We usually spend time discussing new gadgets or the latest online or mobile usage trend, but today, we're going to kick it old school. One of The Baron's great pleasures in life is reading the work of Gary Smith. Smith has worked for Sports Illustrated for the last 25 years and is one of the greatest writers of his generation. I know what you're thinking. He's just a sports writer. Well, he is a sports writer, but he's so much more than that. If you don't believe us, check out this review from The New York Times. In case you're too lazy to click over, they refer to him as "the most decorated journalist you’ve probably never heard of."
Smith, who has won four National Magazine Awards, just released a new book, Going Deep: 20 Classic Sports Stories. In it, he compiles his 20 favorite stories. I don't know which of his stories are in there -- other than a few listed in the above link. My personal favorite? The story about the black basketball coach who broke down barriers in a Mennonite community in Ohio. If you have the next 45 minutes free, you can read it here. Enjoy.
Gary Smith: One of the Great Writers of His Generation
Newspapers Spar with AP over Rates, Coverage
First, let me say welcome to our friends at PoliticizeMatters. The blogosphere is a better place with you in it. Now, on with the show.
The Newark-Star Ledger today published an edition without any content from the Associated Press. There is some question as to whether this is a protest of new AP rates or simply a way to save some cash and see if any readers complain. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune recently told the AP that it will cancel its AP contract in 2010. In that case, the move was financially motivated. Interesting.
While newspapers have gone hyperlocal with their coverage, I always thought the AP model worked because papers could get a huge wealth of stories for a minimal fee. Maybe the fee isn't as minimal as I expected, though it's still cheaper than hiring large-scale staff. The rates themselves are based on what type of coverage the paper uses (breaking news, international, national, etc.). Ultimately, the AP needs these member papers as much as they need the AP, so I'm sure if several papers move to this model, then the AP will be forced to adjust its pricing structure.
The problem would be if the papers just decide to go with local and breaking news coverage. People already look only at the headlines -- if that -- as witnessed by the McCain campaign's effective headline-grabbing strategy. No one cares that McCain used the "lipstick on a pig" line to Hillary. They just know that McCain's people screamed about it when Obama used it on their campaign. This is a problem. Overall, we are no longer a society well-educated on the issues. We just know who we like and who we don't. That's what informs our decisions.
Certainly, if this no-AP policy were to come to fruition, people could go online and find out international news and major national stories and they can watch on TV, but I would argue that there is already a lack of awareness of what's happening in the world and in this global economy, America can't afford that.
Web-Only Series Only a Dream at This Point
One of the few places the web has not taken over is in producing original video content intended for large audiences. There have been no real web series of note at this point despite the hoards of folks who now watch TV shows online. Mike Hale had an article on this in yesterday's New York Times. Hale lists off some current web series and explains where they are lacking.
A few things to keep in mind here: The web's fragmented landscape could mean that it's difficult to gain a large audience. In addition, the strength of the web is its ability to allow anyone to create content. If you can't pull in the large audience, it may not be worthwhile to create high-quality content -- particularly when several quick entertaining clips were created by 100 other users. The only way to effectively distribute these series is through established studios and networks which have the money to produce a quality series, but if significant ad dollars aren't there -- and why would they be if the large audience isn't there? -- then it's going to be a struggle to get web-only series off the ground.
That said, as a laboratory for content, nothing beats what the web provides. The viral nature of content still gives young writers and creators a chance to produce something worthwhile of mass attention. It will be a while, however, before we see a breakthrough web-only series.
This Beam is Not Balanced
On the way back from a European vacation -- loved that movie -- with the Baroness, I was reading the International Herald Tribune when I came across a column from The Boston Globe's Alex Beam. I know nothing about Beam, but the column caught my eye because it was about Twitter, the social networking site on which a friend can send you updates on how the haircut is going. Basically it's a site to let people know what's up.
I doubt Twitter has much staying power, but I'm certainly no final authority on the subject. Let the Twitter folks do what they want. Beam took a decidedly less moderate stance, blasting the site and those who use it, including Barack Obama and the State of Rhode Island. Why does old media have to seem so old all the time? Clearly, Beam decided it would be amusing to write a column in short bursts like the copy used on Twitter, but what is the columnist's point? I have no idea. I may not be the smartest guy in the room, but if I can't figure out the point of the column, Beam is in trouble. Being a columnist at a major metro daily used to carry such weight, but it just doesn't anymore -- except maybe at The New York Times. There's too much great content out there in so many places that people like Beam have become less relevant and let's be honest, it shows in the work.
