It's here! It's here! All the local news headlines you need to know about, delivered straight to your e-mail box and from there to your little grey brain.
Learn more about it here.
Sign up at the handy link below.
CLICK HERE to get on board with your very own MISCmedia MAIL subscription!
anti-riaa ad from the electronic frontier foundation; via university of texas
Two reasons why Hilary Rosen, Ann Romney’s recent verbal sparring partner, should not be considered a spokesperson for the Obama campaign or for any “progressive” thing:
(1) She became a PR shill for BP, post-gulf-spill.
(2) and most important: She infamously headed the Recording Industry Association of America during the start of that outfit’s notorious “anti-piracy” extremism.
Rosen didn’t just shut down Napster and Audiogalaxy. She fostered the music-industry lobby group’s policy of punitive aggression in the name of the Almighty Intellectual Property.
After she left the RIAA, the staff she’d hired served all those ridiculous suits for ridiculous sums against lowly individual file-sharers—and against some individuals who’d never shared a file in their lives.
Elsewhere in randomland:
david eskenazi collection via sportspressnw.com
And a happy Friday the 13th (first of the year) and Mariners home opening day to all of you!
It’s called “Control-based Content Pricing,†and the basic idea is dynamic pricing of video content, based on the preferences of the user at any given moment—essentially setting different prices for different functions of the TV remote.
reramble.wordpress.com
oldtime (print) proofreading marks; via nisus.se
It’s a couple months old but still a worthy topic of debate. It’s ex-Microsoftie Michael Kinsley bitching about how the Web has brought forth an explosion in written content—much of which is tons of total dreck.
Even a lot of professionally written online stuff, Kinsley gripes, is poorly thought out, poorly constructed, and sloppily assembled.
I say that’s just what happens with an explosion of activity in any “creative” field, from neo-punk bands to televised singing contests to self-published horror novels.
The trick is to (1) have a way to find the good stuff, and (2) encourage folks to strive for better work.
As for the first part, there are tons of aggregation sites and blogs (including this one)Â that link to what some editor thinks is “the good stuff.”
The second part still needs work.
One problem is that so much of the Web is run by techies. Dudes who know the value of tight, accurate, effective code, but who might never have learned to appreciate the same values in words.
A bigger problem is that, even at sites run by “content” people, there’s intense pressure to put everything online the second it’s written, and to slavishly avoid taking the time or staff money to edit anything.
It would help if more sites felt an incentive to put out better stuff. (A big incentive would be to maybe, just maybe, even pay writers and editors a living wage).
Don’t think of the ol’ WWW as code and wires.
The Web is words (and pictures and sounds), distributed via code and wires.
wallace in a philip morris cigarette ad, circa 1957
The master of the “gotcha!’ interview had been a journeyman broadcaster since the days of old time radio. He’d been an announcer, a game show host (he hosted the unaired original pilot for To Tell the Truth), an actor in live TV dramas (and the film A Face in the Crowd), and a commercial pitchman for cigarettes and other assorted products.
Then in 1955, he started a New York local interview show called Nightbeat, renamed The Mike Wallace Interview when it moved to ABC. It established Wallace’s persona as a sensationalistic opportunist, more a tabloidy hothead than a newsman.
This rough edge was sanded down a bit when he became one of the original co-hosts (with Harry Reasoner) of 60 Minutes, putting a real news organization’s resources (including its lawyers) behind his shtick.
The rest is broadcast history.
Including his admission to long bouts of severe depression. The last on-air bit he did was a “CBS Cares” public-service spot about the illness.
Yet through it all he survived.
Now there are even fewer people left from TV’s early years, and fewer still (most notably Betty White) still working.
artist's rendering; via kiro-tv
The Seattle Times‘ series about Amazon.com’s corporate culture continued on Monday with a long recounting of the company’s often prickly relations with book publishers large and small; especially small.
I’ve written in the past that the six U.S. mega-publishers could sure use a “creative disruption” (to use a hoary techno-Libertarian cliché), to sweep away their hidebound old ways and become more nimble, more competitive, and more profitable.
These same new rules, once everybody’s figured out what they are, could also help out smaller imprints.
But in the meantime (which could seem like an eternity in dot-com years but the blink of an eye in book-biz years), Amazon should not push too far against the “long tail” publishers and distributors who make its “World’s Largest Selection” slogan possible.
It’s bad for the publishers and their authors.
It’s bad for the industry as a whole.
And it’s bad for Amazon.
The e-tail giant had better realize, and soon, that it doesn’t have the market muscle to push its suppliers around like Walmart does.
Except to owners of Kindle machines (which are hardwired to only download commercial ebooks if they’re from Amazon), everything its core media business sells can be bought from other sources, just a mouse click or a search-engine hunt away.
Also, many of these smaller publishers have loyal niche clienteles.
All they have to do is offer lower prices or “customer loyalty” incentives to folks buying books on the publishers’ own sites.
Or, the small pubishers could offer all sorts of “customer loyalty” incentives to their direct buyers.
