Jumat, 31 Agustus 2012

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


The newsonomics of leapfrog news video

Posted: 30 Aug 2012 08:02 AM PDT

Our political conventions remind us that this is not the summer of love. But it may be the season we’ll remember as the summer of video.

Certainly, video’s — news video’s — growth has been noteworthy for awhile. But now there’s a bursting of new news video forms, a hothouse of experimentation that is both refreshing and intriguing. The blossoming has implications far and wide, not just for “news,” but for tech companies like Facebook and television brands from Ellen to Piers to The View. Within it, we see the capability of non-TV companies to leapfrog the TV people.

Just Monday, both The Wall Street Journal (“The Wall Street Journal wants its reporters filing microvideo updates for its new WorldStream”) and The New York Times made video announcements. A couple of weeks ago, the ambitious Huffington Post Live launched, hiring the almost unbelievable number of 104 staffers. In these three forays, and in the thinking in and around them, we see the boundaries of old media being slowly broken. We’re on the edge, finally, of new ways to both create and present news — and how to talk about the news.

It’s funny: “Video,” as a term, as a category, barely defines what we’re seeing. All video means is moving pictures, and we’ve had those since George Méliès (as Martin Scorcese reinterpreted in Hugo). We’ve known broadcast news and then cable news, witnessed their triumphs and now the declines of both. Because of twin technologies — all the iGadgets reintroducing us to the world as we know it and the behind-the-scenes digital pipes making content creation and distribution increasingly seamless — we’re seeing what creative people can do with moving pictures.

While this week’s Journal’s announcement focused on WorldStream, that semi-raw feed (all staff contributions are okayed one-by-one for public view) is but one of the full handful of Journal experiments with video.

Watch video now better embedded into stories (as the Times also has done with QuickLinks). Get appointment programs on WSJ Live (“The newsonomics of WSJ Live”). Watch on demand, in a variety of formats. Go directly to a video page, where all of the video output is categorized. And now, WorldStream, that rawish feed the Journal is doing, because it can — and because such video becomes great bait for the social web. Pick up the url, tweet it, and the Journal has happened on a social video strategy that is curiously akin to Upworthy’s.

It’s a multi-point access world for video producers. The Times will tell you that its viewing is roughly divided in thirds among its video center, its homepage video player and embedded-within-stories video. The Journal says more than half its views are now coming from embedded videos, with less than five percent of its views come from its video page. It makes sense that “video center” usage will decrease over time; these are transitional pages. Convergence is now becoming real, and we expect to see the content, text, voice, and pictures delivered in context. Finally. We don’t go to a place on sites called “Words.”

What’s most important about we’re seeing flickering before our eyes? Try these, as we look at the newsonomics of leapfrog news video.

  • It’s about money. Video advertising rates are holding up far better than display-around-text rates. “Give me inventory” is a cry heard from the salespeople, who find agencies and top advertisers’ pre-roll appetites nowhere near satiated. For top premium brands, $45-60 CPM (cost per thousand views) are still available, as display rates fetch as little as a tenth and as much as one-half of those numbers. In addition, companies are selling video packages and sponsored tile ads in addition to pre-rolls to sweeten their take. So production of video makes financial sense — even as news companies cut back, lay off, and pinch, pinch, pinch. The smarter companies are investing in video — staffers, training, technologies — even as they make those cuts, while other companies find themselves just stuck. Video is the second-fastest growing ad category in the U.S., according to IAB, up 29 percent year-over-year. It will be worth about $2 billion this year.
  • It’s about platforms. The Journal’s Alan Murray, who heads digital news efforts, says the company’s video traffic has doubled in six months. Why? It’s not mainly because of more use on Journal platforms, even though it’s been an innovator on the tablet. Most of that growth comes from the deals the Journal has done with an astonishing 26 “platforms.” They range from the ubiquitous iPad and Kindle to lesser known 5Min and LiveStation.1 By way of comparison, The New York Times is currently using three (Hulu, Google TV, YouTube).
  • It’s about technologies. The Times and the Washington Post have been using Google + Hangout, to facilitate conversation, and we’ve seen the fruits this week at the Republican Convention. As well-described by The Daily Beast’s Lauren Ashburn, Google Hangouts are a major, disruptive force; “no longer needed are satellite trucks or underground cables to beam talking heads to people’s living rooms. A simple Internet connection and a camera are rendering expensive gadgets obsolete.” The Journal is touting Tout, a Silicon Valley start-up that has taken much of the “friction” out of the business of video production. “Make it drop dead simple,” CEO Michael Downing says is his goal. That means taking the background tasks of uploading smartphone video from the field, “transcoding” it and then translating it to work in all the various formats (devices, screen sizes, operating sizes). That removes the work from media companies, and lets them focus on content and audience. In addition to the Journal, broadcasters including CNN, CBS, and ESPN have become customers.
  • It’s apparently not about appointment TV. HuffPo’s Live is the most interesting here. While it has 10 telegenic anchor/producer/hosts, those hosts don’t have standard daily program times. Segments will last between 12 and 35 minutes (most average 20-25), HuffPost Live president Roy Sekoff told me this week. Yet, they are fluid, with segment length adjustable on the fly. Readers pick topics — before, during, and after “Live” — from a reader-activated conveyor belt at the top of the page. “It’s the Internet,” says Sekoff pointedly, meaning it’s a flow, not a TV Guide-like grid in how readers/viewers use it. The Journal agrees. Even with on-the-hour blocks of News Hub programs, the majority of its viewing is on demand. Even for HuffPo, all of that live programming is then chunked into segments, and Sekoff estimates that he’ll have about 10,000 of them archived and ready for long-tail viewing by year’s end. We want what we want when we want it — and expect it to be there. Thus, findability becomes the issue, and the multiple points of access now being offered are very much a live test of consumer behavior and want.
  • It’s about simplicity. The Times’ announcement basically said this: You’ve proven you like video. Now we’re cleaning it up and making it more pleasurable to watch and easier to find. In the cleanup, the Times moved to 11 “navigation items” from 25, says Peter Anderson, director of video product. We see that translation in more uniform positioning of video panels on NYTimes.com pages, and a more elegant 16 × 9 video player format, replacing the oh-so-20th century 4 × 3.
  • It’s about the news — and talk about the news. In the approaches of the Times and the Journal on the one hand, and of HuffPo on the other, we see two quite different philosophies and strategies, but ones that may find meeting points. Both the Journal and the Times see their reporters as the foundation of the video process; Murray calls Dow Jones’ 2,000 journalists “the core asset.” So both are putting cameras into the hands of journalists, or enabling them to better use smartphones, thereby creating more impactful, multi-dimensional, multi-platform journalism. HuffPo, from its early days of being mainly a curator/aggregator, has had its pulse on what its progressive audience is wondering and talking about. Those topics, mostly off the news (Marissa Mayer’s pregnancy, veterans and poverty), are the ones front and center in its Live pages. Some, of course, derive from its journalists’ work, and now staffers like Howard Fineman are suggesting video segments as they prepare stories. By and large, though, the talk-about-news drives the 12-hours-a-day site (5 days a week), with actual news supplementing. Sekoff says some 1,300 HuffPo community members have “raised their hands” and been featured as talking contributors on its segments. They’re unpolished and a far more diverse (for all the good and bad that implies) lot than we see among the too familiar faces of cable TV. For the Journal and the Times, traditional stories drive the video, and then, as Peter Anderson describes it, “The New York Times starts the conversation.” (Here, the Times brings civilians more prominently into its Opinion pages.) How these somewhat opposite approaches come together will be something to watch.

