Sabtu, 31 Maret 2012

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


CNN.com goes magazine for “Slavery’s Last Stronghold”

Posted: 30 Mar 2012 08:30 AM PDT

CNN’s special report Slavery’s Last Stronghold isn’t just unusual because of its topic — the remarkable fact that more than 1 in 10 residents of the west African nation of Mauritania is a slave:

An estimated 10% to 20% of Mauritania’s 3.4 million people are enslaved — in “real slavery,” according to the United Nations’ special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, Gulnara Shahinian. If that’s not unbelievable enough, consider that Mauritania was the last country in the world to abolish slavery. That happened in 1981, nearly 120 years after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States. It wasn’t until five years ago, in 2007, that Mauritania passed a law that criminalized the act of owning another person. So far, only one case has been successfully prosecuted.

It’s also unusual because of its look. Breaking out of standard CNN.com templates, the story — by John D. Sutter and Edythe McNamee — is laid out more like a magazine piece: big photos, big, full-width text, type treatments, dropcaps, integrated slideshows and video, and a general design depth that indicates this isn’t just another CNN.com story.

“We knew very early on we needed to do something above and beyond our normal templates on the site,” Meredith Artley, the vice president and managing editor of CNN.com, told me. And it apparently has worked: The story’s had more than 2 million pageviews since being posted last week, Artley said.

The layout is a clear departure from most news sites, the text gets a healthy amount of breathing room, which in turn allows photos to run wide, while also incorporating maps and sidebars. For a website it feels like someone pushed the XL button (or maybe that “View in Zen Mode” button in the sidebar) — everything just feels wider, more open, and definitely a little iPad-y.

Indeed, the Apple tablet was one of the inspirations for the layout for the the piece, as were publications on the iPad like Katachi, as well as print magazines, said Marisa Gallagher, the executive creative director for CNN Digital. Gallagher said the team of designers wanted to put the focus squarely on the reading experience. She told me the design “gets rid of the competition in a lot of ways. It literally does, in that you don’t have a right rail competing for your attention.” (Also not competing for your attention: ads, of which there aren’t any on the page.)

One interesting step they took in producing the page was assembling a preliminary layout in Adobe InDesign to get a kind of physical sense of the various components of the story and how they would interact. “Sometimes you want to escape and be immersed in (a story), like a movie type experience, or you are seeking meaning so there is nothing else distracting you,” Gallagher said.

As CNN has pushed into different devices and types of reporting, they’ve tried experimenting with different types of design, Gallagher told me. But for the bulk of what is produced on CNN.com, they stick to standard news templates, ones that, while functional most of the time, don’t work for all types of storytelling. “Our article pages feel a little constricting — it’s like a little tiny world you live in and the rest of your world is full-screen,” she said.

Both Gallagher and Artley say more news sites will embrace the idea of varying design based on story types, especially as publishers play with the how stories are read on different devices.

Since CNN is active in some many places —smartphone apps, tablet apps, web, mobile web, and oh-by-the-way television — they enjoy some freedom to experiment in how they deliver their journalism, Artley said. While video remains one of CNN’s greatest strengths, Artley said series like Slavery’s Last Stronghold show the depth of investigative reporting — not to mention international reporting — at the company. That’s why she’s certain we’ll see continue to see similar projects, and non-traditional designs, in the future. “I will probably have a line of a zillion people who want to use this [template] tomorrow and I’ll have to hold them back,” Artley joked. “But we want to save this for special occasions.”

This Week in Review: Grappling with ground-up activism, and a new ‘pay-less’ form of paywall

Posted: 30 Mar 2012 07:00 AM PDT

Activism and journalism from the ground up: Now that the story of Trayvon Martin’s killing has moved fully into the U.S.’ national consciousness, a few writers have taken a look back to examine the path it took to get there. The New York Times’ Brian Stelter traced the story’s rise to prominence, highlighting the role of racial diversity in newsrooms in drawing attention to it. Poynter’s Kelly McBride gave a more detailed review of the story’s path through the media, concluding: “This is how stories are told now. They are told by people who care passionately, until we all care.” (This week, there was also bottom-up sourcing of a more dubious nature on the story, as the Columbia Journalism Review’s Ryan Chittum pointed out.)

The New York Times’ David Carr looked at the Trayvon Martin story and several other web-driven campaigns to assess the value of “hashtag activism,” acknowledging its limitations but concluding that while web activism is no match for its offline counterpart, it still makes the world a better place.

There were several other strains of conversation tying into digital activism and citizen journalism this week: the Lab re-printed a Talking Points Memo story on the unreliability of Twitter buzz as a predictor of election results, and the University of Colorado’s Steve Outing wondered whether social media movements have surpassed the impact of traditional journalism on many issues.

Meanwhile, the report of an embellished photo from a citizen journalist in Syria led some to question the reliability of that information, but GigaOM’s Mathew Ingram countered that citizen journalism isn’t displacing traditional journalism, but helping complement it when used wisely. One of Ingram’s prime examples of that blending of traditional and citizen-powered journalism was NPR tweeter extraordinaire Andy Carvin, who was the subject of a fine Current profile, in which he described Twitter as “the newsroom where I spend my time” and pinpointing news judgment as the key ingredient in his journalistic curation process.

Debating the effectiveness of news paywalls: Google formally unveiled its new paywall alternative in partnership with publishers this week: News sites include surveys that users need to answer in order to read an article. Google pays news sites a nickel per answer, advertisers pay Google for the survey, everybody goes home happy. Just a few publishers have signed up so far, though. (You might remember that the Lab’s Justin Ellis wrote on Google’s testing of this idea last fall.)

Elsewhere in paywalls: Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said his paper has not ruled out a paywall plan, though he also clarified that there’s “nothing on the horizon.” His publication is, obviously, far from the only one grappling with the prospect of charging for content online: The New Republic’s new owner dropped the magazine’s paywall for recent articles, and The Washington Post’s ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, explained why he doesn’t see a paywall in that paper’s future.

