Kamis, 27 Maret 2014

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


Columbia’s Year Zero, aiming to give journalists literacy in data, is now called the Lede Program

Posted: 26 Mar 2014 08:20 AM PDT

Last fall, we told you about Year Zero, a new program out of Columbia’s j-school aimed at providing a grounding in data concepts — coding, databases, algorithms, and the like — to journalists and other humanities-ish types.

Well, the program was officially announced last night, and now it’s got a new name: The Lede Program. (I’d wager that some of the non-journalists in the program will wonder who the generous Mr. Lede was who got his name attached to it.)

Data, code and algorithms are becoming central to research and creative work, and are setting new parameters for the exercise of responsible citizenship. Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism and Department of Computer Science have together created two new post-bac certification programs that will offer hands-on training in data and data technologies, all taught in the context of journalism, the humanities and the social sciences. These programs assume no prior experience in these topics and, in fact, are explicitly aimed at students with little or no formal training in computation and data.

Courses are here. The Lede Program can be done either as a summer-only program or as a summer/fall combo, with more advanced courses in computer science in the second term.

The price tag for the summer session, which leads to a Certification of Professional Achievement? $13,456, not counting your living expenses in New York.

Rabu, 26 Maret 2014

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


New technology, new money, new newsrooms, old questions: The State of the News Media in 2014

Posted: 25 Mar 2014 09:01 PM PDT

Inside the media universe, 2013 seemed to be a year of momentum. New money was being injected into the news business from all sides, from dot-com billionaires to baseball owners to venture capitalists making bets at the intersection of technology and content. At the same time, users were finding news and video through new platforms, whether through an explosion in social media or via the personal window of mobile.

In Pew Research Center’s latest State of the News Media report, just out, you get a glimpse of how the worlds of journalism and technology are continuing to merge and the impact that convergence has on the business and editorial prospects of media companies.

A majority of Americans now say they get news through a digital platform: 82 percent reported using a desktop or laptop, while 54 percent got news through mobile devices, according to Pew. Half of social media users share or repost news stories, while 46 percent discuss news on those sites. Audiences are also spending more time watching their screens: 63 percent of U.S. adults now watch online video, and of that, 36 percent watch news video.

At the same time, the companies that are helping to redefine digital news are expanding aggressively: Pew estimates that digital news operations, from the small hyperlocal shops up to the likes of ProPublica, The Huffington Post, and Vice have produced almost 5,000 full-time editorial jobs. Not enough to make up for a decade of losses in newspapers, but significant.

Traffic-wise, those companies are also challenging legacy media operations for audience. In April, May, and June of 2013, The Huffington Post averaged 45 million unique monthly visitors, which put it behind only Yahoo News as the top news site. BuzzFeed averaged 17 million monthly unique visitors, almost on par with The Washington Post’s 19 million monthly unique visitors.

“This year, what we saw was individuals tied to technology with a deep understanding of technology and digital content begin to tackle news reporting in a way we haven’t seen before,” said Amy Mitchell, director of journalism research for Pew.

pewfinancialsupport2013But the State of the News Media report also offers a dose of cold water to the digital media excitement: That new cash flowing in — whether through VCs, philanthropy, or personal investment — represents only 1 percent of the overall funding for journalism. Pew estimates that for-profit digital native news outlets pull in between $500–$700 million in advertising annually, which is just around 1 percent of all news-related advertising across sectors.

While the consumption of news on new platforms is rising, it still occupies a small space in the overall news industry, said Mitchell. “It’s all here, and real,” Mitchell said of the digital newcomers, “but also step back and look at the whole picture of news that consumers are receiving, and where does this fit in that? And it’s a small piece, at this point.”

On the business side, Pew found that audience-derived revenue — through paywalls, cable subscriber fees, and other sources — was growing both as a dollar figure and as a share of overall revenues. But it’s uncertain whether that increase is driven by a more paying readers or if news companies are just squeezing more money out of existing customers.

Mitchell said there’s still plenty of uncertainty in the business models for news. Nonprofit news outlets need to find sources outside of foundation funding; most news companies are still heavily dependent on advertising; and digital news sites are still developing new sources of revenue. “There is that big question mark next to the dollar sign that lets people think about what the future of sustainability is,” Mitchell said.

Circulation revenue at daily newspapers was up 5 percent for the year, driven largely by new paywall plans. But newsstand sales of magazines fell by 2 percent. While cable news audiences declined, local TV news saw modest increases in viewership, and evening network newscasts were up.

That’s all just the tip of the iceberg: As always, this is a huge report, with a wealth of information for media nerds. Pour a nice cup of tea, find a comfy chair, and set aside some time for reading. Here, in no particular order, are some of the more interesting takeouts from this year’s State of The Media report:

How news makes money in 2013

Pew estimates the U.S. news industry generates around $63–65 billion a year. But advertising remains the backbone of the business, making up two-thirds of revenue for news organizations. The area seeing the most growth is audience revenue, which includes subscriptions (digital or print), premium services (like Politico Pro), TV bills (cable and satellite), and the types of voluntary contributions that go to nonprofit news.

