” group (as Coll calls it) of those needed to report and maintain the back up needed for accountability and production becomes some sort of cooperative venture. Whether money is raised through a combination of whatever advertising revenue be it for the digital format or print; subscription or by grant or endowment would have to be worked out.
Perhaps, as in Coll’s article, the strong argument that independent reporting especially in one’s region or locality is a fundamental necessity for a democracy then maybe people can choose to have a wee portion of local tax put into the publishing coop or non profit of their choice.
The BBC charges people to have the privilege of watching the BBC and getting TV hook up at all! In England no license-ee no TVee.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Speaking of non-news, how about the observation that most of a newspaper isn’t “core” news.
Shirky gobbles 700-plus words to tell us what could be said in less than 100, yet still manages to leave out the key point.
Newspapers aren’t stuffed with non-core news because they’re lazy, unimaginative or stupid. They’re full of it because THAT’S WHAT READERS AND ADVERTISERS WILL PAY FOR.
Fine and dandy, eliminate the TV listings, chess column, crossword and Granny’s Notes, then turn what’s left into a charity.
But the “core news” you’re generating will have far fewer readers than, say, the Huffington Post, which understands that the mass market requires a lot of gossip, etc. surrounding the core news.
Perhaps if the Shirker had forgone the cheesy “biopsy” gimmick he’d have realized that the journalism scene already has publications out there stuffed with “core news.” They’re called weekly magazines and the more core they are, the less readers they have.
What’s the point of subsidizing core news — shorn of the frills that drawn in the masses — if only a tiny handful of people read it?
October 7th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I gotta say, it is SUCH a straw man argument. YES newspapers publish lots of crap. But they also report on important stories, especially at the local level and the I have seen NO evidence that net can effectively cover local affairs. The business model for websites requres a significant amount of unique impressions per month in order to recieve decent ad revenue.
The internet is FILLED TO THE BRIM with crap. Go check out the trending topics on Twitter, most viewed videos on You Tube, the average “citizens” blog, etc…
October 7th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Gil Scott Heron: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
It will be Twittered.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
It was the second Otis, Anna, not the founder, General Otis. I’m sure you knew that, though. It was a pretty great show.
Go Dodgers!
October 7th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Your assignment for today, Anna, is to list the TOP 20 most informative Web sites on the Internet.
That should keep you away from checking up on Twitter’s hit parade…
October 7th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Jim. I assumed you had the brains to know I was referring to Otis Chandler. Silly me.
BB. I know they say irony is dead, but do you have to keep proving it?
I think all those social networking sites are shit and a waste of time. The ONLY purpose is actually for individuals who may be traveling or on a job that demands a community of people want to stay in touch. A virtual cb radio network.
SO, your assignment, BB, is to practice reading comprehension and then I will test you on recognizing irony…
October 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Jeez, never friggin’ mind, jackass.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:06 am
OT, but interesting perhaps to some here. Franken’s off to a promising start. First the amendment to the defense bill to ban arbitration, and then this. It’s 10 minutes, but well worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kiZIlMFto&feature=player_embedded#
Anna, weren’t you telling us how Franken was going to be just another toady?
October 8th, 2009 at 7:30 am
DanO.
I watched… and am very happy to say I was wrong.
He plays the grizzled veteran to the hilt– his confidence very much the product of his ability as a performer and satirist. It was almost a performance– those skills should give him an edge if he can keep up the momentum and stay in the fray.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Watching this and watching Franken’s encounter with the tea-baggers over health care reform at the MN State Fair – which was brilliant – make me think that we’ve got a great one in the making.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:39 am
jim hitchcock Says: Jeez, never friggin’ mind, jackass.
Jim, I learned a long time ago never try to argue with a hysterical women.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:53 am
OP and Jim you are the ones displaying a dearth of testosterone and a surplus of estrogen. You both might need some HRT.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Here, incidentally, is the list of Republicans who have gone down the path of those French and Hollywood elitists who want to shelter rapists – they all voted against the Franken amendment to bar companies contracting with the US government from forcing women to settle rape and sexual harrassment claims out of a court of law and being bound to allow a cover-up. The usual suspects are on the list, including John McCain. Shocking!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html
October 8th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Oh, I forgot – “Look over there! ACORN!!!”