Maybe, most intriguingly, this video revolution may be morphing into a social revolution.

Watch a few of the HuffPost Live segments. Call them semi-slick. The technology works. The production values are okay, even if blogger/contributors faces seem a bit low-def, as TV itself moves moves from HD to Ultra. Some raise interesting, unorthodox issues and views; some are deadly boring. They are not, though, the lookalike programming of traditional news outlets. In their socialness, they cross lines.

Here’s what I find fascinating as I watch those, and smaller steps toward engagement taken by the Times, Journal, and others. As we all watch more video, where will the minutes come from? They may come from other news, text news. They may also come from Facebook. Compare HuffPost Live to Facebook and we see lots of social/sharing commonalities — but in picture form. Discussions — less in linear words than with in-motion video. They may come from morning talk shows like “Ellen” or “The View,” or compete with The Young Turks.The minutes will come from somewhere, as these technologies are more universally adopted and the world of competition only gets more complicated. This is the world in which news companies now compete.

For the news industry specifically, we see that legacy lines are written in disappearing ink, as the Journal, for instance, out-innovates ABC. One dirty little secret of broadcasting is being revealed, as technologies like Google+ Hangouts even the playing field for the print guys: it’s a game of numbers. The number of journalists in newspaper newsrooms still far outnumber those in broadcast ones. In addition, traditional TV has demanded many staffers to do the technical work of creating the broadcast. So, newspapers — if they can rapidly connect their workforces with the new technologies — have a chance to do what seems illogical: leapfrog broadcast and outflank them in the move to fully available, multi-platform news video.

Notes
  1. The full list: YouTube, iPad, iPhone, Apple TV, Google TV, Boxee, Roku, Hulu, Ustream, DailyMotion, Panasonic Internet-connected TVs, Samsung Internet-connected TVs, Sony Internet-connected TVs, Vizio Internet-connect TVs, Yahoo Internet-connected TVs, Windows Phone, Xbox (announced, not yet launched), Kindle Fire, Google Nexus 7, Pulse, 5Min, TouchTV, Flud, WatchUp, LiveStation, Tout, Etisalat.

Newspaper Death Watch

Newspaper Death Watch


Lemmings with Microphones

Posted: 30 Aug 2012 05:57 AM PDT

Jeff Jarvis nails it with this headline:  ”Reporters: Why are you in Tampa?” And he goes it one better by running some numbers that estimate that media organizations will spend $30 million this week covering a Republican convention of which the outcome is already known. Then they’ll do the same thing next week for the Democrats.

Here’s what we’ll get for this investment:

  • On-the-spot analysis of speeches that could be covered just as easily by watching them on television;
  • Interviews with political junkie delegates who in no way typify the American voter;
  • Journalists talking to each other;
  • TV reports that are supposed to look more urgent because the reporter is standing in front of  a sign labeled “Wisconsin.”

All this is happening in an industry that’s in free fall.

Yet what we’ll get over these two weeks is the same political pabulum we’ve gotten for decades, served up to an American public that’s sick of it all.

1952 Republican National Convention via Wikimedia CommonsPolitical convention coverage epitomizes what’s wrong with mainstream media today. Conventions long ago ceased to have any news value. The last brokered convention was in 1952. Since then, the only purpose of the quadrennial party has been to deliver what Jarvis calls an infomercial. Everything is scripted for the greatest possible momentum going into the fall campaign, and the media plays right along.

Why? Well, as Tevye said: “Tradition!”  It’s always been done this way. Conventions aren’t about news. They’re a junket for senior reporters. They’re easy to cover because everyone who attends them is media-trained and has a scripted message. There’s what media needs today: stuff that’s easy.

How can you cover the reaction of voters back at home when all your best reporters are down in Tampa snarfing down shrimp and free booze? Why are the TV networks  interviewing a small number of delegates and ignoring  millions of online conversations between real voters? How can the media, which prides itself on independence, cooperate so willingly with the PR manipulators who script this stuff? How can it possibly spending so much money on something that produces no news?

Let’s ask different questions: What if The New York Times, Washington Post or NBC made a statement in 2016 and announced that it would skip the conventions and invest that money instead in an investigative unit or database journalist? What if the media stopped coming to the conventions entirely and left the coverage to Journatic? Do you think we would be any worse off? Do you think the economy would suffer? Do you think anyone outside of the media would even notice?

Won’t happen. That would be rocking the boat. And for heaven’s sake, why would anyone want to do that?


Apparently a Pulitzer Prize is no protection against the ravages of the marketplace. The Harrisburg (Pa.) Patriot-News, and the Syracuse Post-Standard will reduce print frequency to thrice weekly beginning in January. They follow the lead of their Advance Publications brethren in New Orleans and Alabama, which scaled back this spring. The news is particularly disappointing because the Patriot-News  won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for local reporting for its coverage of the Penn State scandal. These are not small marketers. The two papers have a combined Sunday circulation of nearly a quarter million. They’ll keep publishing on Sunday. The other two days of the week haven’t been decided. Expect more members of the Advance family to follow.

Update: A tipster says he’s been told there will be a 50% staff reduction at the Post-Standard starting next week. “That’s 200 lost jobs in an already hard-hit community.”


Kamis, 30 Agustus 2012

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


PBS NewsHour’s viewers are translating its videos into 52 languages (and counting)

Posted: 29 Aug 2012 11:14 AM PDT

Ever try watching Sesame Street in Turkish, or Hindi? Big Bird has made his way to 150 countries, and has been translated into more than 50 languages.

