It’s been thrilling to be on the street for the revolution that is unfolding in our business. And of course we’re not alone. In January 2007, Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris, the former Washington Post political reporters, started Politico, which has capitalized on the most exciting election in a generation and done an excellent job building a news organization that has become a must-read for political junkies. Less than a year before our launch, Paul Steiger, the legendary Wall Street Journal editor, got his nonprofit ProPublica off the ground. More reporters and editors are and will emerge from the traditions of great newsrooms to try to find a niche for well-reported storytelling in the digital age.
There are many of you in your cubicles in the newsroom or your home offices now, I expect, plotting your own escape from mainstream media, and I encourage you to break out. It is an exciting time, a historic shift in how the world will be informed. I compare it to the Middle Ages. The entities that make up the Holy Roman Empire of journalism—the big city newspapers and networks—are seeing the reach of their far-flung armies diminish as smaller principalities emerge and construct their own walled city states.
I still nervously hope that those of us who’ve made the jump will not be remembered as Don Quixotes tilting at windmills. I try hard to convince myself on the drive home from work at the end of some very long days that we are more akin to knights of a new order, marching out with battered armor to slay some dragons.
Despite the deep admiration I have for Charles Sennott, I worry about the motivations for beliefs like this: Global Post's business plan "was written with a philosophy that I had come to respect: quality journalism has value and it needs to be paid for." Why must that be philosophy? As a practical matter, I'm certainly fine with a publisher charging for content if it can. But I see no defensible grounds for a philosophy (dogma?) that the way to monetize journalism is by selling content. There are so many other options, as these guys well know.
#1 Posted by Josh Young, CJR on Tue 3 Mar 2009 at 02:22 PM
GlobalPost is a BS news outlet. Don't let Mark full you here. Pure BS. Why? They lump Taiwan in as part of China on their intl news page, calling Taiwan part of some imaginary country or place called "China and its neighbors", which lumps Taiwan in the communist pile, but does not put Japan or South Korea there, although those countries are also neighbors to China. So why only Taiwan? because the GlobalPost has no cojones to stand up for freeedon and challenge communist China. i have written 25 letters to Mark and go no reply on this. This GlobalPost thing is pure BS. Mark, face the facts, man.
#2 Posted by Danny Bloom, CJR on Thu 5 Mar 2009 at 08:33 PM
Kindle as a verb has now been accepted officiallt Wikipedia and Urbandictionary, can you pass this info on to Michael and Karen, thanks
DANNY BLOOM in Taiwan, who did the legwork on this.!
Some Kindle users are now using the word "kindle" as a verb as in "Are you kindling?" or "I am kindling now and will call you back in one hour" or "I love to kindle on my Kindle now." The editors at UrbanDictionary have accepted the word as a verb now, since it is in common usage on the blogosphere. The defintion reads: "To read a book or a newspaper on a Kindle e-reading device."
In fact, the name "Kindle" was conceived by San Francisco designer Michael Cronan, and according to his wife and partner, Karen Hibma, "we wanted it to be memorable, and meaningful in many ways of expression, from 'I love curling up with my Kindle to read a new book' to 'When I'm stuck in the airport or on line, I can Kindle my newspaper, favorite blogs or half a dozen books I'm reading'", so the use of "kindle" as both a noun and a verb was already set in motion from the very beginning. WIth the uppercase the word or lowercase it depends on how it is used, of course. As a proper noun, it should be uppercased. As a verb, it should be lowercased, but it may be uppercased as well.
#3 Posted by danny, CJR on Thu 5 Mar 2009 at 09:49 PM
Global Post offered to publish a story I proposed at what amounted to 26 cents per word. The terms: they would own exclusive rights to the writing worldwide into eternity as well as the rights to all material related to the work. This is something Mr. Sennott does not address as he describes the struggle to get GlobalPost off the ground. With non-negotiable terms like this for freelancers, I fail to see how quality journalists will agree to give away their work and all rights to it into perpetuity. It is Global Post's right to make money from freelance writing to sustain themselves, but in the end, the brands consistent with quality content will survive. This requires negotiating with freelancers to come to terms that are fair and equitable to both sides, not just one. The idea that Global Post is somehow different from the corporate media, based on the terms that were offered to me, is simply inaccurate.
#4 Posted by Kristen Gillespie, CJR on Thu 12 Mar 2009 at 02:34 AM
As a former Brazilian correspondent in Washington, DC, and now a journalism and new media reporting lecturer at the University of Miami School of Communication, I find this initiative one of the best opportunities for all journalists, young and old. Check my full comments @http://newmediareporting.com
#5 Posted by Chris Delboni, CJR on Wed 18 Mar 2009 at 03:46 PM
Well, good luck. But if your site is anything like your article, nearly three pages about yourself and virtually nothing about your editorial product or financial progress, it must be very thin soup. Enquiring minds want to know: are you making it or not? Are papers and others paying for your product or not? How can you advise those of us with jobs to "break out" if you don't give us the facts? Just the facts.
#6 Posted by Stuart, CJR on Fri 24 Apr 2009 at 11:41 PM