October 8th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Reg and Dan O am belatedly ramping up on Franken etc.
One of the Dem candidates he beat was a pretty beautiful sounding guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nelson-Pallmeyer
Here is Franken on health care…
Here’s where I stand:
We need to go to universal health care.
“A single-payer system would be the most effective in terms of reducing administrative costs, and I would be thrilled to support such a system. But I believe that today’s political environment requires a creative and flexible approach to covering every American.”
Here is an interesting raw video of him on the ground debating health care issue with his constituents.
He does the classic hemming and hawing trying not to say anything and then slooooowly brings in the examples.
Still wondering why he couldn’t make the simple declarative sentence that rebuffs the continued rabbit hole part of the debate about “how can government pay for it–how can WE pay for it”
Like..you are paying for it, asshole, and far more than you would be if the cost of doing healthcare for profit were removed. Why can’t anyone say that YOU will be paying for it just like you do if you have health insurance– only care can’t be denied and preventative care will be paid for etc.
What people are really asking is: how are those who can’t afford healthcare going to pay or rather WHO will pay…Again its those that are actually getting a paycheck of which many who can’t afford health care are… will be able to contribute like its done in Europe. Duh. And those who have no income will be taken care of because that is what a civilized society does.
And if you do the math you will see far more who have not been paying for healthcare–but working with no insurance provided or deducted through employer–will then be gladly having an amount deducted each month that will give them health care. So MORE people will be paying IN rather than those ending up in ER with huge costs having to be covered.
Anyway. He makes his case very circuitiously, but effectively, because everyone just gets lost in the rambling unfocused discussion.
I say he is picking his battles where he can grandstand– like the Halliburton worker issue– rather than stand up on the healthcare battle.
I still say he is a showman who wants more to be in office than to take advantage of the chance to be a fighter.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:32 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/franken-calms-down-health_n_277687.html
OOps thats the Franken video. Watch. Very interesting.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:43 am
reg, I just realized after re reading your little post that he was dealing with tea baggers– so he was tip toeing to win their support. playing cat and mouse.
Duly noted is his skill at conciliation.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Franken knew he was dealing with people who were…uh, to put it kindly, “low information.” And they were there to harrass and rattle him. But there he was facing constituents – regardless of how off-the-wall – and on camera and he turned it into a rather brilliant and extraordinarily civil effort to defuse their hysteria AND make his case. In these types of situations, Senators generally don’t even have the freedom that many liberal Reps. have to simply blow off screwballs, like Barney Frank did. They have to play “statesman” – it’s part of the job description.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Also, I dare say that Al Franken is one of the few Senators who could actually earn a living as a “showman” prior to the Beltway limelight. Perhaps more people watch C-Span than Saturday Night Live – I’m not sure. But of all the guys in DC, Franken I think is probably the least likely to be there because he wants to get recognized at airports, thinks the C-Span camera is his ticket to stardom and needs a captive audience to hear him bloviate.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Incidentally, as Franken notes in that committee hearing, with defense contractors like Halliburton in particular, a lot of their activities take place outside US borders – like this employee’s horrible experience with “fellow workers” in Iraq. So the only legal recourse in US courts may be a civil suit.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:42 am
He bought the ticket– lets watch him take the ride!
So far. So good.
I must be the last to know that NASA is going to bomb the moon.
Goodnight Mo….
Oh. Mommy, what happened to the moon?
October 8th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Bomb the moon. Just say those words. Bomb the moon.
Bomb the moon. What are we like…its over.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I wonder where the get BIG GOVERNMENT to spending nut cases are on this one. Oh. Its ok. Because lots of business bucks and contractors will benefit with all these moon missions to exploit resources. So let the tax payer hump this rather than say schools or healthcare on EARTH.
Now its space exploration welfare.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:22 am
And before the literalists get their hump going…I understand its a missile aimed at the moon’s S Pole in the hopes of ejecting enough matter out of the hit zone to see if H20 registers on their gizmos.