Now, PBS NewsHour is working to follow the bird and push some of its newsier content to global audiences. Partnering with the translation platform Amara, the show is crowdsourcing an effort to add subtitles to politics-themed videos, including moments from the U.S. presidential campaigns and short man-on-the-street interviews with American voters.

So, for example, now you can watch a video of President Barack Obama talking about a new immigration policy with subtitles in Vietnamese; or the Ukrainian version of Mitt Romney announcing Paul Ryan as his running mate. (Amara, formerly known as Universal Subtitles, is also involved in projects to crowdsource captioning for Netflix films and TED talks.) Since January, PBS NewsHour has built up a community of hundreds of dedicated volunteer translators across the world, and videos have been translated into 52 languages.

Because translations are done at the whim of volunteers, the outcome is unpredictable for any given video. As of this writing, for example, Ann Romney’s speech at the Republican National Convention was available in English, French, and…Georgian, a language that has millions of speakers but isn’t usually the first that comes up among translation projects in the United States.

Generally, Obama gets more attention from translators than Romney. (It’s understandable that a sitting president would draw more attention than his as-yet-unelected rival.) Some languages are more popular than others. One volunteer in Indonesia is particularly active, which means that many videos have Indonesian subtitles.

“The most frequent languages besides English are Spanish, French, Indonesian, Chinese, and Korean,” Joshua Barajas, a production assistant at PBS NewsHour who handles communications with the volunteer translators, told me. Arabic and Turkish aren’t too far behind.

And what about quality control, a question that comes up in just about any crowdsourced project? It can be particularly difficult — if not downright impossible — to keep tabs on volunteers who are submitting work in a language you don’t understand.

“There has been one incident,” involving a captioner who inserted some foul language, Barajas said. “One troll. We quickly got rid of it. For the most part, it’s been pretty polite.”

And that’s because the volunteers who are involved are really, really involved. If they see something that’s not right — more often a technological bug or minor translation error than inappropriate conduct — they’re quick to notify the team at PBS, Barajas said.

Running parallel to these videos is a translation effort for a series called Listen to Me. PBS NewsHour has been collecting short interviews with people from around the country based on three questions: What’s the most important issue to you during this election? Are you hopeful about the future? Do you think the political system is broken? (For now, PBS affiliates have been shooting and submitting footage, but NewsHour plans to let people submit their own videos, too.)

There have been a few kinks to work out on the production side. A syncing issue with subtitles has since been resolved. Quite a few translations get started but not finished. (The video of Romney introducing Ryan lists 17 languages, but only six are complete; Bengali, Korean, Portuguese, Swahili, and Turkish are all less than 10 percent done.) And PBS NewsHour wants to build a more reliable language mix; they hope to partner with language classes at universities to achieve this.

But the biggest challenge is impact: how to measure it, yes, but mostly how to make a difference in the first place.

The core idea behind the translation project is that “everyone should have access to the political conversation regardless of the language they speak or their ability to hear,” Barajas said. But how do you let people know that these translations are available to them?

This is an issue that all newsrooms confront: What good is a great story — in any language — if you don’t have an audience ready to consume it? But most newsrooms aren’t trying to reach a divided global audience in dozens of languages.

“As of right now, we’re limited in gauging the translations’ reach,” Barajas said in a follow-up email. “We look at YouTube views and the growth of the Amara community for some insight, but these are limiting benchmarks of course.”

Still, NewsHour deserves credit for taking on a translation project of this scope. (Even a newspaper that simply directs its readers to Google Translate is going farther than most English language news outlets in the United States.) Ultimately, it appears what PBS NewsHour is really doing is community building.

“People are just excited because they feel like they want to be a part of something, and they feel like they’re contributing,” Barajas said. “They’re able to catch the nuances that otherwise would have been, well, lost in translation.”

Focus and web-only content: How the Deseret News supports a local newsroom with a national strategy

Posted: 29 Aug 2012 08:49 AM PDT

Salt Lake City’s Deseret News faces the same challenging online economics as most American metropolitan newspapers: A local web audience isn’t large enough to support the newsroom, but a national audience can get national news from anywhere. But unlike many similar news organizations, they’re doing pretty well: Digital revenue grew at over 50 percent annually for the past three years, and is now more than 25 percent of total revenue. I spoke to editor Paul Edwards and publisher Chris Lee to try to understand their approach, the core of which is this: a focused editorial strategy allows them to compete on the national stage, while a separate digital unit innovates and comes up with unique, web-only products.

I first heard of the Deseret News through an incendiary talk at the Newspaper Association of America conference in 2011, where CEO Clark Gilbert told a room full of newspaper executives that they had never worked out what it cost to produce their product — and that online-only competitors were doing it an “order of magnitude” cheaper. The company went through a “stark” reorganization in 2010, laying off 43 percent of its staff and merging with an affiliated local TV station.

The massive cuts were a chance to re-examine basic strategy. Consistent with the values of the organization, which is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the merged newsroom decided to refocus on coverage of “faith and family,” which audience research suggested were underserved by national outlets. Meanwhile, a separate digital division has been busy trying out ideas that go beyond traditional journalism, such as online marketplaces, daily deals, and user-contributed content.

Editorial focus

The core of the editorial strategy, Edwards told me, is to focus on issues not well-covered by other news organizations.

We’re not going to try to compete nationally on political news with Politico and Washington Post. And we’re not going to try to compete nationally on financial news with the Wall Street Journal and so on. But we can, we believe, put together really compelling coverage about issues surrounding faith, family, care for the poor, excellence in education, values in the media, and financial responsibility that’s as good as what anybody else is doing. And since that’s very much part of the DNA of our organization, reaching back 160 years, we’re going to specialize in those areas for content that we think reaches an underserved audience nationwide, for whom issues of family and faith are very important.

This journalism serves both local and national audiences, and hence both print and digital. But it’s not quite the old model of the omnibus news source. “We are definitely believers in less is more,” said Desert Digital Media vice president Chris Lee. “A newspaper can’t be all things to all people if it’s going to succeed online. In print, Deseret News has a travel section. Online, people go to Kayak and Travelocity. On the web, you’re one click away from the best.”

Which is why, as focused as the Deseret News’ editorial strategy may be, posting traditional journalism content online isn’t enough. Edwards stressed the importance of web-only content, produced by sister division Deseret Digital Media. Freed from the structures of a print newsroom, this unit has been inventing products that couldn’t exist on paper. Former Guardian digital editor Emily Bell has argued that such separation can be critical to success, and Edwards agrees: “I would probably muck up their innovations if I were too closely involved with that.”