Pexton said the Post first needs to build up its reader base and make sure the site’s technology runs better, and he cast some doubt on the helpfulness of The New York Times’ pay plan for its bottom line. The Columbia Journalism Review’s Ryan Chittum picked apart Pexton’s analysis of the Times’ numbers, and asserted that a paywall’s purpose isn’t to be enormously profitable, and non-paywall digital revenue plans aren’t, either. “The point [of a paywall] is to stop or slow the bleeding and to help make the transition to an all-digital future five or ten years down the line — one that includes more than one flimsy revenue stream based on volatile and not-very-lucrative digital ads,” he wrote.

GigaOM’s Mathew Ingram suggested a “velvet rope” approach to paid content instead of a paywall, in which users would volunteer to pay in exchange for privileges and perks. The Times’ David Carr was skeptical — on Twitter, he summarized the post as, “Don’t build a paywall, create a velvet rope made out of socmedia pixie dust and see if that pays the bills.”

The Guardian opens up: The Guardian is firmly positioning itself at the forefront of what it calls “open journalism,” as it hosted a festival last weekend called the Guardian Open Weekend, during which more than 5,000 readers visited its London offices. The paper recapped the event, and Polis’ Charlie Beckett urged The Guardian to go further and faster in incorporating readers into its production process, turning them from “readers” to “members.”

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger held a Q&A with readers on open journalism, in which he spoke of the tension between the print and digital products in enacting change: “In order to be effective digital companies newspapers have to free themselves of some of the thinking that goes into the creation or a printed product…But most of the revenue is still in print, so the transition is bound to be a staged one, involving fine judgements about the pace of change.” Rusbridger also tweeted the paper’s 10 principles of open journalism, which were helpfully Storified by Josh Stearns, along with some other open journalism resources.

New accusations against News Corp.: A new branch grew out of News Corp.’s ever-growing tree of scandals this week, when two news orgs in Britain and Australia almost simultaneously broke stories about alleged hacking by NDS Group, a British satellite TV company of which News Corp. owns 49 percent. According to the BBC and the Australian Financial Review, NDS hired hackers to break into its competitors’ systems and get codes for satellite TV cards to illegally leak them to the public, giving them pay-TV services for free. The New York Times knitted the two allegations together well.

The Australian Federal Police is now looking into the case, and Reuters reported on the growing pressure for new investigations against News Corp. in Britain and Australia. Meanwhile, Frontline aired a documentary on the scandal, and The Guardian reported on Rupert Murdoch’s attacks on the accusations on Twitter.

Mike Daisey, journalism, and advocacy: Interest in last week’s blowup over This American Life’s retraction of Mike Daisey’s fabricated story about abuses of Chinese factory workers turned out to be more intense than expected: As the Lab’s Andrew Phelps reported, the retraction was the most downloaded episode in TAL history, surpassing the previous record set by the original story. Daisey himself gave a much more thorough, less defensive apology this week, and Gawker’s Adrian Chen said he wished Daisey would have been so contrite in the first place.

In Current, Alicia Shepard examined the story from the perspective of Marketplace, the public radio program that exposed Daisey’s falsehoods. In a long, thoughtful post, Ethan Zuckerman of Harvard’s Berkman Center compared Daisey’s story to the Kony 2012 viral video, using them to pose some good questions about the space between journalism and advocacy.

Reading roundup: A few other interesting pieces that surfaced this week:

— A couple of pieces succinctly laying out some of the growing challenges for those trying to control online content and discourse: First, a piece in The Guardian by Michael Wolff on the trouble that the rise of mobile media poses for news business models, and second, a post by JP Rangaswami positing Africa as the next site of resistance against online media control.

— In a similar vein, GigaOM’s Mathew Ingram wrote about the ways in which the giants of tech are all moving in on the same territory of user data and control, arguing that the real challenge is getting users to care about whether we end up with an open or closed web.

— NYU j-prof Jay Rosen wrote an insightful piece on how journalists claim the authority to be listened to by the public: “I’m there, you’re not, let me tell you about it.”

— Finally, at Poynter, Matt Thompson put together an interesting typology of journalists: Storyteller, newshound, systems analyst, and provocateur. He’s got some great initial tips on how to work with each type, and play to each one’s strengths within a newsroom environment.

Jumat, 30 Maret 2012

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


Dave Winer: Here’s why every news organization should have a river

Posted: 29 Mar 2012 09:01 AM PDT

A river

Editor’s note: Our friend Dave Winer, one of the most important creators of what we now think of as the web, wrote a piece advocating that news organizations take better advantage of the work of their surrounding communities. We’re republishing it here.

To me it’s self-evident that every news organization, like every blog, should define a community of bloggers. People who write with passion about their expertise. I’ve been writing about this, evangelically, since the mid-90s. Still there are very few rivers out there. Someday they will be a fixture. It will be self-evident to everyone else too.

So here’s the pitch.

1. News organizations are shrinking, but readers’ demand for news is exploding. This has been true for the last 15 years, and shows no signs of letting up.

2. The tools of news are available to more people all the time. Blogs, podcasting, video, audio, realtime distribution, low-cost networking. And meanwhile the software keeps getting easier to use.

3. News organizations have to redefine themselves. Yes, their mission is still centered on what it has always been. Getting valuable and timely information to the people in their community. Some define community in terms of geography, others in terms of a common interest like photography, travel, food.

4. Users have a special kind of insight that most news orgs don’t tap. You can get a review from a famous columnist, a Pogue, Mossberg, Gruber or Levy, or you could get a review from a user, later — perhaps in more depth (they had more time) and more likely to relate to experiences a user would actually have with the product (because they are users).

5. Therefore, the challenge for news organizations has been, for the last couple of decades, to learn how to incorporate the experience of these users and their new publishing tools, into their product — the news.

6. Like anything else related to technology, this will happen slowly and iteratively. It takes generations for the kind of change that is happening in news to be fully realized. So if you see this coming, take whatever steps you can, when you can. This is an attempt to reserve a seat at the table for yourself when the revolution is finished sweeping through news.

7. The first thing you can do is show the readers what you’re reading. The Times is starting to do this, and it’s good — but it should be systematic, and it can go much further. And once you’ve shown them what pubs you’re reading, a natural next step is to aggregate them into a river, a newsfeed of postings from all the blogs and news orgs you follow. This accomplishes many important things. It gets more news to flow through your site, which makes your site more valuable to more people. It also tells the people you read that you’re reading them. And it gives them something to kvell about. It creates a bond between you and them, and it cost you almost nothing to do this. It will give you access to their ideas. And it will help their ideas get heard. And it will make your venue the place people go to get the latest and greatest ideas. Look at how many ways you win!