Daily newspaper subscriptions make up almost 70 percent of audience revenue, totaling $10.4 billion in 2013. But Pew’s research suggests that media companies aren’t pulling in new paying customers, but rather extracting more money from a shrinking pool. Giving to public radio stations was down by 3 percent in 2012, but the $400 million raised was still the second-highest dollar amount in 16 years. Similarly, Pew points out that newspaper and magazine circulation numbers are flat overall as subscription revenues are up.

According to data from eMarketer, digital advertising on the desktop web generates more than 3× the money of mobile. In 2013, desktop advertising brought in $33 billion, up a smidge from the previous year. Mobile jumped to $9.6 billion in 2013 from $4.4 million the previous year.

The report also included a good comparison graphic of revenues from digital-only outlets:

pewrevenueestimates2013

Digital newsrooms are expanding rapidly, but sustainable business models remain elusive

pewdigitalnewsstaff2013To get a better look at the emerging digital-only news environment, Pew surveyed 468 digital-only outlets, with 30 qualifying as “major” news organizations under Pew’s definitions. Combined, all these shops represent almost 5,000 full-time editorial jobs (though that figure also includes all of Vice’s 1,100 headcount, editorial or not). The 30 bigs, which include places like HuffPo, Gawker, BuzzFeed, Mashable, Business Insider, and ProPublica, accounted for about 3,000 of the new jobs created by digital-first news organizations. Of the other sites, 241 have three or fewer full-time staffers.

Pew found that many of the new newsrooms focused their reporting on topic areas left vacant by downsized print newsrooms. The digital outlets fell into three areas: local or hyperlocal news (think The New Haven Independent or West Seattle Blog), investigative reporting on the local, state or international level (ProPublica or the New England Center for Investigative Reporting), and international news. The focus on international news has expanded in recent years, with some, like GlobalPost, focusing solely on foreign reporting, but others like Vice, BuzzFeed, and Quartz expanding into overseas operations.

Who’s coming onboard? The hiring mix includes both legacy journalists and newcomers. At the investigative outlets, the balance is on people from traditional backgrounds. Kevin Davis of the Investigative News Network told Pew that 80 percent of 600 staffers at the 92 newsrooms in the INN come from legacy backgrounds. Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget estimates 10 to 15 precent of his staff came from legacy media companies. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo told Pew half his editorial staff have legacy backgrounds, but that he also tends to hire younger people. BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith told Pew 20 to 30 percent of his editorial staff are on their first job.

Jobs report: For the time being, hiring seems to be disproportionately happening in the digital newsrooms. Using data from the American Society of Newspaper Editors’ annual newsroom census, the total number of full-time newsroom jobs in 2012 was 38,000. Between 2003 and 2012, 16,200 newsroom jobs were lost, according to ASNE. Similarly, Ad Age’s Data Bank reports that the number of magazine jobs has decreased by 26 percent in the past decade. (Pew also points out that job losses at Patch make the numbers for digital-only hiring less than rosy.)

Online video continues to grow

One indication of how people watch online video: 88 percent of smartphone owners watch online video, and 53 percent watch news video. By comparison, only 35 percent of those who don’t have smartphones watch online video. Younger viewers are also more likely to watch online video. Nine in ten 18- to 19-year-olds watch online videos, and 48 percent reported watching news videos. That matches the viewership of the 30 to 49 demographic, and is much greater than the other age groups.

pewdigitalvideo2013User-submitted video has become a part of most news operations, particularly for events like natural disasters, emergencies, and protests. But the number of people participating in creating those videos is relatively small: 36 percent of U.S. adults have reportedly shot video on their cellphone as of July 2013. Only 14 percent of social media users have posted photos of a news event to a social network and 12 percent have posted video. As for the audience submitting videos, photos, or writing to their favorite news outlet: Pew says 11 percent of “online news consumers” have provided a news outlet with content. That amounts to 7 percent of U.S. adults posting news video.

While digital video advertising is a small part of the overall digital ad pie — and even smaller still in the overall advertising picture — it’s growing. According to stats from eMarketer, video ads are growing 43.5 percent year over year. In 2013, digital video advertising revenue was estimated at $4.15 billion, up from $2.89 billion in 2012. However, according to the data, video advertising is only 10 percent of all digital ad revenue and 2 percent of all ad revenue.

Complicating things further is the fact that the online video advertising marketplace has quickly become crowded. Google, by way of YouTube, is the top online video property and the top destination for ads in the space, according to Pew. eMarketer projects that YouTube will pull in $850 million in video advertising in 2013, which would be about 20 percent of the overall video ad market. Fighting for the rest of that money are news organizations big and small, as well as places like Facebook. The slice of pie gets smaller when you factor in that news outlets share their revenue with ad networks.

On the local level: An audit of 32 local TV stations finds almost all (all but four) have video displayed on their homepages. The amounts vary among sites, and just half of the stations offer live-streaming video of their on-air programming. Interestingly, 24 of the stations have mobile apps that allow users to watch video. However, the type of video varied: More apps allowed users to watch clips, while fewer offered the option to watch live broadcasts. Pew found that many of the news sites host the videos on the sites themselves, rather than using YouTube or another service.