Web-only products

Lee told me that his organization, Deseret Digital Media, focuses on their “marketplace” products, which are web-native updates of the classified advertising model. The flagship site KSL.com has several different advertising sections which are monetized in various ways. A generic classified listing is free, but you can pay $7 per day to feature it more prominently. Employers pay to post job listings, while professionals can pay to be listed in a local services directory. There’s a Deals section, much in the style of Groupon or LivingSocial, which is “a seven-figure business now for us annually,” said Lee. And of course, businesses are keen to get their ads in front of someone who is specifically searching for, say, a car.

But the old “advertising next to content” model is not dead. On the contrary, Deseret Digital runs a sophisticated display advertising business, including demographic and geographic targeting, and behavioral retargeting, serving nearly a billion ads per month. Lee also cites the success of unit that sells specifically to small businesses. “As we talk to other media companies, they are surprised. They tell us, ‘I didn’t realize we could make $400, $300, $200 sales successful over the phone.’” The unit employs about 40 people and produces “several hundreds of thousands of dollars” per month in revenue.

Lee said it’s important for a legacy news organization to understand its competition broadly:

Yes, you are competing against the other local paper, but if that’s where your analysis ends you will probably lose. We currently have in the Utah market something in the range of 70 percent market share for digital asset sales. But the companies you are really competing against are Google and Facebook and AT&T Interactive and Groupon and Amazon, these national and international players coming into local markets.

When you frame your market in that way, your market share is much, much lower. We figure we have 15-20 percent of our market.

Audience participation

One of the basic advantages of the web is its ability to involve the audience in the production of media, and several Deseret digital platforms are designed around that idea, for both business and editorial reasons.

The Family Movie Guide asks Deseret’s unique audience to vote on the age-appropriateness of films (users felt The King’s Speech didn’t deserve its “R”) and whether each movie is worth watching. Apart from its home on KSL.com, the Family Media Guide already appears on other news sites, such as Lancaster Online, and has just been rebranded as ok.com in preparation for further syndication.

Deseret Digital Media has also created an unpaid contributor network, much in the style of the Huffington Post or the Guardian’s Comment is Free. Edwards explained how this fits into the editorial strategy:

We have an interface called Deseret Connect where people that want to provide content to any of these different platforms that we have…come in, they can get training, we kind of credential them, as it were, and they have to verify a few different things for us. And then, we can work with them, in a variety of ways, to get their content, and we have now, and I won’t have the precise numbers of this, but we have thousands of contributors that have contributed to millions of pageviews for us. And that includes photography, it includes some video…

Just as an example, [last week] our family section in the paper had a very nice contribution from one of these citizen journalists, who’s an expert on family dynamics, providing just really helpful advice about how to communicate with a challenging teen audience. You know, how to talk to your teenagers, essentially. And I don’t have a reporter who has counseling expertise, but through this project I can get that kind of content regularly on to the pages of Deseret News, and on to our websites.

Interestingly, Deseret News is moving its staff reporters onto the same platform. This provides seamless online analytics to reporters, and the eat-your-own-dog-food approach also ensures that the organization stays in touch with its contributor experience.

Funding a newsroom

From a sustainability point of view, the results speak for themselves: While print revenue continues to be “in decline,” digital revenue has increased 50 percent per year since the inception of Deseret Digital Media in 2009 and is now “north of 25 percent” of total revenue, according to Lee.

But the money doesn’t come from news. “You notice as I talk about revenue and business model, the focus of my attention is on those marketplace products,” said Lee. “We really don’t view news as a business model. It’s awfully difficult to justify the newsroom with just display ad revenue.”

If that’s the case, I asked Lee, why have the newsroom at all? Why not just run these profitable digital businesses on their own, as so many technology-driven media organizations are doing?

That’s a great question. That’s a question everybody should be asking themselves. The answer to that is two-fold: Part of it is, journalism content does aggregate users, and creates brand awareness and affinity to brand. So it is not irrelevant — it is actually very helpful and supportive of a marketplace strategy.

But the other part of it is that organizations like ours are mission-driven. The reason the Deseret Media company exists is, in our case, it was founded in 1850 by the Church of Latter-day Saints. If you talk to most newspapers, family-run newspapers, they have a storng commitment to a community. Even if they could stop producing news and generate revenues, which I think they could in many cases, they choose to produce news because it is their mission to do so.”

Bonus track: The Edwards extended interview

Paul Edwards spoke to me for nearly half an hour about Deseret’s editorial operations. In addition to all of the above, we discussed a new syndicated paper insert product, the difference between “web-first” and “web-only,” and why someone would want to write for Deseret Connect for free to begin with. Listen to the full audio, or read the transcript below.

JS: I’m here with Paul Edwards, who is the editor of the Deseret News, in Salt Lake, right?

PE: Yes.

JS: Salt Lake City. And I’m talking with him because I think his publications has done some really interesting things transforming from a paper company into a digital company, which is not well known. So, you’re the editor of the entire editorial operation?

PE: Well, my brief is really over Deseret News proper, which is the print publication. The way our company is organized there are different divisions within, what’s called the Deseret Management Corporation. And this is where all the media properties of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are located. So we have both the metro daily print, the Deseret News, we have KSL Television, KSL Radio, Deseret book, and then the websites, the affiliated websites associated with all of these properties, are actually part of the separate division called Deseret Digital Media. And I work very closely with the people in Deseret Digital Media, that operate the DeseretNews.com website, but I’m really more of a content provider to them than overseeing the overall content there. Because there’s fair amount of web first and web only content that they produce, and only if it touches issues that are quite sensitive do I get called in for editorial discussions with them.

We’re really allowing the digital space to innovate on its own, while we continue to refine what we’re doing with the editorial content of the Deseret News. And as we try to deal with what the future of the local metro daily is looking like, we’ve recognized we really need to identify unique differentiated content that’s going to play well in a national space, that can go out digitally nationwide, if we’re going to maximize the kind of online exposure and revenues that we’re hoping for.

JS: So you are putting together a national strategy to fund local news, is that right?

PE: That’s a fair way putting it. And I’d say our real mission is to reach now well beyond the state of Utah. And what we’re finding is that we’re getting 60-plus percent of our traffic online is coming from outside the state of Utah, and that’s increasing regularly, while trying still to be a leader in providing excellent coverage within our local market. So what we’ve done is we’ve decided that there are a few areas where we can really be a strong voice for values in the national media space, where we’re not going to try to compete nationally with– on political news, with Politico and Washington Post. And we’re not going to try to compete nationally on financial news, with the Washington Post– I mean, with the Wall Street Journal and so on. But we can, we believe, put together really compelling coverage about issues surrounding faith, family, care for the poor, excellence in education, values in the media and financial responsibility, that’s as good as what anybody else is doing. And since that’s very much the part of DNA of our organization, reaching back 160 years, we’re going to specialize in those areas for content that we think reaches an underserved audience nationwide, for whom issues of family and faith are very important. We can do that in the rigorous, journalistically sound way, but it reaches a much larger audience than, you know, just the Salt Lake market.

