From The Atlantic’s James Warren:
Shhhh. Newspaper publishers are quietly holding a very, very important conclave today. Will you soon be paying for online content?
“Models to Monetize Content” is the subject of a gathering at a hotel which is actually located in drab and sterile suburban Rosemont, Illinois…
There’s no mention on its website but the Newspaper Association of America, the industry trade group, has assembled top executives of the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication Inc., among more than two dozen in all…
Cross one’s fingers that a dirty little industry secret, namely the qualitative decline of many papers (the New York Times a notable exception) amid rampant cost-cutting, doesn’t now give even long-loyal consumers legitimate pause about paying up…
Oh, I hope they do that. It will create a huge opportunity for other people to provide news services, while the entrenched corporate media starves itself to death.
#1 Posted by Stephen Downes, CJR on Thu 28 May 2009 at 12:51 PM
"Monitizing" anything is a business decision, and here's hoping it works. "Free" online news was a sledge hammer to the head of newspapers.
But here's a good, perhaps better, idea: Newspaper execs ought to ban having their reporters comment on TV and news shows. It's rampant, it's laziness on the part of broadcast journalists (get a real expert for your segment, not a fellow journalist, please), and it undercuts the reading public's trust in the objectivity of writers. Earlier this week, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer had The N.Y. Times' Micheline Maynard and L.A. Times' Dan Neil to talk about the fate of General Motors. The two (fine) journalists offered their opinions, which no doubt will be remembered by those who disagree with those opinions, and which will taint their objectivity with those and other readers of their articles. Matt Lauer routinely "interviews" fellow NBC or CNBC reporters. Broadcasters may call their shows "analysis," but news "consumers" probably miss the distinction.
Having their reporters on TV shows give newspapers visibility, but the cost in the public's trust is simply not worth it.
#2 Posted by Paul Brown, CJR on Sat 30 May 2009 at 10:24 PM