Change! (your target audience)

It has been suggested that certain industries have had to adapt their focus in order to survive.

Bicycles, once thought of as a viable means of transportation for the masses, were eventually redefined to be recreational and exercise equipment with the proliferation of the automobile. Fountain pens, once the only pen available, had to be redefined as a luxurious symbol of affluence in order to remain profitable.

It seems that the newspaper industry is taking a clue from the fountain pen and painting itself, at least in some cases, as a tool for the rich.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has just started a magazine, "I," to be distributed in the newspapers circulation in affluent zip codes. With glossy pages and features including topics geared toward wealthy readers.

I see this as a move to guarantee the patronage of wealthy readers, presenting "richly" targeted articles on a "wealth" of topics exclusive to the magazine. The Philly Inquirer is taking a step already made by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

To move from a commonplace source of news to a luxury afforded the elite could provide a new business model to the ailing industry, though the already inherent problems with newspapers would carry over. By altering their content to more in-depth, comprehensive news instead of breaking news, however, emulating a news magazine, would probably be a better move. Breaking news is now a product of the Internet and 24-hour news stations. In this way, a magazine published by a newspaper is a good idea; catering to the rich may provide a safety cushion for a few thousand readers, but such a move is not the silver bullet.

Bailout for Journalists

Six Apart, an online media company in the business of aiding bloggers, has offered up what it calls "The TypePad Journalist Bailout Program" or "TypePad for Journalists."

The creators are offering what they see as a tool for journalists to bypass traditional media outlets and report the news on their own, independently. TypePad is a blogging software that Six Apart is offering as part of a membership that includes education on blogging and promotion on sites such as blogs.com.

The move, as explained by Six Apart, is part philanthropic and part entrepreneurial, trying to address the problems and concerns of journalists as they deal with the evolution of journalism. Six Apart wants to help journalists "take control of their own presence online." I read this as "become their own one-man (or woman) newspaper."

This makes sense! A large newspaper is less feasibly run on ad revenue than a single blogger would be. A blogger-journalist could have the resources necessary to pursue and report the news; some bloggers make several hundred thousand dollars a year in ad revenue for their blogs. A wise newspaper could ditch the newsroom altogether, employing a coalition of blogger-journalists with the same standards of a newspaper without the rigid demands of running a paper.

The moral of the story? Just because you don't work for a newspaper doesn't mean you can't be a journalist. The industry may evolve beyond all recognition, but the trade will live on.

Dan Rather 2.0

Bloggers killed Dan Rather's career, right?

Wrong.

Dan Rather's career is alive and well, thanks to a rich entrepreneur, a premium cable channel, and his own ingenuity and skill.

Enter HDNet, a premium channel available to select cable and satellite TV subscribers. HDNet features HD movies, television shows, sports programs, and Dan Rather.

Dan Rather Reports is an investigative news program that is a self-proclaimed watchdog on domestic and international issues. Dan Rather has said that he has tremendous leeway in deciding which stories to cover and what issues to emphasize. Rather's program is, as he says, "making a lot of money for the new network," and shows that journalism is still a viable trade. Moreover, the owner of HDNet, Mark Cuban, has expressed a lack of concern over whether or not Dan Rather Reports makes money for the network. Rather says that the news industry needs monetary support from businessmen and investors who care more about the essence of journalism than they do about making tons of money. In this way, privately owned news organizations, such as the New York Times, have a leg up on publicly traded news sources.

While the old dog isn't necessarily learning new tricks, I definitely applaud Rather's ability to stay viable and vibrant in an evolving industry. This contrasts quite a bit with Katie Couric's comments about how, no matter how well or poorly she reports, her viewership will decline in numbers. I think that Rather seems willing to buck the system and fight for what he believes in, and, in doing so, provides an excellent example for the budding future generation of journalists. Couple this with Rather's tenacious lawsuit against CBS, and I see a Dan Rather who refuses to bow to scary new technology, partisan media, or old age.

Thank you Dan Rather for your example.

Rather, Rosen, AP, and NYT Sound Off on Journalism's Fate

The fate of journalism is being endlessly debated by those who have a stake in its future (read: our class).

Most of the voices are just noise, and industry "experts" seem hard to come by, but NYU has rounded up a rather respectable panel: Dan Rather, Jay Rosen, Tom Curley of the AP, Jill Abramson of the New York Times.

What do they have to say? Pretty much the same thing as the rest of us idiots: the industry will change, reporters have to change with it, and sacrifices will have to be made.

I'll try and sum up the best points made by these unusually distinguished talking heads, as some of the perspectives were insightful.

Dan Rather called himself an optimist, explaining that he doesn't see the newspaper dying anytime soon. Being as old as dirt, he recalled a few other times in history when doom and gloom was prophesied for the newspaper industry, including when radio and television gained relevancy. Rather compared the media industry not to a pie whose pieces are being increasingly gobbled up by online media, but rather a pie that is growing. Many readers, Rathers said, come from demographics that weren't reading the news at all 10 or 15 years ago. Rather thinks that older people will always read newspapers, whether it is 2009 or 2020. Rather is himself blazing new territory as a journalist, anchoring HDNet news, a privately financed on-demand news program. Check back in the future for a blog on Rahter's new baby.