JS: But I understand you still have a print product in Salt Lake.

PE: That’s right.

JS: Is that the same audience, or different audience for you?

PE: Well, they’re overlapping audiences. So, as we’ve looked closely at what our local audience appreciates, and what the underserved audience is nationwide, there are very similar kinds of needs and interests, concerned about, like I say, where these audiences are very motivated by their faith, and their family. And so we can do in both our local coverage, in our national coverage, preserve that strong editorial voice, and reach both audiences.

But, for the local news coverage, what we’ve decided to do there, is to dramatically reduce the cost of gathering that local news. And we’re very fortunate to be able to partner with KSL Television and KSL Radio, to combine the newsrooms of those organizations, and really create the largest news room in the state, but then have that newsroom provide news to these multiple platforms. So in effect, our local coverage, we think can actually be the strongest in the state, but it’s now reaching multiple platforms instead a just a daily news print product. By focusing though on these core strengths that we think we have editorially, it’s actually produced some pretty compelling content locally. I’ll just give you an example: terrible, terrible story in the state about the Powell family. The disappearance of this one mother, terribly dysfunctional family, and there ends up being a murder suicide in this family, and makes national news coverage and it just rips apart the local community that knows this family, and has been involved. Our coverage went deeper, on that editorially than the way some other coverage approached this.

So instead of just being a sensationalistic crime story, we used our interest in issues around family, and values in the media that we’ve developed some expertise on, to probe a little deeper on the family dynamics, and actually interestingly enough the role of pornography, that there’s pornography addiction involved in this whole sordid story. And you know, to have experts that knew something about family dynamics, and sort of the desensitization that happens to some people through the use of pornographic material, and what that meant in the potential lives of this family, made for some just rare and interesting and unique coverage to us, for what some people just saw as the crime story. So again, it’s bringing that focus and energy around particular areas to bear then, on issues even in the local market.

JS: You were talking earlier, saying, telling me you distinguish between “web-first” and “web-only.”

PE: Yes.

JS: So what’s that distinction?

PE: Well, what we found, of course we want to get materials up fast for people, and so increasingly our journalists are much better at getting stuff on to the web very quickly. And then we develop it throughout the day, and we’ll pull stuff from the web for our paper product, which has of course some firm deadlines. But it can continue to grow and mature on the web, and that might be a web-first kind of strategy for us. But increasingly, we see that there is a great advantage to doing some web-only content, so we’ll develop a number of lists that play very well in terms of reception by our readers on the web. We can often do this around things that are, again, consistent with editorial voice, and those will be top producers in terms of page views and so on, but it’s something that would never work in the paper.

Another distinctive product that we have, which is actually user-generated content, that again, makes no sense in sort of a paper product, at least it doesn’t translate very well, but it’s around our area of values in the media, we have something called Family Media Guide. And we ask families that use our website and use the Family Media Guide, we just ask them two questions: is the material that they saw in a recent film appropriate for families, and is it worth their time? And we have a way of then, we actually ask them to use the MPAA scale, of G, PG, PG13, R and so on, where they would place, how they would rate it, according to their understanding of the MPAA scale. And you get, you know, some interesting differences. Best example was The King’s Speech. So King’s Speech comes out and, most of our users say: “This thing’s rated R, but it really is much more like a PG13, or even a PG film, with one scene with some coarse language. We think it’s age appropriate around the PG, PG13.” So, gives our readers that guides, but 97 percent of them, or something like that, said that’s well worth of your time.

Another film, sort of the forgettable Dinner for Schmucks, when they looked at that they said: “uhh, there’s just a lot of really coarse language, and sexual content, and innuendo. This looks almost like an R film in terms of our family values.” And so, it’s user-generated, they put it there, and is it worth your time, I think it got, you know, 20 percent. But it provides the way for the community to interact online, in a way, around two very simple questions, to provide really good feedback to one another about what make sense for family media.

So I don’t pretend that the Deseret News is going to lead in terms of the most incisive movie reviews in the world. I am going to, you know, myself, I preferred to read something like New Yorker, or the Los Angeles Times, some of the film critics there to get that sort of that incisive interesting insider look at what’s going on artistically within a film. But, given our unique audience, and what we’re trying to accomplished, that kind of web only user-generated content is supremely valuable to us.

JS: This is, I believe not the only user-generated content you have. You have something called Deseret Connect, yes?

PE: Oh that’s right. So we have an opportunity for people– this is really a citizen’s journalism effort, where we have an interface called Deseret Connect where people that want to provide content to any of these different platforms that we have. Like I say, there are about five different platforms, whether you’re considering the television, the radio, the newspaper or the websites, and through Deseret Connect, they can become citizen journalists for us. And, it provides an interface where they come in, they can get training, we kind of credential them, as it were, and they have to verify a few different things for us. And then, we can work with them, in a variety of ways, to get their content, and we have now, and I won’t have the precise numbers of this, but we have thousands of contributors that have contributed to millions of page views for us. And that includes photography, it includes some video feed, and in fact, just this last week, a wonderful — I mean just as an example our family section in the paper had a very nice contribution from one of these citizen journalists, who’s an expert on family dynamics, providing just really helpful advice about how to communicate with a challenging teen audience. You know, how to talk to your teenagers, essentially. And I don’t have a reporter who has counseling expertise, but through this project I can get that kind of content regularly on to the pages of Deseret News, and on to our websites.

JS: So how do you invite people to contribute? Like, why would I, as someone on your site, want to do this?

PE: Yeah. Well, we really are a mission-driven organization, and it’s really to participate in that mission. And so that mission is to be a trusted source of light and knowledge, reaching millions of people worldwide. And we find that there are lot of people that think that families are under-served right now in getting content that addresses their concerns as families, as members of a community, as members of a faith community, and so it’s really wanting to participate in that mission. And it’s surprising how many people will do that. And I get through that Deseret Connect opportunity, when we say citizen journalist, it will include, the article I’ve just referred to was a separate one, but another, a couple, Richard and Linda Eyre, that are New York Times best-selling authors about family dynamics. They write for me weekly, twice weekly, through the Deseret Connect, no compensation. They just identify with our mission, and they want the ever- expanding audience that we have.