A big year for the business of local TV

In the local TV business, 2013 was dominated by business moves. In 2013, 290 stations were sold, up from only 95 the year before. The total value on those transactions in 2013 was $8.8 billion, according to data from BIA/Kelsey.

That’s changed the TV map around the country in a number of ways. According to Pew, a increasing number of stations in the same market are working through joint service agreements, meaning the stations are separately owned but operated together. Those agreements now exist in 94 markets, up from 55 in 2011, reaching almost half of the 210 local TV markets in the U.S.

The consolidation in local TV has also meant a shift in how news is produced by local stations. One in four stations do not produce the programs they air, according to data provided to Pew by the Radio Television Digital News Association. At the same time, content sharing is on the rise: More than three-quarters of local stations share stories with newspapers, radio stations, or other outlets in their community.

One interesting market: New Orleans. There, The Times-Picayune partners with WVUE, the Fox affiliate, where the station provides weather and video to the paper, and the paper’s reporters collaborate with TV reporters on projects and appear on air. Meanwhile, The New Orleans (née Baton Rouge) Advocate, which has risen as a competitor to The Times-Picayune, has a similar agreement with TV station WWL, recently sold by Belo to Gannett.

The hours of TV news being produced are still relatively high. The average hours of weekday news programming dropped by six minutes in 2012, but weekend newscasts increased by 11 percent on Saturday and 5 percent on Sunday in 2012. The biggest area of increase has been pre-dawn news, as the number of stations producing newscasts at 4:30 a.m. jumped to 634 in 2012, up from 245, according to Nielsen.

Getting a mix of news on social media

The distribution of news across social networks remains a mixed picture. As Pew reported last year, Facebook users are more likely to bump into news than seek it out. Facebook reaches far more adults in the U.S. than any other platform at 64 percent of the population. Still, only 30 percent of adults get news on Facebook. The numbers fall sharply from there. While 51 percent of adults use YouTube, only 10 percent get news there. As for Twitter, 16 percent of adults in the U.S. are sending and/or reading tweets, but only 8 percent are getting news there.

Facebook and search have become important to publishers as new pathways to stories. But Pew found that people who arrive on news stories through Facebook and search spend less time engaging with a site once they land there.

Facebooknewsengagement

This may be a surprise to media watchers who clock endless hours on Twitter, but Pew found that sentiment on issues in the news on Twitter differs from those in the broader public. After the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in 2012, Twitter conversation overwhelmingly supported stricter gun control, 64 percent to 21 percent. But a Pew Research Center survey during the same period found a close split in opinion, with 49 percent favoring more gun control and 42 percent saying they support protecting the rights of gun owners.

Full disclosure: Nieman Lab director Joshua Benton was a prerelease reviewer of parts of the report.

“To change destiny, journalists need to fundamentally rethink their business”

Posted: 25 Mar 2014 11:52 AM PDT

Ben Thompson, a smart observer of the technology world (lots of interesting stuff at his blog Stratechery), has a piece up on the future of news. It’s a useful outsider’s view of the business, and he’s right about the unsustainable nature of anything resembling the classic newspaper business model.

The reason why I find business models so fascinating is because your business model is your destiny; newspapers made their bed with advertisers, and when advertisers left for a better product, the newspaper was doomed. To change destiny, journalists need to fundamentally rethink their business:

— More and more journalism will be small endeavors, often with only a single writer. The writer will have a narrow focus and be an expert in the field they cover. Distribution will be free (a website), and most marketing will be done through social channels. The main cost will be the writer's salary.

— Monetization will come from dedicated readers around the world through a freemium model; primary content will be free, with increased access to further discussions, additional writing, data, the author, etc. available for-pay.

— A small number of dedicated news organizations focused on hard news (including the "Baghdad bureau") will survive after a difficult transition to a business model primarily focused on subscriptions, with premium advertising4 as a secondary line of revenue. This is the opposite of the traditional model, where advertising is the primary source of revenue, with subscriptions secondary.

This transition will be a painful one: the number of traditional journalists and newspapers will decrease dramatically. Moreover, those that succeed will need to have a much expanded skillset from journalists of yore, including basic website management, self-promotion, business skills, speaking ability, etc. (teaching these skills is an important opportunity for journalism schools). What is sure to be most frightening — or exciting, depending on your outlook — is that the market will, for the first time in the history of news, be the ultimate arbiter of what writers are worthwhile.

I think that’s mostly right (though I’d bet on networks combining/allying/providing backoffice services to those journalists rather than a sea of one-person operations). But it’s possible to think (a) the Internet is amazing, (b) the Internet has been amazing for news, opening up far greater access to content, far greater diversity of content, and far greater specialization of content, but also that (c) some of the things that the market won’t support are nonetheless worth doing.

That, to me, is the big remaining question: Who will do the long, inefficient-by-nature investigations and the watchdog coverage of the local governments too boring for most people to watch? It’s very easy to get nostalgic for the newspaper days and overestimate how much of that stuff really existed — plenty of corruption managed to slip past journalists even at newspapers’ financial peak. But that work and its benefits were real, and thus far, it barely exists online at the local level outside newspapers.