8. Having the river will also focus your mind. You’ll see trends you wouldn’t otherwise see. You’ll get ideas for stories you wouldn’t otherwise get. Seeing things from other people’s perspective always does that. You see things you didn’t see before. Seems almost self-evident, but until you do it, you don’t experience it, and experience is very important here.

9. Then, once your river is up and running for a while, have a meeting with all your bloggers. Get someone who is respected and well-known in your community give a keynote. Sit back and listen to what people talk about. Again, your mind will open, you’ll get tons of new ideas.

Starting a river is the first step down the road to the future. It defines community. Gives you a way to experience it. And honestly, it gives new power to your role as gatekeeper.

How do you start a river? For the first few pubs, I’ll get you started. I have a server I’ve started that can run five to ten of them. I’m already doing one for my friend Jeremy Zilar at the Times. I’ve got a project started with the editors of Wired. I’d like to do a few more. Because for me, as a software developer and evangelist, my community is publishers of news. By helping you get your rivers started, if you choose to do it, I will learn from your experience, learn how to improve the software to better meet all our needs, and help further the integration of all kinds of news gathering into the flow of news.

How do you start a river, from a content point of view? It’s just a list of feeds. You can add to the list, or remove from the list. You’re the curator, though you’re not just curating stories, you’re curating flows. The software is easy to use, I’ve spent many years working on that, but for some reason people are scared of it. So I will get it started for you, and when you’re ready, you can take over.

BTW, of course I have a river for my blogging work. Think of it as the river associated with my news feed and blog.

I know I’m seen in news as a radical, but I am also a conservative. I want to conserve the value we already have in news, enhance it, and help all of us make the transition into the fully-networked future.

The newsonomics of 100 products a year

Posted: 29 Mar 2012 08:00 AM PDT

Try this: Call up your local newspaper or online news organization. Tell them you want to buy something and ask them what they can sell you? Of course, at first, they’d be non-plussed: Sell you something? Then, after giving it some thought, they’d say you can buy a newspaper or a subscription or a membership — or, maybe, an ad? Would you like one of those?

Those days — mark it — are coming to an end. We’re on the brink of news companies producing hundreds of products for sale each year. While digital technology hath taketh (the easy ability to make money on news distribution), digital technology also giveth back, with the ability to create hundreds and thousands of newsy products at small incremental costs. The bonus: News organizations will be able to satisfy groups of readers and advertisers (often disguised thinly as sponsors) better than ever before. Double bonus: The let-a-hundred-products-bloom revolution fits neatly with the all-out embrace of all-access circulation initiatives, which news companies in North America, Europe, and Asia now can’t seem to implement quickly enough.

Can we call this the ebook revolution? Maybe, but that’s probably too narrow. Delivery of new products to new audiences can take several forms. A text-only ebook, a shinier iBooks-enabled product with video, or an app with all the glorious functionality apps offer. It’s not the form; it’s the content, content that satisfies niches rather than serves masses with one-size-fits-all newspaper or magazine products.

Call it the newsonomics of 100 products a year, or just one way to envision a much bigger future.

The 100-product-a-year model is a much-needed growth model. We can see how it fits nicely with all-access subscriptions, and together we have two interconnected Lego blocks of a new sustainable news model. We have two essential parts of a crossover model (“The newsonomics of crossover”) that I detailed here a few weeks ago. The big, hairy challenges of accelerating print ad loss and onerous legacy costs remain, but at least we’ve got a couple of building blocks we didn’t have two years ago. By we, I mean those of us who care about news and great professional content.

Is it a big moneymaker? We don’t know yet, though we can extrapolate some numbers below.

It’s directionally right, though, for at least a couple of strategic reasons. The notion of 100 smaller products reminds us that so much of the new world is based on volume. Google has built a monstrous advertising business on hundreds of thousands of smaller advertisers, while daily newspapers reaped huge profits on relatively few bigger advertisers. Even as movie watching by streaming surpasses DVD watching, more money is still in the old medium. Streaming will monetize at a lower rate, but end up generating bigger dollars over time. The same thing is true in the digital music business. Selling lots of stuff to lots of people at smaller price points is something the Internet enables superbly.

Yes, there are definitely new winners and losers in movies and music, as there will be in news. Those who transition best and fastest will win.

Second, it’s in line with the strategic push to satisfy the hell out of core customers. As publishers have figured out that it’s the top 15 percent of site visitors who make the big difference in building the new digital business — perhaps paying for subscriptions, consuming many more pages than fly-by users sent by Google — core customer satisfaction is key. Ebooks deeper the relationship to that reader customer.

This 100-product-a-year model may fit as well with the new California Watch/Bay Citizen combo (“The newsonomics of the death and life of California news”), finalized Tuesday, as its does with The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Charlotte Observer, GQ, or Conde Nast Traveler.

Let’s take one example. On Wednesday, the Boston Globe launched “Sunday Supper & More.” It’s a cookbook. It’s New England. And it could be the beginning of a new franchise: Expect summer, fall and winter editions each year to join this spring debut. The Globe’s staff built it with Apple’s iBooks Author tool, so it offers video within it.

Want to buy it? Not so fast. Today, Sunday Supper & More is only available to Boston Globe print, all-access, and digital subscribers. So subscription — think “membership” (the recent riff of the L.A. Times new paywall intro) — is gaining new benefits. Surprise, says the Globe, you not only get our paper, our spiffy new replica-plus edition, if that’s what you want, and our mobile apps — you also get our cool cookbooks, with more to come.

The Globe will sell the book to non-subscribers — probably at $4.99 — but will decide the timing of that sale after next week’s Globe confab at which execs and editors will plot an ebook plan for the company.

“Events and ebooks will be the two biggest perks” of the new Globe subscription push, says Jeff Moriarty, the Globe’s VP of digital products. Beyond Sunday Suppers and a new spin on the Fenway 100 historical Red Sox book, we can picture the Globe soon mining its archives in both sports and features to provide new value for customers and a new leg of revenue. It experimented early with three books on its Whitey Bulger stories, and learned some lessons in pricing, distribution, and the technical creation process along the way.