Then another example, former senator Bob Bennett, from the state of Utah, who was well respected chair of the Joint Economic Committee at US Senate and House. Just has tremendous insight into political economy, into those kinds of question. He writes for me weekly through this, without any compensation. And that content is then also– not only do we have Deseret Connect, we have Deseret News Service that is then providing a very low-cost syndication opportunity for this content. And so we’re working with a lot of smaller media groups throughout the country to provide this kind of the unique family, faith-oriented content at basically our direct cost for this, they’re able to use it for syndication.

JS: And I believe you were telling me that you’re trying to use the same tools that you built for Deseret Connect for your stuff reporting, as well?

PE: Yes, exactly. As a content management system, we’re really try to integrate this so that our real content management system is just one. And what that means is that our full time journalists are using that now as their content management system, and we’re really making that a quite robust and intuitive platform. And it provides us with ways of identifying how well, it’s just nice seamless process that allows us to see how stories have performed online, allows us to keep careful records about who’s contributed when, and so on. So it’s just a nice tool for anyone that’s contributing to these Deseret Digital Media properties, and to the Deseret News.

JS: I understand that to get where you are now, you had to make some organizational changes. Can you talk a little bit about how you were organized, and how you are organized now, and how you got there?

PE: Well, there was a significant restructuring in the late summer of 2010, where, because costs had really gotten out of whack with revenues there were just some necessary changes that– and it was stark. No one pretends that this was easy, but we had to lay off over 45 percent of the staff. And that just forced us to rethink just about everything at the paper. And also, we made a conscious decision that the digital innovation would be done in a separate division from where the, where we were doing our innovation in terms of content.

So the content is, which I am working closely with, we do believe that we’ve been quite innovative, both in terms of improving of the quality and the different tools that our journalists are using, the different skill set that’s required in a 21st century newsroom. But we interact in a more modular fashion with the separate organization, Deseret Digital Management, Deseret Digital Media, that is really shepherding some significant innovation around the kind of web content that we have, and some of the marketplace tools, some of the web-only tools that are happening. So my view is that I would probably muck up their innovations if I were too closely involved with that. I can be a great partner with them by giving them superb content. But they can think of really innovative ways to package it, and market it, and monetize it. And I’m just grateful I don’t have to worry about those kinds of tough decisions. I just have to work on seeing that we have the best content in these areas that we’ve chosen to focus on.

JS: Last question, which I understand you may not have all of the numbers, but how’s the company doing? How’s this strategy working out in terms of audience, revenue, all of that stuff?

PE: Yeah, we stopped the hemorrhaging. So there were significant losses, post 2008, that really needed to, we needed stop that, and we’re really at kind of a break-even proposition now. And thankfully we have a patient owner, that is interested in reach and voice, and that allows us to do this kind of innovation, but, in the process we’ve been able to significantly increase our circulation. So within our local market circulation has been very steady, readership has gone up, but we innovated by introducing a national edition, a Sunday edition that is, curates our best content around these areas of editorial emphasis that I described. And, so really becomes a strong issues-oriented news product that goes out now to tens of thousands of readers outside the state of Utah.

So we actually have greater household penetration outside the state of Utah with that special Sunday edition, which has been a real game-changer for us, I mean it’s just, it’s effectively doubled our Sunday circulation. It also becomes a kind of insert product, specialized insert product for other small metro papers in our region, that are outside of our local distribution area, but in St. George, Utah, and Logan, Utah, in cities in southern Idaho where there are, again, people we think are interested in this content it goes to them, on a Sunday insert. And we’re also able to distribute it to some of the campuses in the, owned operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So they purchase it, and distribute it their students, on a kind of newspaper readership basis. So it’s just significantly changed, it’s a reinvention, if you will, of our print product by taking issues, going deeper, being more data-driven. We’ve been able to develop a whole new product that is reaching right now tens of thousands in ways that we had never hoped for a year ago. This is just one year old.

JS: How about your pure digital revenue? Where does that come from, and how is it doing?

PE: Yeah, I’d really refer you to Chris Lee, our publisher, on how that’s doing, but we’ve significantly increased the digital revenues. The interesting thing for me is that it’s not a part of my P&L statement. My profit and loss is based purely on Deseret News itself, and that paper product. DeseretNews.com is really part of this Deseret Digital Media division, and they have seen huge increases year over year, and continue to surpass their revenue, their projected revenue budgets, year after year, for the several past years. So it’s been very significant, but I can’t tell you the exact figures on that, but it’s been, you know, what we really see is that the future requires us to have an ever-increasing portion of the overall revenue, for all of these companies to come from digital, because there’s just such a tight squeeze on what’s coming out of print. And we see that print revenues are likely to continue to decline. As much as we do everything we can to keep those shored up, and increase the circulation and the effectiveness of that product, there’s just still tremendous pressure on revenue on that front.

JS: So does that mean that you’re going to be out of a job in a few years, and if so, what will you do next?

PE: No, well, there’s no, I don’t– well, one never knows, right, in this business, but I think that with our opportunity, we actually see that when we’ve done a careful market segmentation to look at under-served audiences nationally, and our understanding, if our market research is correct, is that nearly half of the American population have a number of characteristics that just aren’t reflected well in contemporary journalism. They are believers, they are highly motivated by their faith, by their families, and wanting to give back to their communities. And if they are provided with information that respects those kinds of commitments, and takes those kinds of commitments seriously, and reports on issues that they think are important to them, in those special domains in their lives, we think that there is just a huge potential for growth in this audience.

JS: In print?

PE: In print, but in digital as well. And like I said, my profit and loss, I think we can continue to see some evolution of what we do in print. And I’m not quite sure what that will look like. We also see probably tablet applications, other kinds of mobile applications and things. Believe me, there’s no one answer. We don’t pretend that we have the answer. What we do know is that the experimentation we’ve done in the last year has born fruit. And it’s allowed us to reinvent the paper product, double its circulation, increase our, the attention and traffic that’s coming nationwide, significantly increase the kind of traffic that we’re getting from search and social through some different things that we’re doing, and so, you know, we’re pleased with that. We’re not satisfied, we’re optimistic that as we continue to keep alive a real innovative DNA within the organization, that we’ll discover a good path forward. But come talk to me in a few years.

JS: Thank you Paul.

PE: Thank you.

Rabu, 29 Agustus 2012

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


Rex Sorgatz: What The New York Times should do next: membership

Posted: 28 Aug 2012 07:00 AM PDT

Over three years ago, I wrote a blog post about what I thought The New York Times should do to survive the collapse of advertising. “Micropayment, Reimagined” proposed a series of “passes” that a consumer could purchase to access the Times’ online content at incremental levels. Last year, the Times released a similar system — a metered paywall that was wildly perturbing to the free-wheeling Internet commentariat. Although criticized by every professional media pundit with a Huffpo account, the paywall has been quietly building an audience ever since.