My guess at the answer to that question is some combination of (a) nonprofit news outlets reliant on the philanthropic market rather than the advertising or subscription ones, (b) the rumps of old newspapers, smaller but still intermittently fiesty, (c) some for-profit local startups, but very unevenly distributed. And (d) plenty of stories will be missed along the way.

But plenty of stories have always been missed. For me, the enormous explosion of everything else online is a more than fair trade for that. But that doesn’t make the loss any less real.

E&E Publishing is spending a lot of money on reporting most people won’t ever see

Posted: 25 Mar 2014 08:00 AM PDT

There’s a private company based in Washington that employs around 75 journalists. It has reporters in ten cities worldwide, including Houston, Dallas, L.A., San Francisco, Denver, St. Louis, Minneapolis, New York City, and Atlanta. It was founded in 1998 and has been growing steadily ever since. Annual subscriptions cost between $2,000 and $150,000, and subscribers include both Greenpeace and the Heritage Foundation. Somewhere around 70 new stories are published by this organization everyday. It has an in-house television studio, where new digital video content is filmed daily, and it recently expanded its staff.

If you know what the organization is, chances are you do some kind of work related to environmental and energy policy. If you don’t know the answer, fine: It’s Environment and Energy Publishing.

Private news networks, of course, have a long history, dating back to the connected correspondents who informed Europe’s wealthy before the mass media and papyrus swapping among the Roman elite. Today, Politico Pro and Bloomberg’s terminal business are among the most prominent examples. But it’s worth remembering the scale of journalistic resources that can be found within these private operations — and that what amounts to a giant paywall can support them.

E&E started out as a Capitol Hill clipping service and later evolved into a weekly newsletter. In 2000, its founders, Kevin Braun and Michael Witt, took the publication online. They also bought Greenwire from the National Journal, bringing a new population of subscribers with it.

“There used to be dozens and dozens of companies like ours, but most of those companies were wiped out over the last 20 years,” says Braun. “They didn’t adapt…A lot of the newsletter publishing industry was built on the idea of using relatively cheap reporters to put out information that wasn’t all that time sensitive, to be honest.”

There’s no outside money invested in E&E, so every step has meant personal risk for Braun and Witt. Today, their products include EnergyWire, ClimateWire, Greenwire, plus both E&E Daily and E&E PM, all of which is behind a paywall. There’s also a series of special reports on topics like drought, the Keystone pipeline, and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, plus OnPoint, their daily webcast. The majority of E&E customers subscribe to all of the products.

“It sort of destroys the business model if the information is available for free on a widespread basis,” says Braun. “I know people would like to see more of our content out there for general readers, but that’s not our job. Our job is to sell content to our client base.”

E&E used to have a content partnership with The New York Times, but that ended a few years ago. Today, some of their content (mostly ClimateWire) is republished by Scientific American and, occasionally, Accuweather. But with an annual subscription price in the thousands of dollars, it’s obvious that what E&E’s reporters are producing is not meant for the average consumer.

“Our client base is the usual suspects for people who are dealing with these kind of policy issues,” says Braun. “Law firms, federal agencies, state agencies, governors, Congress, the World Bank, major corporations, particularly energy companies, industrial manufacturers, environmental groups. We have a very large university audience, a very large think tank and foundation audience.”

Not that all their content is dry, policy stuff:

But broadly, E&E’s readers are people who need to be kept abreast of a wide swath of developments in the energy and environmental arenas. The value E&E offers them is the comprehensive nature of its coverage, for which they can charge a premium. Less than five percent of E&E’s revenue comes from ad sales. “We’re a resource people rely in order to be able to do their jobs effectively,” says Braun. “We don’t do conferences. We don’t do events. We try and keep it as simple and basic as we can.”

E&E did step away from this basic model eight years ago, when they launched their daily webcast.

“We wanted to have an opportunity to take some deeper one-on-one dives with important authors and thinkers and lawmakers and whatever, and capture that in what we thought was a new and exciting thing, which was the ability to do online streaming content,” says Braun. “We spent a lot of money and built an HD broadcast quality studio here in our offices, and everyday we shoot a show that’s a one-on-one deep dive. We don’t charge for it — it’s free. We do it because we think it’s good for the order.”

To produce content at the volume its clients need, E&E has to maintain a robust staff. I asked Braun how, in an age when reporters are encouraged to grow personal brands, he manages to hire journalists whose work will most likely never see a mass audience.

“Some of them are tired of being in newspaper newsrooms that are under constant financial pressure and downsizing and they find it depressing,” he says. “A lot of people were laid off, like the Washington bureau chief for The Denver Post. I’m more than happy to pick up those types of people. Some of his reporters have already had long careers in newspapers, but want to spend a few years digging into work they care about. “I’ve got guys in their mid seventies who are having the time of their lives,” says Braun.

For example, E&E has three reporters based in Texas covering the oil and gas industries, two of whom used to work for Bloomberg. Braun says they came to E&E for the chance to investigate stories like the consequences of fracking on local communities. “They wanted the opportunity to look at issues from a policy standpoint but also a human side,” says Braun. “They were in a region where we thought there was a lot happening that we couldn’t cover effectively from Washington.”