The Globe has plenty of company in this push. We see Canada’s National Post committing to a couple of dozen ebooks in the coming year, again from hard news to features (“To learn what works (quickly), Canada’s National Post dives into ebooks”). Guardian Shorts is an early innovator; Politico is churning out four campaign ebooks this year.

Magazine publishers, faster than newspaper publishers to embrace the tablet as the next-gen platform, are also ahead of most newspaper publishers in ebooks. Vanity Fair’s done more than a half dozen, and its parent Conde Nast is hosting an explosion of more single-purpose apps in the iTunes Store, some unrelated to Conde’s magazines. Hearst’s Cosmopolitan is embracing ebooks, and now partnering, along with ProPublica — an early tester of ebooks — with Open Road Integrated Technology. Open Road Integrated Technology?

Well, it’s a book company, an ebook company juiced on the possibilities of our age. Headed by former HarperCollins CEO Jane Friedman, the company is prototypical of a new group of middlemen. With book marketing savvy (cover design, marketing, distribution+), these companies are now feeding the emerging ebook marketplace. They are also partnering back for that old standby, print, as Open Road has done with book services company Ingram. In Canada, it was Harper Collins Canada that became the National Post’s partner in bringing news ebooks to market.

Just as the web has knocked many middlemen for a loop, it creates openings for new ones.

If you talk to publishers about ebooks, they are farther along in experimenting than they were a year ago. Yet some basic issues — producing the books, marrying them to commerce engines, placing them prominently in e-stores and more — are giving them headaches as they push forward. “How do we make the right offer to the right person at the right time?” one experienced exec asked.

The marketplace has been exploding (recall that Amazon announced last spring that its ebooks were now outselling its paper books), but those issues are setting the stage for a new group of companies, many staffed with graduates of the book industry, offering their help. Newspaper and magazine publishers are looking to the Open Roads for guidance.

Some are turning to their digital circulation partner, Press+. That company, which is powering more than 280 titles’ subscription commerce, says its system can handle the commerce and even help with identifying likely customers, based on tracked content usage, so its customers are just beginning to ply the ebook trade.

ProPublica general manager Dick Tofel opted for Open Road for the non-profit investigative publisher’s fifth and sixth books. He says the company will start producing a half dozen or more a year now and is now fielding calls from other publishers eager to get the benefit of his early ebook experience.

So far, ProPublica has put 90,000 ebooks into the market. The first couple were free downloads, but with the addition of new original introductions to work ProPublica had already published free online, Amazon and ProPublica agreed on test pricing of 99 cents and $1.99, and new revenue is rolling in. It’s small, but “pound for pound, it generates more than advertising,” notes Tofel, who is a Wall Street Journal veteran. And, of course, the incremental cost of creating ebooks is closer to zero, with most sales cost able to be a commissioned cost of sale.

As assistant publisher, Tofel oversaw the print books business that’s been a good Dow Jones sideline for a long time.

Those books — personal investing and more — are naturals for the ebook revolution now. Look for the Journal to experiment more with those titles, perhaps niching by life stage.

As news and magazine publishers look to this new revenue stream, here are six points to ponder:

It’s about product development: Yes, it’s editing, but fundamentally, it’s a mindset change for many publishers stuck in the one-size-fits-all world. Publishers either need staffers with new product chops or partners wanting to license publisher content and create the products for the marketplace.

Free the archives!: Digital archives have never been a big business for publishers, caught somewhere between Google and musty library connotations. Packaged archives — for specific audiences — can offer new life for older content.

Don’t think content; think problem solving: Publishers too often start with content. If we start with audience — college-planning students and parents, new mothers and fathers to be, bored cooks, and, big time, sports enthusiasts of all ages — we can see the motors of ebook publishing beginning to role. Think life stage, just for starters, and add the geo angle, and regional publishers can play.

Mining the database: As onesies and twosies, it’s fairly easy to pick content from publishers’ own databases. Think of bigger production cycle, going beyond the 100 a year, to a thousand, all niched products that could be semi-automated and templated over time. Better tagging of content for ebook usage then becomes a priority.

Ebook or app?: Early experimenters say let the content be your guide. The more multimedia, the better an app may work. Ebooks, though, can be sold through more distributors, while Apple continues to dominate the app business.

Pricing: What’s an ebook worth? If it solidifies a subscriber/member paying $300 or more a year, it’s worth a lot, even if it’s free. Think of the lifetime value of that subscriber.

To the right niche, some ebooks will be worth $1.99 and others — Retina perfect — will go for $19.99. Let’s take our 100 products a year. Let’s average 5,000 sales for each. Let’s price at $2.99 on average. That would be $1.5 million. Some books, though, could be blockbusters. We can play with this math and see where it goes.

For the ProPublicas, it’s a nice non-ad revenue stream. For other publishers, it’s at least a growing third leg of revenue (beyond ads and circulation) and one that may be nurtured into something significant. (Last fall, Will Sullivan offered a gaggle of reasons ebooks make sense for publishers.) As importantly, it can reinforce those two legs, pleasing subscribers/members with free (or discounted) perks and advertisers/sponsors who have new opportunities to represent themselves to niche audiences. That’s a pretty good combination, and one that publishers will soon embrace, just as they lately have all-access digital circulation.

Merger means the new Bay Citizen will be more investigative and experimental

Posted: 29 Mar 2012 07:00 AM PDT

Breaking: The Bay Citizen won’t be covering as much breaking news any more.

The merger of Bay Citizen with the Center for Investigative Reporting announced yesterday — with CIR forces coming out in charge — will mean structural changes for the nonprofit outlets. But it’ll also mean editorial changes, one of them being a reduction in covering the same big daily stories and subjects the competition is — at least not in the same way.

“There’s so much information, there’s so much newsgathering, there’s so much out there, and there’s so much clutter out there,” CIR executive director Robert Rosenthal told me. “Someone may have it first, but there’s almost no such thing as first anymore. News is a commodity. Information is a commodity.”

(The Bay Citizen’s own story on the merger puts it this way: “The Bay Citizen will likely no longer cover breaking news or culture, as CIR leaders have said they see those as commodities that don't fit the expanded organization's core mission.”)