Now, with over 530,000 digital subscribers, it appears to be a “surprise” success. On the last quarterly earnings call, The New York Times Co. announced that subscription revenue now exceeded advertising revenue.1

But let’s be clear — 500,000 is not cool. And neither is a million, because not even that would cover the loss at the conclusion of this epoch, The End Of Print. The New York Times needs at least 2 or 3 million digital subscribers to survive a post-print, post-advertising world. And I have an idea how they can do it:

Memberships.

Using what they have learned from digital subscriptions, The New York Times should create an entirely new product around membership. This new brand would vastly expand the reach of the Times to new products, new platforms, and new revenue opportunities. To succeed, it needs to perfectly executed in two areas: It has to be cool (marketing) and it has to create value (product).

The first step is giving it a good name. “New York Times Digital Edition” just doesn’t cut it. It should be sexy, simple, bold, and memorable. Once you have the name, then create something physical that feels substantial. Make it shiny. (Hey, I made a membership card for you, above.) Put the designers of T on it. Make it cool. And for chrissakes, stop calling it a subscription. It’s a membership.

And then the important part: create value. Right now, a digital subscription gives you access to a stack of print content. Meh, there’s nothing cool about that. Membership to Club NYT (and let’s do better than that name) could be so much more. It should give you access, it should give you a sense of pride, it should give you value. You should tear the zipper off your purse while yanking the card out to show to friends.

So what do you get with this new membership? Here’s a start:

  • Access to standing discounts. How would you like 50 percent off a MoMA membership? The Times has you covered. How about 20 percent of a General Assembly membership or Skillshare classes? You got it. A digital subscription to the Times is expensive (they start at $200/year), so it needs to show value. Partnerships with interesting brands help define the product while creating incentive. The Times should consider buying Founders Card, or at least look at how they’re doing membership — in particular, the audience they are catering to.2
  • Access to Times events. As part of your membership, you get access to upcoming events with Paul Krugman, Yoko Ono, and Nathan Myhrvold. Did you see that David Carr did a live interview with Robert Pattinson and David Cronenberg the other day? Did you know they do these events all the time? Why isn’t this franchise — TimesTalks — as big as TED? NYT has the clout, the curatorial insight, and an awesome physical location, but TimesTalks is treated like a fringe product that isn’t even respected enough to get on the nytimes.com domain. Awareness isn’t even the primary problem — product integration is. It’s so obvious that these events should be bundled with digital memberships to propel overall growth.
  • Access to new digital products. Several years ago, the Times tried a subscription product (TimesSelect) that gave members access to the weekly missives from Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, and other columnists. It was a failure because people don’t want to pay for content that was previously free. But the brainy creators at the Times and NYT Labs have hundreds of product ideas just waiting to be developed. They make products that are digital by their very nature: database-driven applications, interactive video, or mobile apps. These amazing new apps — perhaps developed with your News.me partners at Betaworks — should be bundled into membership.
  • Access to deals. Would you like first access to Azealia Banks playing Bowery Ballroom? All yours. An invite to the new Mario Batali opening? Here ya go! Did you know NYT has a deals site? Don’t worry, you didn’t miss much more than a 20 percent haircut discount. A membership to the Times needs to pay off for consumers, but it also has to be surprising. Discounts to daily rituals are fine for Groupon, but a membership to the Times should do exactly what the paper does: reveal new experiences and ideas. And yet again, these deals need to be bundled with membership!
  • Access to ebooks. I’m sure every Times writer has a Kindle Single in them. Every writer should be given a Google-like 10 percent of their time to write longer pieces to become digital books. NYT has already started down the ebook path, but a much better strategy than nickel-and-diming for a $6 ebook would be to make it free with a digital membership. The revenue math on this is a no-brainer: You have to sell 32 ebooks to equal one digital subscription.
  • Access to other Times content. There is some precedent for the digital membership that I’ve been describing. It’s called Amazon Prime. A membership to Amazon Prime initially gave you free two-day shipping for a year. Do you know what you get now? Completely random stuff! You get free streaming video, you get free one-day shipping on certain products, you get a Kindle “lending library” that contains free ebooks. The Times’ membership program needs to be similarly diverse, creative, and spontaneous.3 The Times should start now, because years down the road they’ll be adding products to the digital membership platform we never even considered today.
  • Access to other web content. Would you like to add Vanity Fair to your digital membership? Do you miss getting news from back home? How about the Minneapolis Star-Tribune for $20? Seeing the success of the Times’ digital memberships, other publications are already instituting their own technological solutions. But every publishing group is now reinventing the wheel. NYT could position itself as the technology and distribution solution for publications — an app store for content memberships. Setting up these partnerships will require shoring up the biz-dev resources, but the outcome is technology holy grail: a platform.

And finally, whatever you do, don’t turn this program into the equivalent of an NPR tote bag. I actually suspect the current NYT digital subscription model is surviving because of an NPR-like sense of liberal goodwill. But it will never sustain itself on charity. It must add value to succeed.

So here’s my advice to the new CEO: transform the digital subscription into a real-world membership; push every new product into a new membership program; incessantly incentivize people to become members; constantly illustrate value so people recommend membership to their friends; make it a platform; and bundle, bundle, bundle.

And please give me a shiny card.

Rex Sorgatz is only kinda sorta a professional media pundit. He can be found on Twitter: @fimoculous.

Notes
  1. Many people don’t seem to realize the significance of this — for not only publishing companies but also apps. Or rather, especially apps, which will soon realize that advertising won’t solve their revenue woes. Therefore, a prediction: Some of your favorite web applications will start to experiment with freemium subscription models.
  2. I’m very hesitant to issue the utterance “buy this company” as a solution to any problems. Mathew Ingram — whose analysis I enjoy very much — once said that NYT should “buy something like Flipboard,” which is just about the most apocalyptically bad idea imaginable. Please, please, whatever you do, don’t get envious of over-capitalized apps!
  3. The most important lesson that the Times could take from Amazon is recognizing how loss leaders can spur growth. Just as Amazon breaks even on ebooks to sell Kindles, the Times could be revenue-neutral on products and deals that spur memberships.

Selasa, 28 Agustus 2012

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


The Wall Street Journal wants its reporters filing microvideo updates for its new WorldStream

Posted: 27 Aug 2012 01:12 PM PDT

The Wall Street Journal has been busy expanding its video offerings and experimenting with dedicated news streams in recent months. Today, the natural merger of the two debuts: a stream of reporter-generated videos called WorldStream.