We Like the Web, But That May Not Be a Good Thing
This just in: People like the Internet. Yup.
The latest evidence comes from a few places. In the news category we find that newspapers are reporting a 12% growth in online readership, amounting to a truly stunning 40% of all Interweb users. In the entertainment realm, a new survey claims that 20% of "TV" viewers are now watching shows online. The last number is certainly surprising, but what would be more interesting to see is whether people watch more TV than they did previously because they're watching online. DVRs have caused people to watch more, and overall media consumption keeps going up. The article alludes to some of that, but it doesn't address it head on. I would be shocked to find that people are replacing TV with online viewing and not just adding to their existing viewing habits.
This article actually brings up a larger issue. I searched for the survey results or some article not written by a wire service. Impossible. I got to the website for IMMI, the survey company, and everything they give for free (the deeper dive will cost you) was included in the wire service story. Is anyone actually reading/ordering the survey or are we content to read the executive summary and just post it everywhere? I don't even know if there are TV reporters working at newspapers anymore. If there are, they're either busy packing their belongings into a cardboard box or they have no idea how to use the Internet and they're still using AOL mail.
The problem in journalism these days is that there is no money or time to bring someone in to do analysis. Seemingly, it's the one industry where the amount of analysis and deep thinking has decreased over the last decade. Hopefully, some reporter out there will get ahold of the survey and educate the rest of us. No offense to the folks at wire services -- they do great work -- but their system is not built for enterprise work.
Somehow MSNBC Ranks at Top of News Sites
Nielsen is out with data on the top news sites on the web. A lot of what you would expect: The Huffington Post had the biggest gains since last year percentage-wise, Google and Yahoo are near the top of the list, etc. One of the most surprising revelations, though, is that the MSNBC Digital Network is the top news site. Maybe I'm biased because I don't see their promos during The Today Show (not a fan). How can they be the news destination on the web? I assume this has something to do with MSN Mail, particularly since Yahoo is right behind them, but it's surprising that MSN beat out Yahoo.
E-mail must be driving that train, which is why it's a bit surprising to see Google News behind some of the newspaper sites. Also surprising is that The New York Daily News' traffic is up 109%. They must have poached some of The New York Post's writers.
If these traffic figures could somehow translate into ad dollars, all would be right with the world, but that's not the case. The Baron believes that the ad dollars will be there eventually, though things could get worse in the news business before they get better. The New York Times is a great brand -- something Rupert understood about The Wall Street Journal -- and a great news organization. There's no reason to think it can't succeed online. It just may have to cut back -- or, gulp, give up -- the print edition. Maybe they should just start nytimes mail.
Changing the Online Newspaper Model
While we were enjoying a lovely 4th out in the wilderness with the family, we spied an insightful take on modern journalism from Timothy Egan (a favorite of The Baron's brother, if that matters at all). Writing for one of The New York Times blogs -- oh, the irony -- Egan points out that as newspapers reach more and more readers online, they continue to slash jobs. While he seems to veer off topic a bit at the end of the blog post, Egan's point is a good one.
So how do newspapers make money when online ad revenue is so puny compared to print ad revenue? One way is to get past the homepage model. The homepage should be a vehicle to the major stories a paper has to offer. Most papers, though -- and the Times is particularly guilty of this -- cram as much as they can on the homepage because they know readers won't go particularly deep. I think they need to change that model and flesh out the main stories ever more deeply with extra analysis and other content, while using the homepage as a gateway to the rest of the paper. Streamline the sites and make the content easily accessible through search and menus. That would offer a chance for readers to get deeper into the site, spend more time there and see more ads, mimicking the print experience. Of course, RSS feeds bypass this solution, but those are still only very popular with the tech savvy crowd.
Another problem -- and this is constantly being debated -- is what determines online engagement. Egan quotes a Nielsen stat about visitors, but visitors are no longer viewed as the default measurement in the digital research world. Folks there also focus on page views, time spent on the site and page views per visit. If newspaper sites looked at this information and created some sort of combined rating, they could determine how their sites are being used and they could optimize for that. It's a lot easier to say than to do, but there are a lot of people who care about this -- just look at how many comments his post received -- and the print industry should look for creative solutions from passionate readers, shareholders and staff members.