When it comes to deciding what E&E should and shouldn’t cover, analytics play a big role. It was with an eye to traffic that they launched ClimateWire in 2008; seeing attention to stories on fracking and the like rise, they launched EnergyWire in 2012. But E&E has also used feedback from its proprietary analytics system to decide when its time to scale back on coverage.

“We’ve learned some things that have really shaped our thinking. One of them is, international stories are really not all that successful for us. They don’t really do well for most of our audience,” he says. “Despite our best efforts, and a lot of time and money, we’ve concluded we’ve got to be somewhat judicious and cautious in how much international coverage we put out there, because a lot of our audience just isn’t interested.”

Braun says E&E has considered third-party metrics software over the years, but always end up sticking with their custom platform. The kind of close monitoring they do, Braun says, helps them keep tabs on clients and gauge how and if they’re using the product.

“We were able to link all kinds of different sources of information: We can look at what’s going on with our individual accounts, what’s going on with the story performance on a given day, what’s going on with revenue and sales and all of that, through one integrated system,” he says. “It’s easier for us to know what’s happening in our business in real time across the board.”

Where’s that leading E&E next? They’ve spent the last three months building out their staff in preparation for an expansion of their energy coverage. “We just doubled down on that a little bit. It was originally designed to cover unconventional energy development — fracking, deep water, stuff like that. We decided we were only looking at half the important changes going on in the energy game, so we hired five or six additional reporters to look at the sizable changes that are occurring in the electric utility industry,” says Braun. The next step, he says, is to make sure their audience is aware that they’re delivering that content.

E&E has few direct competitors, according to Braun. Congressional Quarterly, National Journal, and Politico Pro all sell expensive subscriber products to people and organizations with stakes in public policy. E&E’s topic focus aligns it with something like Jessica Lessin’s The Information, which she recently said is growing despite its annual subscription fee of $399.

“It’s not like we’re reaching five million people — that’s not our intent,” says Braun. “There are only so many people that really care about energy and environmental policy.”

Photo of power lines by Matti Frisk used under a Creative Commons license.

Selasa, 25 Maret 2014

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


At The Oregonian, reporters will be evaluated in part on how much copy they crank out for the web

Posted: 24 Mar 2014 08:32 AM PDT

In the Portland alt-weekly Willamette Week, Aaron Mesh has word of a new evaluation system for journalists at The Oregonian — one of Advance Publications’ daily newspapers that have been rendered less than daily in print.

Internal documents obtained by WW show that a quota system is being put in place that calls for steep increases in posting to Oregonlive.com, and promises compensation for those employees who post most often.

The new policy, shown to the editorial staff in a PowerPoint presentation in late February, provides that as much as 75 percent of reporters' job performance will be based on measurable web-based metrics, including how often they post to Oregonlive.com.

Beat reporters will be expected to post at least three times a day, and all reporters are expected to increase their average number of posts by 40 percent over the next year.

In addition, reporters have been told to stir up online conversations among readers.

David Carr has a column tied to the same information and riffing on the general idea of tying compensation to metrics.

Mesh called me a few days ago to ask what I thought of this arrangement, and I think it’s fair to say I’m less outraged by it than a lot of people:

"Advance, for better or for worse, has been the most aggressive American newspaper company in moving to the web," says Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab. "This is their bet. It makes sense that they would want to align their staff with that bet."

Here’s what I mean. Advance has decided the way forward for newspapers is to get to a digital orientation as quickly as possible. Remaining tethered to print means that reader behaviors won’t change fast enough, ad sales behaviors won’t change fast enough, and editorial behaviors won’t change fast enough. Keeping the focus on print may well mean more revenue in the short term, but it delays the changes that’ll be necessary for the long term, since no one thinks print is going to make a stunning comeback anytime soon. So Advance has chosen radical action: stopping daily printing and/or daily home delivery at its papers, laying off a big chunk of their newsrooms, and demanding a shift to shorter online content and audience engagement.

That’s their bet. It may be a good bet or a bad bet. I tend to side with Ken Doctor when he argues the print losses end up being greater than the digital gains. And it’s a strategy that relies on the assumption that you’ll have the remaining print market to yourself — which is what makes the incursion of Baton Rouge’s Advocate into New Orleans so threatening.

But it’s their bet. And even though there are parts of it I don’t like — and even though there are good questions about whether these metrics and these standards are the right ones — I for one am happy to see newspaper companies making big bets. Because even if some (most!) of them are wrong, we know that continuing down the road the industry’s been on the past decade — cuts every year, smaller papers, weaker but still traditional journalism, neverending advertising decline, constantly aging audience — leads nowhere. That really can’t be emphasized enough: Other than what’s looking like a one-time bump from paywall revenue, the basic narrative of metro newspaper revenues has been virtually unchanged for years.

So we need big bets. And if we’re going to have big bets, we should have staff and incentive structures that line up with that bet.

Look at a paper making a different bet, The Globe and Mail. Canada’s national newspaper is betting that a paywall will be a big part of its financial future. So how is it aligning its staff resources? It’s tying compensation for some employees to paywall performance — how successful a given section’s articles were in converting readers to subscribers. A very different bet, but a similar alignment of incentives and goals.