Today, a Bay Citizen reporter “might post several times a day on a breaking story or a story on the Bay Area that they were covering maybe in a unique way,” Rosenthal said. “We’re not going to do that. If we get into a major developing story, it will be in an investigative or explanatory way…For a beat reporter, to suddenly not have the obligation of potentially filing I-don’t-know-how-many stories a day or week — it liberates you.

“You know as well as I do that one of the key elements of this kind of reporting is time: time to develop sources, time to do that extra step, having the time not to be chasing deadlines, quickly running out to events that are covered by multiple other people.”

Developing a focus

From its launch in January 2010, Bay Citizen took a broader approach to its coverage than many of its nonprofit peers, which tended to focus on narrow, specific areas like investigative reporting or a particular beat. Founded at a time when many were concerned the San Francisco Chronicle could close, Bay Citizen mixed in daily breaking news coverage, cultural coverage, and even sports with more investigative and enterprise work.

When the San Francisco Giants were in the 2010 World Series, Bay Citizen had author Dave Eggers attend games and do notebook drawings of players and fans. Indeed, Bay Citizen has done game stories, fan slideshows, and even fifth-inning updates from Giants games and other area sporting events — something not many other nonprofit outlets would do.

In particular, it’s probably not something you’d see from the CIR-founded California Watch, the statewide investigative news service. The Bay Citizen will adopt an approach that parallels the guiding principles at California Watch, only on a more local level, Rosenthal said. The combination of Bay Citizen, California Watch, and CIR can give the organization wide reach.

“Here’s an example: We’ve been looking very hard at issues on homeland security, and we have lots of data sets on a national scale,” Rosenthal says. “A reporter looking at that is thinking, ‘What’s the story for California?’ We may [also] be looking at a national story around surveillance. It’s a very flexible model.”

Bay Citizen is one of three regional nonprofit news outlets to have partnered with The New York Times to provide content for the Times’ regional editions; the others were the Chicago News Cooperative and the Texas Tribune. The Times, in addition to a small amount of money, gave status and prestige to the new local brands, plus the promise of some local print readers. But the deals also committed the outlets to producing a certain amount of newspaper-ready content — stories of a certain length and covering a newspapery mix of beats — that helped define its approach. Stories were due to the Times late Tuesday for Friday publication, so stories had to be able to hold a few days.

The Chicago News Cooperative has faced challenges even greater than Bay Citizen’s, suspending operations last month. Of the three Times partners, only the Texas Tribune — which keeps a tight focus on matters of state government and public policy — has thrived. And the Trib is known for ignoring even big breaking news that falls outside its editorial mission. (The New York Times’ Texas report does include culture coverage, but it’s provided by Texas Monthly instead of the Tribune.)

Rosenthal said CIR is currently re-evaluating The Bay Citizen’s relationship with the Times, noting that the deal carries an agreement of “exclusivity” that raises “concerns.”

Multiple platforms, multiple revenue streams

The flexibility of the model may be the key to the Center for Investigative Reporting’s success, and it’s about more than a newsroom-culture shift away from the kind of crime coverage you’re already going to get on the six o’clock news. Freeing up reporters to spend more time digging deeply into stories is the foundation. But the real opportunity for innovation comes in experimenting with a variety of distribution methods and multiple sources of revenue. That’s at least in part because the fundamental instability of the industry is directly tied to questions about how people get information today.

“It’s very difficult to be ambitious and build something in a newsroom where you’re getting smaller and the business model is broken — and it is broken,” Rosenthal said. “It has been broken. It’s not the journalism that’s broken, it’s the business model. We’re in a completely different world.”

“The process can be very iterative, it can be messy, but at the same time you get some great ideas.”

Adapting — and ultimate survival — in this new world requires deftly crossing platforms to tell stories that matter. Rosenthal bristles at the idea of having “readers” because CIR doesn’t just produce news websites, it produces news across platforms.

CIR’s revenue strategy mirrors the spirit of the diversification with which it approaches content production. Rosenthal says that the funding that flows into The Bay Citizen will, like California Watch, have multiple channels: philanthropic support from “major donor efforts,” content fees, fees from membership, fees from events, corporate underwriting. More opportunities for revenue translate into more journalism, which further fuels a newsroom’s ability to try different kinds of storytelling.

“You’re working simultaneously with the video people, you’re working with a radio reporter, you’re working with people who are doing interactive data, you’re working with people who might be doing animation,” Rosenthal says. “The process can be very iterative, it can be messy, but at the same time you get some great ideas…There’s a tremendous amount of involvement from everybody. It’s a very lively, creative, ambitious culture.”

It’s also a culture that encourages ideas that might not even be discussed in a traditional newsroom. Remember California Watch’s “Ready to Rumble”coloring book? That came out of an investigative series on earthquake safety in schools. Next up: Puppets.

“We’re going to be very experimental,” Rosenthal says. “We’re really thinking of how people of all ages get, use and want information at this revolutionary moment we’re all in. This is a good opportunity— a terrific, unique opportunity to be entrepreneurs.”

Photo of Golden Gate Bridge by Marco Klapper used under a Creative Commons license.

Newspaper Death Watch

Newspaper Death Watch


100-Year-Old Laurel Leader-Call Shuts Down Abruptly

Posted: 29 Mar 2012 09:41 AM PDT

Final Edition of Laurel Leader-Call

The Laurel Leader-Call, a mainstay in the small city of Laurel, MS for more than 100 years, published its final edition today. Residents and the paper’s 18 staffers weren’t given much notice; the announcement was made only on Monday by Publisher Mitchell D. Lynch.

The Leader-Call, which was purchased by a subsidiary of Community Newspaper Holdings Inc. in 1999, reduced its publication from daily to four days a week six months ago. Stunned staffers said the news was a surprise, and a farewell retrospective in the final edition reflects similar comments from members of the community.

The Leader-Call was founded in 1911 as the Laurel Daily Argus and the later changed its name to the Laurel Daily Leader  before assuming its current name in 1930.

 


Kamis, 29 Maret 2012

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


Mandarin-English luxury magazine boosts revenue for Observer Media Group

Posted: 28 Mar 2012 08:00 AM PDT

In the span of a decade, the number of visitors to New York City from China more than quadrupled. Ten years ago, 59,000 Chinese tourists visited the city. By 2010, the tally was at 266,000, according to the most recent data from the tourism research firm NYC & Company.