And that they are hoping to find evidence of usable water in order to use the moon as a base…blah blah.
This is not the time to be doing this shit til technological no how is put to constructive, sustainable use on EARTH.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:24 am
When one of my sons was about ten, Otis Chandler used to correspond with him about vintage cars. That was enough to make me like the LAT publisher.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:38 am
That’s very cool. His collection was magnificent. I’m wondering if its still intact and in some museum.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Apparently it was auctioned off in ’06. Too bad. Can’t think of a better locale for a vintage auto and motorcycle museum than LA.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Reg beat me to it by 1 minute:
http://tinyurl.com/yzegsmd
October 8th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Must be my low testosterone levels…
October 8th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The future of newspapers? – New York Times May Start Chicago Local Edition
October 8th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Oh, I loved this part:
Just what California needs…a liberal paper.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I’m looking forward to that NorCal edition, because our local papers suck. The UC Journalism school is a tremendous resource, as is KQED – and Warren Hellman is a great Bay Area resource. He sponsors the annual Hardly Strictly Bluegrass festival in GGPark – which is free and awesome. Just took place last weekend – this was the lineup:
http://www.strictlybluegrass.com/
Kudos to Hellman…
October 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Holy cow, Jorma Kaukonen! What about Cassidy and Mitteroff?
October 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
And Boz Scaggs and Little Feat!
I was at a Allman Bros./Box Scaggs concert at the Forum (shortly after Duane died). Boz finished the main part of the set, walked off stage, and the lights stayed dim, for 5 minutes. I wanted to hear `Loan Me a Dime’ sooo bad, so I spent that 5 minutes screaming `Encore’ at top of my lungs. Unfortunately, I was the only one doing so, the rest of the crowd of 18,000 or so sitting on their hands (some looking at me rather oddly).
The encore did not happen, much to my chagrin.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Read this and weep:
2006
On October 21, at the Vintage Museum of Transportation and Wildlife in Oxnard, California, the Chandler collection will be sold and scattered all over the world, so enjoy the pictures of these great machines as Otis Chandler meant them to be seen and enjoyed.
http://www.nextautos.com/issue-13/the-chandler-collection
Odd. There is that car museum at Fairfax and Wilshire. Never went in…anyone know what the hell is in there?
October 8th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Well…That museum cited above was his private warehouse.
“…In 1980, he stepped down as publisher and became chairman of Times Mirror, reducing his involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company. He handed control to people outside the family in the mid-1980s and threw himself into other interests such as the Chandler Vintage Museum of Transportation and Wildlife in Oxnard, California, which he founded in 1987 (although it was rarely open to the public)”
Family dumped his collection same year as his death! Talk about hostility.
Were they strapped for cash? Not even the idea of bequeathing the collection and keeping a public access museum going even for a charitable foundation.
Jesus. Real fuckers those Chandlers.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Otis and his mother seemed the best of the lot.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Jim – I missed Boz, but did you see that lineup with him ? Loan Me A Dime oughta be the new national anthem. Also, this has got to be the only bluegrass festival in the world where you could see MC Hammer.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Regarding bluegrass, a couple of years ago (I don’t remember) a friend and I, to raise money for a civic organziation, put together a small concert featuring Bill Monroe. You should have been there, but you would have had to pay.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
James Cotton, Nick Lowe, Jimmy Vaughan…you bet.
We might want to team together to buy Jorma Kaukonen’s classic `Blue Country Heart’. Depression era country blues at it’s best. Even Woody would be unable to resist tapping his feet to some of those tunes.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
reg, yeah Dorothy and Otis seemed to break the curse temporarily.
And the family coffers did well by Otis’ diversifying. But they are apparently so weeeeeeeird.
In the doc one rep of the WASP/Rethug side of the family did go on camera and he was the total stereotype little Polo icon on his shirt and all. The way he spoke, decor of house, That detached from humanity aura.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Re: the KQED UC Berkeley project:
We should be wary of charity-financed journalism as a replacement for metro dailies unless it invents an effective mechanism for responding to market information, i.e. reader/viewer demand.