It’s to Amazon’s own fiscal interest to not appear like a bully here.
via shelligator.tumblr.com
You will note we posted nothing on 4/1. We’ve had enough trouble over the years with people thinking the stuff posted here’s just made up.
a&p store in wallingford, circa 1938; via pauldorpat.com
My former employers at the Stranger have come out with a new ad-heavy arts quarterly. Its title: Seattle A&P (for “Art and Performance”).
It gives me an excuse to discuss one of my personal obsessions, with the company known as A&P (its official name: The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company).
It was once the largest grocery chain in America. At its peak it essentially owned the food biz east of the Rockies, and also had outposts in Seattle and L.A.
It was even considered a dire threat to the existence of small business.
But after decades of mismanagement, the brand today only exists in the New York suburbs. (The company also owns five other Northeast regional chains acquired over the years.)
The last Seattle A&P stores were sold or closed in 1974. The largest single batch of these selloffs (five stores) went to QFC, forming a major jump in that chain’s drive toward local dominance.
ap photo via newstimes.com
Today’s lesson in why traditional websites can’t support professional local news begins at a blog called Seattle Media Maven.
It’s run as a moonlighting project by Maureen Jeude, who’s got a day job in the Seattle Times’ “strategic marketing research” department. While the blog is her own endeavor, Jeude often uses it to tout the Times and its online ventures.
Thusly, Jeude ran a piece last month plugging the Times‘ website as one of the top local media sites in the nation. She posts stats and a graph showing the site garnering about 1 million page views per day (twice that of the local runner-up, KING5.com), and 1 million unique visitors per month.
This means each Times online reader reads an average of just one article a day.
Further, if each of the 240,000 Times print buyers (not counting “pass along” readership) read only the average four stories on each edition’s front page, that alone would essentially match the Times’ online readership.
And that online readership is the 16th biggest of any U.S. newspaper.
•
Elsewhere in medialand, three research studies in the past year (by A.C. Nielsen, the FCC, and Pew Research) each purport that news sites comprise only a small percentage of total Web traffic, and that local news sites comprise only a small percentage of that.
One industry analyst, Tom Grubisich, says the studies fatally discount the role of links and summaries of news sites’ stories on other sites such as Facebook.
Another analyst, Joshua Benton, insists that news sites’ readerships make up in community influence what they lack in sheer numbers.
The Seattle Times editorial board advocates for the rich and powerful in Washington state every day. They have used their editorial page to attack any proposal that would lay a finger on the 1% or their expansive stock portfolios. At the same time, they do their best to ensure kids, seniors, and low-income families absorb billions in budget cuts year after year.
benjamin day's new york sun, one of the original 19th century 'penny press' papers; via ricardoread.wordpress.com
Even before the online news “revolution” (that looks more and more like “creative destruction” without the “creative” part), newspapers and TV/radio stations, and especially local slick magazines and “alt” weeklies, had begun to ignore whole swaths of their communities, all in the name of the dreaded “upscale demographics.”
That means wanting only wealthy (or at least really affluent) people in your audience, the audience you sell to advertisers. (The original Seattle Weekly was particularly notorious at this. Its rate cards proclaimed, “Who are the Weekly’s readers? In a word, rich.”)
The age of dot-com media has only exacerbated this trend. AOL’s “Patch” sites deliberately only cover wealthy communities. The West Seattle Blog is apparently pulling in a lot more ad revenue than the Rainier Valley Post.
And the “future of news” bloggers, who demand that all news orgs conform to their formula of unfettered-access, ad- and pageview-dependent standard websites, sometimes seem to believe the entire nation is made up of people exactly like them—18-34-year-old, college-educated white males, with home broadband, smartphones, and techie jobs that let them browse the web throughout the day.
And now a Pew Research study claims “fewer than half of Americans who make under $75K a year go online for news.” If the online realm, as we now know it, becomes the only place to get written short-form journalism, a lot of Americans are going to be informationally shut out.
That last stat came from the page for “A Penny Press for the Digital Age.” That was a panel discussion at the digital media section of the SXSW music/media convention last week. You can hear it here.
Its aim: to explore “how low-income and working-class people–the majority of Americans–can be included in the future of online news.”
(Hint: Most of the solutions offered by the panelists involve non-profit, cooperative, and/or volunteer operations.)
It’s just one of more than a dozen “future of news” panels at SXSW you can hear at this link. They’re all full of “cutting edge” new-media concepts.
Indeed, the new-media world these days has more cutting edges than a blister pack of Bic razors (most of which will prove just as enduring).
Elsewhere in journalistic doom-n’-gloom land, Eric Alterman at HuffPost has collected a whole boatload of depressing industry statistics. Perhaps the most depressing of them all:
Newspaper revenue fell to its lowest level since 1984, although adjusted for inflation the income is actually worth half of what papers earned back then.
Many of these stats come from media-biz blogger Alan Mutter. Mutter also notes that retailers are putting up more “advertorial” content—and even ads for other stores—on their own sites (which would help negate the need for these stores to advertise in news-media outlets).
Meanwhile, the entertainment side of the media biz (at least the movie and TV entertainment side) continue to hold its ground against the “open web” demanders.
By continuing to insist on affiliate rights fees from cable providers and streaming websites alike, the big media giants have largely kept themselves surviving, if not thriving.
Could the news biz, including the news sides of some of these same companies, learn something from this?