This wave of new visitors has brought an influx of cash to an otherwise recession-addled retail market. But the jump in visitors from China has also presented a magazine publishing opportunity.

In November, Observer Media Group — parent company of The New York Observer — and China Happenings jointly launched YUE, a bilingual Mandarin-English luxury magazine aimed at those affluent Chinese visitors and influential Chinese Americans in the tri-state area. Editor Chiu-Ti Jansen says YUE takes editorial cues from publications like Vogue and Departures, but serves a niche audience that hasn’t yet been served by the luxury magazine market.

It’s not just expanding into a niche — it’s expanding into another language. At a time when U.S. and U.K. publishers are looking for expansion overseas and international publishers want to break into English, Observer Media is pursuing a linguistic opportunity in its own neighborhood.

“We cater to the Chinese, and we do it in a bilingual way,” Jansen says. “Another thing is, the predecessors of Chinese publications in this country, they all end up being very culturally, traditionally Chinese. I never envisioned this as an ethnic publication. I know it’s a niche publication, but we start to be able to interact with both the U.S. and Chinese audiences in a much more avant-garde way. I call it a Chinese sensitivity: we are very sensitive to Chinese interests but it’s an international outlook…These people are not interested in coming to New York and shop like a Chinese [person]. What they are interested in is to learn to live as an international.”

One major area of focus is contemporary arts and culture: “Art buying is the ultimate symbol of luxury consumption in China,” says Jansen, who also looks for profile subjects who bridge the gap between East and West.

“We started with [pianist] Lang Lang, and then we had [designer] Jason Wu, and next issue our cover story will be [actor] Lucy Liu,” Jansen says. “You cannot just throw a New York or U.S. celebrity on the cover…But we also stretch the connections they know, and we challenge them.”

The magazine printed 35,000 copies for each of its first two issues, which were distributed to tour companies, luxury hotels, Chinese cultural centers in New York, as well as sent to about 8,000 Mandarin-speaking homes in the area. Those “very, very high end” readers include hedge fund managers and board members of New York’s major institutions. Getting advertisers like Chanel and Fendi was “a fairly easy sell” as a result, according to New York Observer editor Elizabeth Spiers.

“We have a lot of ancillary publications that have targeted a similarly high-income, affluent, well-educated demographic,” Spiers told me. “But YUE is original because we were looking at the luxury market from the business side of things, given the demand for luxury goods in New York among Chinese tourists.”

(In Chinese, “yue” means “invitation, promise, and rendezvous,” Observer Media says. It’s also the second half of Niu Yue, the Chinese name for New York.)

Spiers says YUE has been “very successful,” enough so that Observer Media Group is mulling the launch of a Los Angeles edition, as well as a location-based app that would serve as a food and retail guide for visitors.

“It’s something we’ve discussed, [but] we don’t have it in the works right now,” Spiers said. “You’ll notice that [YUE] is very product-heavy. It sort of tells you where to go to do your shopping and eating, so we’re thinking it probably makes sense at some point to integrate with a mobile app.”

In the meantime, YUE has snagged top luxury advertisers that have been otherwise elusive for Observer Media Group. The pages of YUE — both editorial and advertising — are lined with pricy ideas on how you can reinvent your wardrobe: Ralph Lauren ball gowns, Chanel diamond rings, Harry Winston watches, and J. Mendel minks.

“We have a lot of fashion, watches, jewelry, and shopping-related information because this is their No. 1 priority,” Jansen says. “According to New York City statistics, Chinese rank shopping first as opposed to food or concerts or other types of activities. We know we need to satisfy their interest in this aspect. I am fully aware of where their tastes stand, but I think the Chinese taste is evolving very, very fast. We have to convey the same message to our advertisers so they don’t have a fixed idea of what the Chinese want, because it’s a work in progress.”

Rabu, 28 Maret 2012

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


After a major First Amendment ruling, Boston police settle a cellphone recording lawsuit

Posted: 27 Mar 2012 01:53 PM PDT

Boston police during the Occupy Boston protest, October 2011

The city of Boston will pay $170,000 to settle a lawsuit that forced a landmark ruling on a citizen’s First Amendment right to record the activities of police officers in public. The settlement, announced today by the ACLU of Massachusetts, ends a case that produced a significant victory for those who believe citizens — and journalists — should have the right to record police activity in public places.

In October 2007, Glik he said he saw police officers arresting a teenager in the most public of places — the Boston Common — and pulled out his cellphone to start recording video. Within minutes, he was under arrest for illegal electronic surveillance under Massachusetts’ wiretapping statute.

The case raised the hackles of both privacy groups and news companies — including The New York Times Co., Dow Jones, NBC Universal, and more who publicly came to Glik’s defense. All charges were dropped, but until recently the Boston Police Department had maintained for years that officers had the right to arrest people for recording their activity.

Glik sued the city, saying Boston police violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The First Circuit appeals court ruled unanimously last fall that Glik was “exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space” and sent the case back to a lower court.

“When a U.S. Court of Appeals rules on a constitutional issue, even though that’s not binding in other federal circuits, it can be viewed as important guidance and precedent,” said Jeff Hermes, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard’s Berkman Center, which joined with news organizations in a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Glik.

“And the strength of the First Circuit’s statement, that this First Amendment right does exist, was so striking that it received much more attention than other police-recording incidents in other jurisdictions,” Hermes said.

The Boston Police Department has since reversed its stance. The officers involved in the Glik case were disciplined, and training materials were updated to tell officers “there is no right of arrest for public and open recordings” under the state’s wiretapping law.

“The law had been clear for years that openly recording a video is not a crime,” Glik said in a statement today. “It’s sad that it takes so much for police to learn the laws they were supposed to know in the first place. I hope Boston police officers will never again arrest someone for openly recording their public actions.”

Elaine Driscoll, a BPD spokeswoman, responded in an email:

In February 2010, the Boston police academy completed a Roll Call video for all officers in regards to the wiretap statute. This training continues to be a part of the in-service curriculum at the academy. The information has also been added to our e-learning curriculum (distance learning) for all officers. The academy also issued a training bulletin in November 2010. Commissioner Davis re-issued the training bulletin in October 2011.