Slate gets into the membership business with Slate Plus

Posted: 24 Mar 2014 08:04 AM PDT

Slate hopes its readers want to become members.

This week the site plans to launch Slate Plus for $5 a month or $50 a year. The membership program is something like a modified digital subscription, but not a traditional paywall, as nonpaying readers will still have unlimited access to most of the features on Slate.com.

What will members get? From The New York Times:

A Slate Plus membership will give readers special access to the site's editors and writers, as well as members-only discussions with Emily Yoffe, Slate's Dear Prudence advice columnist. Members will also be invited to give advice on which politicians or entertainers they would like to see profiled.

On top of that, members will also be able get access to ad-free versions of Slate’s network of podcasts. Members will also get reserved seats at Slate events (not free, but at discounted prices).

This is not the first time Slate has tried to convert readers into paying customers. In 1998 the site experimented with a paywall, asking readers for $20 a year. That plan was subsequently scrapped and the site reverted to a free model.

But the site began offering hints it was again moving into paid content in 2012, when it polled readers on their willingness to pay for Slate’s content. At the time, Slate Group chairman Jacob Weisberg was very adamant that the site was not pursuing a “pay model.”

Back to the newsroom: A new program lets professors go back to the thick of today’s news work

Posted: 24 Mar 2014 08:00 AM PDT

Before joining the faculty of Savannah State University last year to teach multimedia journalism, Jessica Sparks had spent her career working for local, community news organizations like Bluffton Today in Bluffton, S.C. But this summer, Sparks will have the opportunity to work in the newsroom of a slightly larger outlet: The Wall Street Journal.

Sparks is one of five journalism instructors who will have their own internships of sorts as part of the initial class of Back in the Newsroom, a program run by the International Center for Journalists that aims to improve instructors’ digital journalism skills while also fostering diversity in newsrooms. It’s an effort to better align what students are learning and the real-world demands of today’s news business.

“This is a way to keep the professors on the cutting edge of what’s really going on and what the needs are in the newsroom and the technology that’s new in the newsroom really is, ” ICFJ president Joyce Barnathan told me. “Plus, obviously, what they see and what they learn gets transferred into a new and better curriculum.”

The program, which will initially focus on professors from historically black colleges and universities, is funded by a $183,000 grant from the Knight Foundation (disclosure: Knight also supports Nieman Lab), and The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, CNBC, and The Washington Post are the participating news organizations. The profs will all have a two-day orientation in Washington with ICFJ and then spend about nine weeks this summer in their respective newsrooms, where they will focus on operational areas like multimedia reporting, data-based reporting, social media, and more.

After the professors head back to campus in the fall, ICFJ plans to check in with them periodically to see how they’ve implemented their programs and whether the summer in the newsroom changed their approach toward teaching. With that feedback, ICFJ, Knight, and the participating news organizations will look at whether to continue the program and how to possibly expand it to additional universities and newsrooms while making it self-sustaining.

Raju Narisetti, News Corp’s senior vice president for strategy and an ICFJ board member, was influential in bringing the proposal to Knight; Knight saw Back in the Newsroom as a way to advance its efforts in encouraging newsroom diversity and further its work with historically black colleges and universities, said John Bracken, Knight's director of journalism and media innovation.

“The cutbacks in newsrooms have disproportionately affected minority journalists, and I think African-American journalists even more, so that’s something we’ve been conscious of,” Bracken said. “And second, journalism programs at HBCUs, where we’ve done a little bit of work over the years, have also faced a series of challenges where their faculty are more likely to be overworked and teaching a fuller slate of courses per semester.”

While minorities make up about 37 percent of the U.S. population, only 12.37 percent of the journalists in today’s newspaper newsrooms are racial minorities, according to the American Society of News Editors’ latest survey of newsroom diversity. By focusing the program on historically black schools, the ICFJ and participating news organizations hope they can reach a more diverse pool of aspiring journalists.

And the participating instructors, a number of whom who have not worked in a newsroom for several years, also said that they hope to use their time in the program to gain skills and build relationships that will ultimately help their students.

“My students really deserve the opportunity to show the world that they are not a stereotype,” Sparks said. “Many of them do come from hard situations, so I’d like them to get in an opportunity like an internship at The Wall Street Journal.”

Sparks will work with the Journal’s real-time news desk, “the desk where everything comes together,” said Michelle LaRoche, the Journal’s editor for development. Staffers there write, edit, and publish news for the Journal’s newswires, website, and apps. And she’s not going to be there just to observe, LaRoche said. She’ll be an active member of the team that deals with breaking news on a daily basis.

“It’s going to give her a really good picture of working in a fast-paced, real-time environment in the newsroom,” LaRoche said. “I think that’s the heart of any newsroom now where real-time news is so critical.”

The instructors all stressed the importance of what they’ll be able to take back to their students. Each will have to develop a project during their fellowship that they will then implement in their classrooms when they get back to campus next fall. Morgan State University professor Jerry Bembry, who will work on USA Today’s video team, is still developing his plan, but said he would like it to include his students producing videos that will be published on USA Today’s website.

