the (capital) time(s) is coming.

" We felt our audience was shrinking so that we were not even relevent... we are going a little farther, a little faster, but the general trend is happening everywhere"
-

Clayton Frink (Publisher of the Capital Times)

Washington daily newspaper- the Capital Times made a brave decision when it chose to move to an entirely online format, earlier this year. In recent years the afternoon edition paper saw its circulation drop to roughly 18,000, in it's heyday it would sell an average of 40,000 (through the 1960's).

The new strategy employed by the Capital Times- that of an online format (with two weekly distributions that will be included in the other print edition newspaper in the town) is seen as a long term solution. However, through the administration of this radical new idea is the 20 staff members who lost their job in the changeover. Editor Paul Fanlund stated that copy editors are those who are losing their jobs "at a higher rate" than reporters. However, for those who have lost a job some web-based positions have been made available and there is expected to be a staff of approximately forty by the time the strategy is fully implemented.

The website "Madison.com"
maintains a very localised focus on it's news reporting. It is interesting to note that it needn't compete with the major US titles that have online editions- instead it is servicing its community purpose effectively in a modern, online format- something that many local Australian papers are yet to take up.
James Baughman- University of Wisconsin lecturer says that the window of opportunity for online journalism really lies in the local market. The potential for movement from the print format to a technologically saavy one should be utilised.
It is however, necessary for newspapers determined to adopt this format to review and redetermine their core missions and goals for reporting. They also need to re-asses their core audience because that too can change dramatically.

In the final editorial of the print edition for the capital times, an important point was made that should be the prime point of intention for any newspaper considering the changeover.
"(Do not) worry about the form The Capital Times takes, but rather... be concerned with the content and character of our message".

Cohen, N. 2008, ‘Reluctantly, a Daily Stops its Presses, Living Online’, The New York Times Online, 28/08/2008. Date Accessed 22/08/2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28link.html

Quality what-now?!

There is a problem with quality journalism and it doesn't just have something to do with the internet, my friends.

It also can be affected by emotions.
Oh, they are nasty little things when all you really want to do is be report, objectively, and inform your audience in the most truthful way possible. Is it not our responsibility as journalists to perform in the most professional manner?
Until a dreadful little creature (cretin) called Corey Worthington comes along...

This interview (a better word would be 'exchange'- because interview incites a notion of professionalism not displayed in this example) between Leila McKinnon and Corey Worthington was aired on ‘A Current Affair’, (Nine Network) on January 14, 2008.

Her opening question “What were you thinking?” is both condescending and accusatorial, however, her tone is casual and there is a feeling she is trying to befriend him. Immediately the battle stage is set- not the most professional of interviews already.
McKinnon shows her emotions early; sarcasm is very evident in her voice when she maintains her authority over 'the child'.
She looks for a reaction and the Worthington becomes defensive in the face of her aggression.

It is evident that the public already has a view on the interviewee, had McKinnon taken a different path with her questioning she would have shown less bias and given a well rounded interview, with information that doesn't frame Worthington in such a negative light, but instead aims to tell the sides of the story evenly.

Her emotions have affected her performance and the interview has gone from trying to get to the bottom of a party that got out of hand, to a condescending adult reacting to insolence.

As a professional, the lack of composure and obvious opinion on the topic prove she is incapable of conducting the interview in an unbiased way. The interview succeeded in showing Worthington as the silly, arrogant child that he is, however, he also managed to hold the power because McKinnon became too emotionally involved.

It is frustrating, in the current, confusing media climate that is Australia- that has recently axed some of its most important avenues for investigative journalism- that an aversion to quality could so easily slip through the cracks.

Maybe what is needed more than another story on dodgy washer repairmen is some training for their journalists, so that we can avoid the tragedy that was this 'news story'.

Isn't it journalism 101 that we maintain our composure and approach interviews in the most objective way possible? (Well at least we know that our uni degree was good for something).

not so funny...

Is that what our children will think?


I'm still a sucker for the sunday edition of the paper.
It may have something to do with tradition.
I sigh at the thought that in 5, 10 or 20 years I may not have that unecessarily oversized broadsheet open beside me awkwardly on the dining table as I eat brunch. Taking someone elses place, of whom I should be conversing about the current events but I am too involved in the catch up of the weeks media commentary that I missed in my online scanning.


And i will be dreadfully disappointed if I don't get to instill this habit into my (unfortunate and very, very far away) children.

the wallet v the talent

rich media and poor journalists...