I would not comment on the suit or its outcome. Updates in technology frequently present new circumstances for officers. We strive to keep our officers informed and updated to assist them in addressing new issues. For the last several years, we have reinforced to officers the issue of cell phone recording and their obligation to the wiretap statute.

Glik’s case was certainly not the last in Boston or elsewhere. Last fall, a 21-year-old man sued four Boston police officers who he said wrongfully arrested him for recording video of his friend’s arrest outside a police station. Earlier this month, Boston paid $1.4 million to settle with a man who said he suffers brain damage after he was tackled and beaten by a Boston police officer while trying to record video during a traffic stop.

Video-recording technology is now ubiquitous and pocket-sized, and suddenly the tools once available only to professional storytellers are now in the hands of millions of people. Precedent-setting cases like Glik’s can be a boon to news organizations, which have tussled with police departments for decades over the right to record from the front lines.

There are numerous documented cases of photojournalists being arrested while trying to cover the Occupy Wall Street protests last year. Miami photojournalist Carlos Miller — himself arrested three times for recording cops in public, he says — covers similar cases on his blog, Photography is Not a Crime.

“The First Amendment includes the freedom to observe and document the conduct of government officials, which is crucial to a democracy and a free society,” said Sarah Wunsch, an attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts, in a statement. “We hope that police departments across the country will draw the right conclusions from this case.”

Photo of Boston police officers by JonPack used under a Creative Commons license.

Thirty-seven percent of the links you’re sharing are “awesome” — but how many are “rad”?

Posted: 27 Mar 2012 01:02 PM PDT

Three weeks after news-sharing network News.me launched its iPhone app, the network is beginning to get an idea of the kinds of stories that its users are sharing — or at the very least, how they’re reacting to what others share.

News.me bills itself as a service that delivers “must-read news” from your Facebook and Twitter accounts. In other words, it takes all of that baby-photo clutter (sorry, babies) out of your newsfeed and comes up with just the links your friends are sharing. But News.me also enables "reactions" to shares that are only visible within the app.

You can either make up your own reaction or you can pick from this list of one-word presets: Wow, Awesome, Sad, Ha!, and Really? Here’s how News.me General Manager Jake Levine explained the presets:

Our thinking was that one of the barriers to participation in a conversation on the phone is the keyboard, so we wanted to reduce that barrier by making participation as simple as a tap of the thumb.

The challenge is that everyone has their own unique voice, and so limiting expression to a set of five words could also raise the barrier to participation. So our solution was to provide a set of words that were as ambiguous and open to interpretation as possible.

Sorting emotional responses into a defined set: It’s something NBC Local’s sites tried back in 2009, asking their readers to be furious, intrigued, laughing, sad, bored, or thrilled by stories. (The feature’s since disappeared.) And it’s something Facebook does every day when it asks you to “Like” something on the Internet.

In a Tuesday blog post, Levine revealed new data showing that News.me users opted for preset reactions — rather than creating their own custom reactions — most of the time.

Of the 62 percent of reactions that came from the preset list, Levine says people tapped “awesome” 37 percent of the time. “Wow” was next most popular, with 23 percent of preset taps. “Sad” was tapped least often, 10 percent of the time. But what does this tell us? Are people more likely to share “awesome” stories? Or are people more likely to describe what they share as “awesome”?

“Part of what we’re trying to do is keep these words as open to interpretation as possible, but when it comes down to it, there are some people who would just never use the word ‘awesome,’” Levine told me.

That raises the question of how people customize reactions when they opt to forego the preset reactions, which is 38 percent of the time, according to Levine’s data. He hasn’t yet pulled the raw data on custom reactions, but Levine says he has some anecdotal ideas about what he’ll find when he does.

“People are mimicking the one-word reactions, picking a word that better fits,” Levine told me. “Like, ‘interesting’ is a very common reaction, but it’s not included in our five [preset options].”

In other cases, people will customize an “actual sentence, which is probably less common,” he said. And then there’s a trend that News.me is incorporating into the next version of its platform.

“It’s really interesting that people are quoting from the article when they react to it,” Levine said. “In the next release you’ll be able to highlight a portion of the text, and you’ll be able to react with that quote.”

Reactions on the cutting room floor

Choices like “Wow” and “Really?” are vague enough to be applicable to all sorts of stories, which may offer clues as to why the narrower (though still subjective) “sad” was used less frequently. “One of the things we were debating was, do we want to have a negative adjective?” Levine said. “Do people want to see that in their streams?”

Deciding on which words to use in the first place involved a spreadsheet and a email brainstorming session with “five of our smartest friends,” Levine says. Here are some of the proposed reactions that got left on the cutting room floor:

— Shocking
— Brilliant
— Pointless
— Life-changing
— Funny ha ha
— Indubitable
— Tragicomic
— Must read
— As if
— Jaw dropper
— Damn
— Uhhhh
— Offensive
— Sick
— Grand
— Rad
— Finally
— TL;DR

Armed with new ideas about how people are using News.me, Levine and his team are preparing an update that’ll be ready to go in about two weeks, he said. The changes you can expect include a speedier experience, clear distinctions between what’s being shared on Facebook versus on Twitter, and a “really cool gesture” that will enable users to save a link to read later. Levine says a phone conversation with one of News.me’s most “active reactors” on Wednesday will help inform News.me’s continued evolution.

“What he started to see — which was encouraging to us — was that [reactions were] the beginning of a conversation with other people,” Levine said. “Now how do we make it easy for us to bring people into that conversation? That’s how we’re thinking about the data.”

How a talking rodent is one of the pioneers of the opinion pages at The New York Times

Posted: 27 Mar 2012 08:00 AM PDT

Semiaquatic rodents don’t typically go around penning opinion pieces for The New York Times. Yet a piece told from the perspective of a river rat — also known as a nutria or coypu — recently became one of the newspaper’s most popular video offerings.

“In the video section of the news department, a piece about invasive species would probably have experts talking about invasive species,” said Jason Spingarn-Koff, curator and producer of Op-Docs, a video opinion section that The New York Times launched in November. “You would not have an animated rodent talking about invasive species.”