Similarly, Howard University’s Yolanda McCutchen’s background is in broadcast news, having worked for Dateline before joining the faculty at Howard in 2009. But this summer, she’ll work for The Washington Post, attached to the Post’s video team for half the summer, and she said she hopes to use the experience to demonstrate to her students that there are broadcast opportunities outside of traditional television.

“You may not be breaking in at a news station, but you’re still doing news, but for what used to be a traditional print outlet,” she said.

Photo of The New York Times newsroom in 1942 from the Library of Congress.

Sabtu, 22 Maret 2014

Nieman Journalism Lab

Nieman Journalism Lab


One-shining-moment alert: Two news developers built a Twitter bot to tell you when the game is getting good

Posted: 21 Mar 2014 08:50 AM PDT

Found yourself sitting at your desk this week, furtively checking the score to see if anything exciting is happening? Toggle no more: Two members of the WNYC Data News Team have a bot for that.

The New York Times has shown with their currently-on-hiatus 4th Down Bot that sports and automated reporting on social media go hand in hand. With March Madness in full swing, the time is ripe for another stab at the sports bot.

Veltman is a former Knight-Mozilla OpenNews fellow who recently joined Jenny Ye at WNYC.

The toy was an instant hit, and suggests there’s room for a lot more innovating in the sports bot space.

Veltman says he was “initially was scraping the scoreboard directly,” but realized he could get more accurate, timely data from “the JSONP file that powers the scoreboard on NCAA.com.” The developers in the audience should look for a Source post explaining the nitty-gritty next week.

And, in other news:

This Week in Review: Nate Silver and data journalism’s critics, and the roots of diversity problems

Posted: 21 Mar 2014 05:26 AM PDT

This week’s essential reads: Only have a minute? The key pieces this week are Nate Silver’s introductory data journalism manifesto for FiveThirtyEight, Benjamin Wallace-Wells on the enormous expectations for Silver, and Shani O. Hilton and Zeynep Tufekci on the roots of newsroom diversity problems.

High expectations for FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver relaunched his data-driven blog, FiveThirtyEight, this week under the auspices of ESPN as a full-blown data journalism site covering sports, politics, economics, science, and culture with a masthead of about 20. Silver introduced the new site with a manifesto for his style of data journalism, outlining a four-step process of collection, organization, explanation, and generalization and critiquing traditional journalism for its poor job of approaching anecdotes and data, particularly on the latter two steps.

Silver’s manifesto and his brand of data journalism received some swift blowback. The New Republic’s Marc Tracy faulted Silver for focusing too heavily on outcomes, arguing that “Silver's outcome-intensive approach risks obscuring the processes and the personalities, the ideas and the ideologies, which in politics matter also.” His colleague at The New Republic, Leon Wieseltier, wrote a more sweeping condemnation of Silver’s approach, defending opinions and the beliefs that lie behind them and criticizing Silver’s claims to neutrality.

Likewise, The Week’s Ryan Cooper also expressed skepticism about Silver’s professed neutrality, claiming that his true ideological commitment is contrarianism. Financial journalist Matt Stoller combed through Silver’s old writings on the financial crisis to find an ideology that values expert opinion and action over mass political movement. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman chastised Silver and FiveThirtyEight for trying to let data speak for itself rather than examining and testing their own assumptions about it. More broadly, Quartz’s Allison Schrager encouraged data journalists to use data simply, carefully, and with appropriate context.

Much of the site’s initial output came under scrutiny as well. Economist Tyler Cowen said its articles are in an awkward in-between space: “too superficial for smart and informed readers, yet on topics which are too abstruse for the more casual readers.” Its early pieces on health news and climate change came under fire from the Knight Science Journalism Tracker and ThinkProgress, respectively.

In a perceptive piece, New York’s Benjamin Wallace-Wells suggested that the reason Silver (along with his peers in new news ventures, Vox’s Ezra Klein and First Look’s Glenn Greenwald) is being judged so harshly is that his site is seen within professional journalism as an experiment in reclaiming some of its expertise from the morass of mindless punditry. “The hope invested in these projects is that as the industry shrank, perhaps, at the very least, what was left might become smarter. The profession has retreated, but maybe it has retreated to higher ground.” NYU’s Jay Rosen expanded on this point, parsing out what exactly is the bet FiveThirtyEight is making — that smarter methods for journalism can work.

Others examined the practical side of the new FiveThirtyEight — whether its data-heavy journalism can appeal to a large enough audience to sustain its newly increased size. The Guardian’s James Ball and Gigaom’s Mathew Ingram both explored this question, and TechCrunch’s Gregory Ferenstein called it the central one in FiveThirtyEight’s success: “Silver's experiment isn't a test of whether data journalism can work; it's a test of how nerdy the Internet's news audience is.” Ben Thompson saw the site as an example of the high-quality content online that’s replaced the average local news content that used to make up our media diets.

diversity-spools-thread

Networks, culture, and journalism’s diversity problems: Just before its launch, FiveThirtyEight, as well as Vox and First Look Media’s The Intercept, also took heat for a different type of shortcoming — their lack of diversity. Columbia journalism professor and former Guardian digital editor Emily Bell criticized the sites last week for replicating traditional journalism’s white male-dominated power structure.