Jay Rosen expressed the same loathing that he always seems to direct at what he sees as the dying old media. He too made a new analogy (at least, one I'd never heard before) to describe the changing landscape of the media. Rosen talked of a forced migration taking place, where traditional journalists are moving from the traditional lands of scarce resources, crossing the "digital divide," where they're finding a land already inhabited by amateur journalists. They'll have to adapt or leave. Rosen, however, is optimistic about journalism as a trade; he points to past evolutions in the industry requiring new business models for journalists. The new media, according to Rosen, just has to come up with a new business model; once they do that, it's back to business as usual.

Mr. Curley and Ms. Abramson spoke mainly about how their organizations are making the journey across Rosen's "digital divide." For the most part, it's a bumpy transition, but the two organizations feel that they are doing well. The AP is moving into more digital content on the web, and the NY Times is augmenting their online content with more multi-media and in-depth reporting.

I think it's nice to see some major movers and shakers in the industry talking about journalism's future, but as circulations and revenue continue to drop, words alone aren't enough.

Hopefully executives and directors will listen to their input and do something, anything, to bolster the industry and ensure its necessary survival.

I highly recommend watching this panel discussion and letting me know what you think.

"WILL REPORT FOR FOOD" -homeless man's sign

The New York Times today had an article in the business section about journalists currently embedded in political campaigns (the web version is parred down). With the election season ending tomorrow, most of those journalists will find their services no longer needed.

Some will go back to freelance work, from whence they came, but many will find that the networks or newspapers who employed them have found ways to get by without. Newspapers especially, facing harder economic times than their TV counterparts, will be hard pressed to find reasons to keep on formerly embedded reporters.

I actually really feel for these journalists. It's kind of like serving a tour of duty overseas as a career miltary man, only to find yourself laid-off when the war is over. Or like suddenly going from full-time employment to a temp in your industry. Reporters embedded in a campaign live on the road. The Times mentioned Adam Aigner-Treworgy, who basically lived out of a suitcase after being embedded by NBC in the McCain campaign. He'll return to his mom's house, where he left his car packed with all of the belongings he couldn't sell on Craigslist, and have to start looking for a new job.

I think the saddest part is that many of these journalists did the thankless work of covering all the boring campaign stops that yielded no newsworthy stories, no "clinging to guns and religion" soundbites, and no "I can see Russia from my house" dumb moments. Someone had to do it, because that's the watchdog aspect of journalism.

You'd really have to read the article to get a feel for the trenches work done by these journalists and to appreciate what I consider a sacrifice on their part, though it be a labor of love. My point is that journalists deserve jobs. They're as much public servants as any diplomat, social worker, police officer or teacher. That role is sometimes downplayed because of the seemingly glamorous side of journalism, but the sacrifices of the journalist are sacrifices nonetheless. Reporters face different threats than cops, but I think it's an issue of the widow's mite; they're giving what they have to give.

I think this goes back to what we discussed today in class about conscience in the workplace. I think it takes conscience to persue true journalism in the first place, but the ethics of journalism goes beyond that. Part of it is a work ethic, dedicating time and sacrificing much to report the news. I think that's why the Times story struck a chord with me-- we owe a lot to journalists, sometimes more than they get in return. Maybe it's melodramatic, but think about it for a while and let me know what you think.

The Faces of Media Bias

This morning on CNN, Wolf Blitzer was talking to a panel about media bias in favor of Obama and against McCain as perceived by media consumers. In response to this, a senior analyst for Politico said something interesting, that yes, the media are biased in favor of Obama, but not because of ideology, not because they're necessarily "liberal." 

The biases, this panelist said, are as complex as the subjects they report. 

For one, the media favors momentum of any sort. Because Obama seems to have the immense forward momentum (raising tons of money, drawing huge crowds at rallies, moving ahead in most polls, etc.), the media casts him in a positive light. With McCain seemingly stagnant in some polls and losing ground in others, the media dramatizes this and casts him as the loser. 

Another aspect of the media's bias towards McCain stems from the "newness of Obama," for the media always favor new and unusual. While they never really point out Obama's race, the media do realize that a black man as a serious candidate running for president, much less a party's nominee, is a new and unusual occurrence in American politics. Of course they would put more emphasis on him than on an aging white man who's been in politics for decades. 

In these ways and others, I think that the media has been biased in their coverage of this election. These are rational biases, however, that result from the fact that reporters are human and that the institutions they work for are out to make a profit. No one covered Ron Paul during his campaign because who wants to watch a loser. 

I don't think that this means that all media are always out to get the conservatives, though that sometimes may be the case. For the most part, I think the intentions of the media reflect that triangle of accountability that was drawn on the board in class. We can't expect the media to ignore their markets, not with the model for journalism that we currently use in the US.