The video he’s describing is Drew Christie’s four-minute film “Hi! I’m a Nutria,” in which a curious cartoon rodent explores his species’ path to Washington State.

“I can’t speak out loud so I’m going to talk to you through mental telepathy,” the orange-toothed nutria tells his audience.

The short film is humorous and information-rich, but it also raises a larger question: How long does it take for someone — an invasive species, a human — to become a native? It’s a subject that filmmaker Christie says has always “fascinated” and “perplexed” him.

“I’ve always wondered why there’s never an official standard like, Once you’ve been here for 75 years and three months you get the official badge,” Christie told me. “Like everything, it’s so vague. Going through a kind of weird, roundabout way of asking the question is sometimes the best way of doing it.”

Bringing a new storytelling form to the Times

While the first-rodent perspective makes Christie’s film unusual for the Times, the fact that it raises both timely and enduring questions is what makes Op-Docs special. Here’s how Spingarn-Koff puts it: “How can we combine this unusual storytelling with timeliness, and potentially pioneer a new type of documentary news?”

Op-Docs also has the “heritage” of The New York Times op-ed section at its core. “So rather than a total startup, we are evolving an existing form,” he said. But the newness of the not-yet-five-month-old project also encourages creativity and experimentation.

Here are the rules for what makes an Op-Doc: Films ought not be longer than five minutes, and they have to contain some kind of opinion. But even those guidelines aren’t hard and fast. First of all, opinions — especially when they’re expressed through a visual medium like film — can be subtle. Take, for example, Jeff Scher’s “Focus,” a blurry view of the New York City marathon that Scher shot with a point-and-shoot camera he “tricked into shooting out of focus.”

“Part of what we consider ‘opinion’ is just seeing the world in a new way, and that can sometimes be very simple,” Spingarn-Koff said. “That’s what the marathon piece does. It just says, ‘Look at the marathon runners in an unexpected way.’ Sometimes we want to have pieces that are delightful or entertaining, and I think that’s consistent with the opinion section.”

The length requirements are somewhat malleable, too. “Focus” was only two minutes long, while Ra’anan Alexandrowicz’s film about Palestinian rights clocked in at just under 10 minutes. Filmmakers are also free to experiment in ways that aren’t often found in traditional reporting. That was the case in “Bike Thief,” in which filmmaker Casey Neistat locked up his bike on the streets of New York then ostentatiously “stole” it to see how passersby would react.

“I don’t know if the news department would do something like that,” Spingarn-Koff says. “Someone putting themselves in this incredible situation, and doing an urban psychology experiment, and voicing strong opinions through his experience— it’s just a very different type of storytelling. I think when Op-Docs are most successful — and maybe this is something that’s a little different than news — they’re often about something bigger. They operate on a higher level.”

Here’s the first piece that Op-Docs published, which uses rare footage of Richard Nixon on the campaign trail shot on Super 8 film by his aides, as a way to explore his landslide 1972 victory.

If Op-Docs can find a timelier news peg, all the better. When the president of the Maldives was ousted last month, Spingarn-Koff asked filmmaker John Shenk — who was working on a longer project about the deposed politician — to cut a couple of minutes of film for Op-Docs on short notice. Shenk agreed, and The New York Times coupled his film with an op-ed that the former president had submitted to the newspaper.

“That gave me a sense that Op-Docs can actually have a breaking news function as well,” Spingarn-Koff said. “You don’t really think of documentary filmmaking as having that function. We’re still exploring the power of this outlet and what we can achieve.”

One unexpected achievement: Op-Docs will soon be screened theatrically, in a series at the IFC Center in New York. “You never think of web videos going theatrical,” says Spingarn-Koff, whose favorite way to watch Op-Docs is on an iPad. “You start feeling this is really different than television…We put them out in high definition, and it’s beautiful. We dont have a television station, and we don’t need a television station.”

Access to a wide audience

He won’t provide specifics about web traffic or play counts, but Spingarn-Koff says the response to Op-Docs has been “great.” For filmmakers like Christie, the opportunity to have work showcased on the Times’ website represents a huge opportunity for exposure.

“I could be putting things up on my own for millions of years and it probably wouldn’t get the viewership that it does by being on the homepage of The New York Times,” Christie said. “I have no clue how many views [it got], and I didn’t read any of the comments because I was too scared…The process was all very painless — even the 50 fact-checking emails back and forth.”

(For the record, the comments section in response to Christie’s video is robust with compliments about the film, discussion of what it means to be “invasive,” whether it matters that nutria are cute, and what they might taste like; “possessed of a nutty flavor,” one commenter muses.) [Louisiana-born editor's note: They kinda taste like rabbit.]

Christie’s “really very cool” experience with Op-Docs included receiving an email from PETA president Ingrid Newkirk, who praised his film and suggested he make one about “how one million chickens are killed per hour,” Christie says. (“I didn’t have the heart to tell her that I had just had chicken for lunch,” he said.)

“Hi! I’m a Nutria” may be Op-Docs’ latest hit, but its first viral success was a piece by Academy Award winner Errol Morris that The New York Times published in November. In “The Umbrella Man,” Morris explores the nature of evidence and investigation by recalling the conspiracy that surrounded the man who stood beneath a black umbrella on the sunny day of Nov. 22, 1963, at Dealey Plaza, and can be seen in the background of photos of John F. Kennedy’s motorcade just before his assassination.

When John Updike wrote about this “anomalous and ominous” figure for The New Yorker in 1967, he wondered whether “any similar scrutiny of a minute section of time and space would yield similar strangeness — gaps, inconsistencies, warps, and bubbles in the surface of circumstance.”

The search for truth about JFK’s assassination “seems to demonstrate how perilously empiricism verges on magic,” Updike wrote. That idea stuck with Morris, who says for years he’s wanted to make a movie about the assassination investigation that would allow him to indulge his “obsessive interest in the complexities of reality.” That obsession — which requires looking at something up close and from far away at the same time — is part of what makes “The Umbrella Man” such a good fit for Op-Docs.

Here’s how Josiah “Tink” Thompson — an expert on the Zapruder film of the assassination, and the subject of Morris’ short film — puts it: “If you put any event under a microscope, you will find a whole dimension of completely weird, incredible things going on.”

Photo of nutria by cocoate.com used under a Creative Commons license.