WorldStream is a bit like what it would be like to follow a bunch of WSJ reporters on Twitter — except if instead of posting 140 characters of text, they were each filing in 30-second-video chunks. It’s a reverse-chronological stream filled entirely by what reporters in the field are capturing with their smartphones.

Because it’s a stream produced by many, narrative flow is replaced by the dissonance of multiple stories, multiple voices, and multiple styles. Here’s Grover Norquist doing a standard-issue interview on Mitt Romney (35 seconds). And here’s Liz Heron giving a quick tour of the Google presence at the GOP convention in Tampa (41 seconds). Here’s…wreckage in Syria (17 seconds). Here’s WSJ reporter Arian Campo-Flores doing a standup about Hurricane Isaac (41 seconds). Here’s a moment-of-zen watching golf carts pass silently by (12 seconds). And here’s a still shot of a bunch of chairs in an almost empty room (10 seconds).

While WorldStream aims to be a way for viewers to get a potpourri of fresh video content, it is first and foremost an internal newsroom tool that the Journal has opted to make public. Alan Murray, deputy managing editor and executive editor for the newspaper online, says he had long been looking for a way to, er, streamline the filing process for video.

To do this, the Journal worked with Tout, which created an app especially for the paper so reporters can file video straight from their smartphones with little fuss. (Tout users can normally upload 15-second videos, but The Wall Street Journal’s proprietary Tout app gives reporters a luxurious 45 seconds.) Before showing up in the WorldStream, videos have to be cleared by an editor. In WorldStream’s nascence, Murray says videos that are filed but kept off the stream are the exception to the rule: Most of what they get is what you see. But there will be times when the Journal opts to keep a video private so as not to “tip off the competition,” or in cases where further explanation is needed for proper contextualization.

“This is kind of like an internal work tool that’s being exposed to the public,” Murray told me. “The work tool still functions even if we don’t expose it.”

For the 400-plus reporters whom The Wall Street Journal has trained to shoot video, WorldStream conceivably makes the process much easier: They see someone or something interesting. They shoot, and they file. “They don’t have to worry about it after,” Murray said. “It actually removed friction from the process… What this does is just give them an outlet.”

Reporters who are being asked to collect video anyway finally have a place to publish it in standalone snippets. Depending on what they shoot, videos could also show up embedded in stories, as part of larger packages, in cutaways during one of The Wall Street Journal’s produced shows, etc., etc. Murray says just about “anything shot by reporters could and should go into the stream.” And to battle that somewhat disjointed mix of content, viewers can apply thematic filters — if you just want videos of what the GOP is up to in Tampa, that’s all you’ll see.

The filtered view is more in line with the Journal’s previous forays into streamy news, which have focused on niche topics and events. (The 2012 election stream will likely become the most content-rich example of one of the Journal’s topic-specific streams.)

The neat thing about the unfiltered version of WorldStream is it reflects Journal operations any given day, not unlike that notional Twitter list. (WorldStream entries also use a Twitter-inspired system of #hashtags for internal tagging of videos.) And it plays around with some of the ideas many have been promoting as critical for news’ future: the importance of video; the boom in information streams; the birth of new shells to contain new formats of journalistic output.

But as with Twitter, the fact that WorldStream is available for breaking news won’t mean that it’s where management wants you to see the really big exclusive.

“Suppose you ran into Joe Biden at the Democratic convention, and he told you something he hadn’t told anybody else, that he was going to cede his position to Hillary Clinton,” Murray said. “That’s not the kind of news we would break on WorldStream. We have protocols in place for that but it doesn’t start with a free video blog.”

Photo by Joelk75 used under a Creative Commons license.

Latitude News and PRX partner on an international news podcast

Posted: 27 Aug 2012 11:36 AM PDT

Plenty of media organizations share the goal of putting more international news in front of American audiences. Maria Balinska takes that goal and tweaks it slightly for her startup, Latitude News: “What we want to be looking at are stories people in the United States can relate to in other parts of the world.”

Relatability, Balinska argues, is key because it puts global news in a frame that feels less, well, foreign. Latitude News is now trying to expand its approach to international news through a partnership with PRX.

Thanks to funding from the Open Society Foundations, Latitude News and PRX are producing 12 podcasts and broadcast segments that showcase global stories that link back to people and communities here in the U.S. As one of the largest distributors of audio storytelling, PRX has the ability to put Latitude on iPhones, Androids, and public media stations across the country.

The shows are hosted by Dan Moulthrop and have a sound that blends the loose, conversational, nature of podcasting with a structure that borrows cues from public media programs. So far, two episodes have been produced, one looking at the ties between U.S. evangelicals and anti-gay measures in Uganda, the other connecting cod fishing in Norway and the United states.

Balinska, a former Nieman Fellow and 20-year veteran of the BBC, said audio storytelling was natural to her, which is why she wanted to make it a part of Latitude. “Generally speaking, I think audio engages people in a particular way that is different from video and print,” Balinska said. More specifically, Balinska said the nature of audio stories — whether in your car, at home or in your headphones — is a stylistic fit with her goal of telling relatable stories. A podcast is the right vehicle for deeper, non-traditional, stories, because in order to consume it a listener has to spend time with it. “Think about the classic model of storytelling: two people sitting down over a cup of tea or glass of wine, recounting to one another,” she said. “That is the basic element of storytelling.”

Looking at Latitude News’ site, you get a clear sense of how they approach international news. An analysis of President Obama and Mitt Romney’s stance on wind power is put in perspective by examining foreign companies that manufacture wind turbines overseas. A story on the Russian punk band Pussy Riot makes connections to a local band in Boston and musicians like Madonna and the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

With newsrooms shrinking, locally driven international coverage has taken a big hit in newsrooms. While newspapers can still rely on wire services like AP to deliver global news, Balinska said those typically fail to provide something a reader can relate to. Balinska launched Latitude News last fall, with support from the International Women’s Media Foundation among others, to build a bridge between local news and global news. “I felt there was a real gap in the market for stories and coverage that actually broke down the barriers and the silos in the newsroom from the local desk and the foreign desk,” she said.

The partnership with PRX will likely expose Latitude to new audiences. John Barth, managing director of PRX, told me at least one public radio station, Seattle’s KUOW, has already used a Latitude segment on air.

Barth said the grant from the Open Society Foundations was for the specific purpose of broadening international coverage to American audiences. Rather than funding a traditional newscast, Barth said they wanted to find new voices and new approaches to international news.

“One of the challenges is drawing connections between foreign stories and domestic issues here on a human and one-on-one level,” Barth said. “That’s one of the reasons that makes this so relevant.”