Public radio and television produce outstanding journalism because their freedom from advertising-sales pressure is tempered by accountability to the government and, to some degree, to donors.
And even then, public radio and television work well as compliments to the more superficial, but faster and often more compelling, commercial print and broadcast news. They primarily serve people who’ve already gathered basic information from local TV news, major metro dailies, newsweeklies and public affairs magazines.
If NPR and PBS were in the primary and “breaking” news businesses, i.e. held responsible for telling us about the hurricane in Miami, the local drug bust and the governor’s prostitute habit, they’d require a heartier mechanism for incorporating viewer demand into their news judgment.
As it is, they can cherry pick stories without having to concern themselves with giving viewers basic, essential news, as long as they maintain an ideological posture that’s acceptable to the ruling party and donors.
The NY Times leads the industry because it demonstrates the best news judgment in that it maintains a balance between serving reader demand and serving the public interest by investing in enterprise journalism.
For charity journalism to work, it has to balance public demand and public interest, without favoring only public interest as defined by its donors.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Just put up for a news auction. the public buys shares in a company for the sole purpose of getting the best muckracking available. one buys shares or subscriptions based on the orgs brief to get the truth and be accountable to no one who can demand reporting it be suppressed.
No need for liberal shuffling or bullshit. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it gets called a duck.
More revenues can be from advertising sponsors. But they have no say in nothing. They only get the benefit of being associated with people who want hard news and flogging their wares for that audience. So the subscribers draw the advertisers but arent run by them
If you don’t like it you opt out of your subscription. But it would have to be say at least a 3 month subscription bought at a time.
Competitors can sell shares in fabrications and lies.
Everybody happy.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
This news entity would provide local, national, international. and be available on a gated website.
It would accountable for what is written.. that would be the kicker. the attraction. they could be sued like a newspaper. In fact a challenge should be on the masthead so to speak.
all very 1940′s movie time. wouldnt it be cool though?
October 8th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Sounds good, Woody. I would pay – and have paid – good money to see Bill Monroe. Hellman brought the closest we’ve still got – Ralph Stanley and Del McCourey – to his fest.
October 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Hellman is, I believe, a billionaire who gets a kick out of using his ridiculously large personal fortune to support stuff he enjoys. He’s created a foundation to make sure that his festival will survive him at least ten years. Now he’s venturing into local news – partnering with some existing institutions and, apparently, the NYTs as a delivery system – which is fine by me.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Maybe off topic, but could you believe the end of the Dodgers’ game?
- – -
I really don’t know anything about Warren Hellman, so I did a search and immediately saw this article: HILLBILLY
MILLIONAIRE[BILLIONAIRE]Here are two related links to his investment in the new paper: Hellman and partners to launch Bay Area newsroom and an interesting interactive chart of the Hellman connections in Can Warren Hellman save the San Francisco Chronicle?.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
How much would you pay, Anna, for news?
October 8th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
It could well be that there is no mass market for straight, hard news. Newspapers have learned to blend in fluff because they have to to hold readers.
Now that much of the fluff — classified ads/horoscopes/opinion bloviating/sports scores and weather — is free online, hard, straight news has to work harder to win readers/viewers.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
BB. If I could depend on a reliable source to dish current event dirt I think its worth say $15 a month. Think of what people were paying for a paper every day. I figure 50 cents a day is good for only a digital read.
Whats the diff between that at paying for a paper.
This would be for hard news. International and national primarily. I think there shoudl be a separate source for local.
But I still think a real hold in the hand newspaper is what is needed. And the ritual of reading it important. I hate this computer thing.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
The thing about a hardcore news site funded this way is there is still the advantage of interaction. A comments section for each article so any corrections or other points of view keeps the story dynamic. And it allows the reporters to also be tipped easily of any problems with the stories and get suggestions for further exploration, updates
No fluff on this site.
October 9th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Sorry Anna, but $15 a month won’t get it. That’s less than 50 cents a day!
The rates newspapers charge are heavily padded by advertising.
Check out what, for example, financial newsletters that don’t have advertising, charge. That’s the kind of money it takes to pay the wages necessary to support the hard work of real journalism.