This week, Sara Morrison got a response from The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald indicating his efforts to add more diversity and his regrets at not having had more at launch. Greenwald and First Look editor Eric Bates talked about the value of going outside their established networks for diverse hires and held up Recode as an example of a startup with a remarkably diverse staff in a field — tech journalism — dominated by white men.

BuzzFeed’s Shani O. Hilton argued that building a diverse staff that goes beyond single representatives of each group is quite difficult, even if you’re earnestly trying, because the networks used to draw new hires are so limited. “The journos of color and women aren't networking with white dudes doing the hiring because it isn't in their DNA,” Hilton wrote. She encouraged both editors and job-seekers to think outside their networks and put aside their pride in order to enhance diversity.

Digital First’s Mandy Jenkins also pinpointed the network problem, noting that many jobs are filled via networks before they’re even posted and urging news organizations to post their jobs early in the process to draw diverse candidates outside their networks. The National Association of Black Journalists also offered some useful tips for finding and attracting talented minority journalists.

Sociology professor Zeynep Tufekci said the problem (and solution) goes beyond networks to the culture that the tech world builds up around itself. Tufekci explained how the tech and news worlds, despite seeing themselves as outsiders from the larger macho culture, can create their own exclusionary male culture without realizing it. Bell revisited and reflected on the variety of responses to her initial piece, reiterating her point that the diversity debate is still very much worth having.

twitter-public-cc

How public are tweets?: BuzzFeed’s Jessica Testa rather unwittingly prompted an interesting discussion on the publicness of Twitter and social media journalism ethics with a post last week collecting responses on Twitter to a question about what people were wearing when they were sexually assaulted. Testa received permission from each of the people whose tweets she posted, but not from Christine Fox, who posted the question and retweeted the responses.

At Global Voices, Jillian C. York summarized the criticism of Testa’s post and the debate that followed, which centered on how public content on Twitter should be considered and what obligation journalists might have before republishing that content anywhere else. Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan issued a forceful defense of Twitter’s publicness, and Poynter’s Kelly McBride was skeptical of Fox’s objection to using the story without her permission, questioning, “Because you pose a question that provokes an interesting answer, does that give an ethical claim to control the story that emerges?” (McBride also followed up with lessons learned through a factual error she made in the post.)

The Daily Dot’s Kate Knibbs said that while Twitter is indeed public, the decision to republish content there is still subject to the same standards of compassion and decency that should govern our lives everywhere else. Alex Howard of TechRepublic sounded a similar note: “Just because tweets are public doesn’t mean journalists with a huge platform should automatically amplify them, particularly if doing so doesn’t serve a newsworthy purpose or serve the public interest — and if the updates touch upon a sensitive subject, as these did.” Slate’s Amanda Hess talked to several news organizations about how they’re weighing the changing definitions of publicness and privacy online.

ReadWrite’s Selena Larson and Forbes’ Jeff Bercovici both looked at Twitter’s role in determining the expectations of publicness and privacy on its network, both noting that the company has played things very hands-off, leaving a great deal of ambiguity. As Bercovici said, Twitter can’t declare its network public without alienating a core group of its users, and it can’t publicly affirm the privacy of its tweets without slowing down conversation around it and frustrating journalists.

Reading roundup: A few other stories worth taking a look at from this week:

— Los Angeles Times journalist Ken Schwencke used an algorithm that he programmed called Quakebot to write a story on the earthquake that hit the L.A. area early Monday morning. The Wire’s Eric Levenson and Poynter’s Andrew Beaujon talked to Schwencke about Quakebot. Ryan Calo of Forbes looked at the legal aspects of bot reporting.

— The Media Insight Project published a study on how Americans consume news, and the Associated Press reported on it as encouraging evidence of consumers’ desire for meatier news, while The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza saw an appetite for quick headlines and little else. The Lab’s Justin Ellis looked at a few other trends revolving around topics, news cycles, and trust.

— A few notes on the continued fallout from Newsweek’s troubled bitcoin cover story: Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto, the man Newsweek identified as the creator of bitcoin, issued a statement denying the claim and saying he’d hired a lawyer. Reuters’ Felix Salmon annotated the statement, and law professor Eugene Volokh looked at the legal case for any potential suit. Ars Technica’s Joe Mullin called for a retraction, and The Daily Dot’s Ben Branstetter saw the episode as an example of the emptiness of “meet the man behind X” stories in the Internet age.

— A few final pieces to take a look at: New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan launched AnonyWatch, “an effort to point out some of the more regrettable examples of anonymous quotations in The Times,” the American Journalism Review’s Mary Clare Fischer looked at some news organizations’ reluctance to give out metrics information to reporters, and here at the Lab, Center for Investigative Reporting fellow Lindsay Green-Barber wrote about efforts to measure impact in investigative journalism.

Photo of Nate Silver from 2012 by AP/Nam Y. Huh. Image of Twitter bird by katska used under a Creative Commons license.