Aside from the fact that they offer the public one of the mosty important freedoms they are entitled to in a modern democracy- the freedom of press, journalists are consistently viewed at the lower end of the foodchain- left untrusted and scrutinised by those that consume their work so readily.

It is disturbing that such a significant profession could be judged by 3/4 of people (representative on a global scale) deem journalists as untrustworthy.

How are journalists coping; faring against the unfair assumptions of a critical public and the new and frightening trend of major cost cutting by their publishers.

As this 2007 report suggests- the issues with media ownership and the struggle that journalists face everyday in their workplace is beginning to take its toll and affect (yes, you guessed it) the quality of what they produce.
Stephen Cushion details 5 key points of contension for Journalists presently-

1. insecurity of employment leading to timid reporting
2. employment changes prompting a decline in critical and investigative reporting
3. Media concentration and governement pressures leading to bland news
4. media have been tamed by goverments
5. low wages trigger to a decline in ethical reporting.
   

If we put these 5 points into the Australian media landscape, it is a frightening future ahead of us. Already journalists are challenged by the complex ownership laws and lack of diversity plaguing the countries media. How can they be expected to continue in this manner- while massive job cuts continue within the industry and less emphasis is put on the quality and further emphasis placed onto quantity?

In a recent study- it was revelaed that the 2001 median salary for journalists was US$43, 588. Salaries are increasing at a far slower rate than inclation adn females working within the industry are still being paid approximately $10,000 less than males.
In the United Kingdom one in ten journalists was earning less that £12,000, with 18 % earning less than £15,000 anually.
The median income for a journalist in the UK is a meagre £22,500.
For the responsibilities laid upon them, this seems a less than ideal scenario.

And it is interesting to also feature- that in a time of economic crisis, when the public are going to become more and more focused on the quality reporting of journalists that this would be the case. Consumers will only become more reliant and expectant of the truth from the media, yet these expectations come on the back of a larger workload, a massive decrease in quality conditions and the public perception of them being untrustworhty regardless.

Is anyone feeling a little bit defeated?

Stephen Cushions entire article is available here.

Sub Standard Journalism

Watch it Here!

Media Watch, the guardian of quality journalism in Australia, appears to be one of the only outlets not afraid of telling it like it is.
Addressing the issue of quality journalism as a feature of the internet, it dedicated an entire episode to this pressing issue.
Initially it satirises how ridiculous the cover page of the newspaper online is "the wonders of journalism online" Johnathon Holmes mocked.

Roy Greenslade states that the Newspaper format is a "dead duck". Now writing a blog online (for the UKs Guardian) hebelieves that the movement to newspaper is a purely a matter of lack of advertising revenue.

Australian newspaper sales have held up better than UK and US. However, it is believe that many of Australia's larger newspapers are heading for trouble- due to the classified revenue moving straight to the online format.(Eric Beecher- creator of Crikey.com)
It is the format for advertisers, that makes the internet more appealing.( eg $40,000 for a classified ad in a newspaper is $4000 online.)

Newspapers need to diversify if they are going to survive says Van Niekerk. It is the ever expanding content that is adding onto the revenue to maintain the quality journalism.
However, Holmes counteracts that it is not going to replace the revenue (a realist) and he is correct.
Beecher believes we are defying trends if the new diversification can maintain everything as is.

The most important statement made in the episode is that Newspapers are going to need to adapt a new form of business model to fund quality journalism. If the majors can no longer afford the majority of editorial staff, the capital city offices and international bureaus than quality journalism is going to suffer. Beecher admits that no model has worked on a higher scale, that it is presently acceptable on a local level.
What makes it most difficult is that the best of journalism on a world scale, is currently available, mainly for free, online though they are not yet making any money. This is the most important thing to solve. However, until a general (and possibly international) concept is addressed, then any attempt to rectify the situation will falter.
It can not last- if the advertising physically is paying for it.
Greenslade questions if it can be supported long enough to build and sustain a new advertising base to sustain quality journalism into the future.

Holmes also brings up that it will be quality journalism in the hands of the consumer rather than the communicator (or journalist).

Greenslade says that amateur journalist will be the new approach to journalism, possibly the saving grace. Though this concept of democratic journalism can be frightening- there will be no-one to blame if it is wrong and no-one to check if it is right, and that will become one of the major difficulties coming into the future.