A major metro daily would have to charge many times $15 a month to survive without advertising. Just do the math.
Unless and until readers wake up to the fact that real journalism is very expensive to produce, there will be no progress toward realizing a model to replace the advertising driven one that’s now in the midst of slow-motion collapse….
October 9th, 2009 at 8:27 am
I’m sorry to bring it up here, but do we need any more proof that the Nobel Committee is anti-American?
October 9th, 2009 at 8:46 am
I couldn’t have written a better Woody parody. Credit where credit is due.
October 9th, 2009 at 9:06 am
For Woody from Michael Tomasky of the Guardian:
‘…The whole business is weird. But there is one lovely, delicious, delectable thing about it: it will drive the American right wing up the wall.
I normally can’t stand to hear Rush Limbaugh’s voice, but I just might listen today. I might flip on Fox for a bit. I’ll make sure at some point this afternoon to Google “Orly Taitz and Obama Nobel” to imbibe the analysis on offer from the queen of the birthers. I’ll definitely check in on the rightwing websites, and I urge you to do the same if you have the time. It’s going to be an extremely entertaining day.’
October 9th, 2009 at 9:07 am
It doesn’t drive me up the wall. In fact, I’m getting a lot of laughs listening to Obama and other Democrats trying to explain and justify the award to Obama. What a stretch!
October 9th, 2009 at 9:09 am
ACORN should share the award with Obama.
October 9th, 2009 at 9:12 am
BB.
You are forgetting there are no printing or distribution costs.
And there would still be advertizing revenues. A lot of businesses would want to have a targeted audience. Those vendors who want to appeal to what would be a liberal, educated, mostly gainfully employed readership would do well to advertize.
And this is not meant to be something that trys to include fluff columns. The point is to focus it on hard news. I wouldnt even waste space with commentary.
I would let whatever commentary so called pro or not be included in the comments.
October 9th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Back to the news…
So the Nobel committee makes a pre emptive choice. Rather brilliant.
Heard the chairman being grilled by some CNN c*nt on the website.
Desperate to get the chairman to confess out of the 5 voters it was not unanimous. The guy kept knocking him down. NO. It was unanimous.
He very patiently explained there was precident in the the award to the person who years before the Berlin Wall fell had been working towards that end.
They wanted to recognize that Obama was laying the groundwork for peace through his diplomatic attitude.
Something certainly not seen by a US president for sometime.
I think it was a shrewd choice. The sad thing is–it means nothing in real world terms.
It just gives the talking assholes like Woody something to expel more mind farts over.
I do like what they have done by choosing Obama: I think in no small measure there was an understanding that this would really stick it up the ass of the racists in the US.
Symbolically/psychologically the choice has an important effect within the US– which of course falls out on the rest of the world.
I think the choice of the committee was also considering that the world is on the brink; the US in large part responsible for about pushing it over and now there is a US leader who at least on the surface has demonstrated his intentions are to try and use diplomacy.
But…this all much ado about nothing because it means no more than a gold star the teacher gives a 5 year old.
Ok. Sit back and watch Woody wank.
October 9th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I am sure Marc’s next blog would be about Obama winning the Nobel if he were not wrestling with the flu. So until he rallies–which I hope is soon:
This prize has really shown up who the real “America haters” are…
Every sour rethug. Showing over and over their only agenda is hate…no ability to realize what it means for survival to negotiate, be inclusive and use diplomacy– that lives depend on it. Even their sorry ones.
Even Pat Buchanan dissed Steele for his stupid remarks and understands the PR value of the award.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“A lot of businesses would want to have a targeted audience.”
You would be talking about the magazine business, be it online or otherwise. And while a handful of advertisers prefer a tightly targeted audience to a mass one, they also prefer a fluffy editorial environment. They prefer not to ask people to buy their stuff in the middle of an article about famine or rape or, even, endemic corruption. They’d much rather be associated with editorial content about yachting, golf and cider recipes…
March 20th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Nice post, intresting read. Keep posting and I’ll come back for some more reading! Thanks!