In quality journalism- where newspapers succeed online is by getting their corrections out much faster. However journalists believe that the mounting pressures and times make it more difficult for them to make better stories- and smaller staff numbers. and that celebrity is more interesting than polititcs.

To gain new online readers- Fairfax is risking its quality journalism history - its entertainment focused front page. to gain new readership- eg. SMH online- never traditionally a tabloid paper.
vs guardian and Washington post aren't doing this.
and that has something to do with loyalty. If the value or content is different then people wont transfer their loyalties. Van N is stating that fairfax is doing it successfully. However, if establishing an audience base in this way rather than maintaining previous consumers... alienatation. what happens to their news interests.

Journalists will be out of a job quite soon. Allegedly.

You, Me or Free?

Who will pay for journalism?

News is a commodity- this is undisputable.

Newspaper readership is in decline- again undisputable.

Media industry is diversifying to keep up with technology- fact, fact, fact.

So we have all of these new outlets for news, but the same, if not less, practicing journalists, with even less of a budget…

Disaster? Potentially yes.

If the current emphasis on quality journalism is anything to go by, the pressure is only going to mount for poor overworked journos. Not only will they be expected to continue to churn out amazingly insightful, investigative pieces, but they will be expected to upload it to the internet server, , potentially record it for podcasting, summarise it for snippets, make it available to mobile phone servers (and maybe one day if technology succeeds, teach it to write itself).

A discussion facilitated in class by myself and an equally avid journalist student proposed several options. We consider all to be viable as an option but in the long term, who knows.

Subscription-
In this ideal scenario a user pays for news content online as they would a subscription of a physical newspaper. Obviously this is the ideal scenario. Users have expressed a lack of enthusiasm to the idea- and having much of the world’s news content readily available on other (rival) media suites for free, does little to entice people to subscribe. Exclusivity here may be the key- something the Wall Street Journal is trialling to varying degrees of success (presently there are approximately 80,000 subscribers to its exclusive online content). It offers users limited content online for free, increased content for subscribers and offers packages including a physical copy of its newspaper. Why this works is that the Wall Street journal appeals to a niche market.

Niche Market-
The potential to lure the new audience- the youth- is where niche marketing of newspapers is most attractive as an option. Traditional newspaper sales are decreasing, the magazine industry continues to strengthen within Australia, so why not market a newspaper more like a magazine? Attract the lucrative teen market AND appeal to a more specific advertiser, thus tailoring an attractive option for specific advertisers and guaranteeing revenue.

Stand-Alone Journalism-
This is a very interesting new idea to propose to journalists rather than the media as an organisation. More than a freelancer, these journalists are actively responsible for seeking out stories independently of media outlets.

The positives is that there is no real constraint put upon a journalist (except possibly budgetary), and an investigative piece can be written and then sold and published in a media format that best suits its purpose.

Eg. Back-to-Iraq blogger Christopher Albritton.

There are other potentials to investigate – and alter the ever expanding issue of the media landscape. Publicly funded journalism (like ProPublica) is gaining momentum; civic journalism is a pressing and interesting issue also.

We’ll just have to wait and see what happens in the long run.

Would you be willing to pay for content online?

As a uni student, I would certainly find this difficult and would instead prefer the niche option of newspapers. As an avid magazine consumer, if I could obtain a newspaper that I found a little more energetic, tailored to me, then I would certainly give it a go.

the Public Journalist

The amalgamation of the journalists role between a community liaison officer and a medium between actual events and consumers is one that is challenging the profession at present.
As the field expands, we must, in someway, work out how to maintain our positions. Journalists may feel uncertain in their future as the public begin to take a role within the media.
Networks constantly ask viewers for feedback, to contribute photographs, videos and audio as well as any story suggestions they may have.
Although it is fair to question how involved the public should be in journalism, one must champion the true journalist- the developed skills and contextual knowledge of the craft is a result of one who has studied or immersed themselves within the field and this couldn't possibly threatened by citizen journalism.
Siebert argued in the 1960's that journalists are seeing sources from within the community which are often incorrect or have misleading information. We can safely assume that a neighbourhoods willingness to gossip has not necessarily changed in the last 40 to 50 years. Thus the need for trained professionals to identify and research is an overarching necessity for unbiased and accurate news reporting.
The future lies in utilising the public. Rather than purely as an audience- the public must become a part of the process.
As the field evolves there is the greater expectation that the publics view points will be taken into consideration, more so than ever before.
And that is where journalism and journalists must work toward- a co-existence that is mutually beneficial.