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!
existing blue tree in vancouver bc; konstantin dimopoulos via kplu.org
p-i carriers, 1942; mohai/seattlehistory.org
Three years ago Saturday, the print Seattle Post-Intelligencer published its last issue.
There’s still a P-I sized hole in the regional info-scape.
SeattlePI.com doesn’t even partly fill it.
What’s worse, that site is shrinking when it should be growing.
From 20 journalists and “producers” at its launch as a stand-alone operation, it’s now down to 12.
•
The way I figure it, a local mainstream news operation here would need about 40 editorial full-timers to come close to comprehensively covering the community and to producing a thorough, compelling daily product:
This also happens to be close to the reporting staff numbers of today’s Tacoma News Tribune.
I can say it would be nice to have a bigger, fuller PI.com site.
But can I reasonably ask Hearst New Media to front that kind of money, considering the site’s probably not profitable at its current budget (and considering the money Hearst’s probably losing at its still-extant newspaper and magazine properties)?
I believe I can.
Even though I believe web ads will never come close to supporting a local site of the size I’m talking about (or, really, much professional journalism period).
That’s because online content won’t always be tied to the ugly, inefficient, insufficient genre known as the commercial website.
I’m talking about tablet apps, Kindle/Nook editions, HTML 5-based web apps.
Products that bring back the concept of the “newspaper” as a whole unified thing, not just individual text and directory pages.
Products whose ad space can be sold on the basis of their entire readership, not just individual page views.
Products that could even command a subscription price.
A renewed P-I would be the perfect vehicle to test and refine this concept.
And Seattle is the perfect place to do it.
And if Hearst doesn’t want to, let’s get together some of our own town’s best n’ brightest to do it instead.
Let’s make a news org that wouldn’t just be a “corrective” to the Seattle Times‘ square suburban worldview, but would present a fully expressed alternative worldview.
A site that lives and breathes Seattle.
That tells the city’s stories to itself.
That shows how this could be done in other towns and cities.
Harper’s Magazine publisher/subsidizer John R. MacArthur has always kept his mag’s online version behind a paywall.
In a recent speech at Columbia University, transcribed at the Providence Journal’s site, MacArthur insists that Harper’s is making more money this way than it would if all the content were free and management scratched n’ scrambled to somehow sell enough web ads.
But he doesn’t stop there.
In the speech, he accuses “Internet con men” (i.e., the dot-com and Web 2.0 propagandists and evangelists) of “ravaging” publishing.
He denounces “Internet huckster/philosophers” as “first cousins—in both their ideology and their sales tactics—to the present-day promoters of “free trade.” Just as unfettered imports destroy working-class communities through low-wage outsourcing, MacArthur avows, so has the Internet driven writers, artists, and editors “into penury by Internet wages—in most cases, no wages.”
With web ads incapable of supporting living wages for content makers, MacArthur insists online readers will have to learn to pay “if they want to see anything more complex than a blog, a classified ad or a sex act.”
Immediately, defenders of online business-as-usual stepped up to denounce MacArthur’s remarks.
Some, like Mike Masnick at TechDirt, settled for simplistic name-calling. MacArthur, Masnick insists, represents the “Platonic ideal specimen of the ‘I’m an old fogey elitist Internet Luddite.'” Masnick’s “rebuttal” piece goes on to call MacArthur at least 20 more varieties of out-of-it, while not bothering to actually rebut any of his points.
(OK, Mesnick does counter MacArthur’s claim that freelancers are being forced into poverty by online freebie sites, by citing a single example of one writer who says he’s offered more work than he can take.)
A more lucid response comes from Alexis Madrigal at Harper’s age-old arch rival The Atlantic (which not only has a free website but posts a lot of web-only material). Madrigal insists his mag’s “doing just fine thank you,” with equal amounts of print and web ad revenue.
Madrigal and Mensick both assert infinite, if intangible, benefits to having one’s writing part of the “open web” where it can be linked to, commented upon, and become part of the big meta-conversation.
But does that have to come at the expense of adequate research, thorough editing, and living wages for writers/editors?
And does everything really have to be on the open web?
If MacArthur wants to keep his paywall up, and if he believes his little nonprofit highbrow mag can support itself better that way, let him.
The old fogey might actually be on to something.
I’ve talked briefly recently about the “future of news.”
I’ll talk about it some more.
But I should explain what I mean by that phrase.
I mean something different from what the cyber-hucksters mean by it.
By “news,” I specifically mean:
Therefore, by “the future of news,” I’m talking about ways to fund professional reporting, particularly on a local/regional level.
Therefore, I am not talking about:
Ex-Seattleite (and Rocket music mag cofounder) Robert McChesney has been a longtime scholar and observer of the media biz.
McChesney’s and John Nichols’ 2010 book The Death and Life of American Journalism attempts to figure out what to do.
McChesney and Nichols, like many other commentators, note in great detail how the old-media industries of newspapers and local broadcasters are withering and, in some cases, dying off.
But they also note that the “new media” business model, putting everything up online for free and hoping web ads will pay the bills, is also not working.
And they conclude, as I have, that web ads are never going to work. No matter how frenetically you play the page-view game. No matter how thinly you dilute a site’s professional content with amateur and aggregated freebies.
At least they won’t work at supporting professional local reporting, which is what McChesney, Nichols, and I care about.
So what do they suggest?
Federal subsidies!
In McChesney and Nichols’ ideal future, newspapers and news sites would turn themselves into nonprofit or “low profit” organizations. Then they’d apply for a share of maybe $30 billion in “public media” grants, to be awarded on the basis of need and public service.
Yeah. From a U.S. government that can’t even supply more than a trickle of what public broadcasting needs, and gets bashed by right wing sleaze-mongers for even that.
McChesney and Nichols’ solution reminds me of certain early ’70s radical and feminist manifestos, in which every prescription for a better society began with the phrase “The federal government should…”.
Not practical then. Not practical now.
The search continues.
Elsewhere, Arianna Huffington has come out with a diatribe against one of the cyber hypesters’ newest obsessions du jour: the insistence that every single news article must be contrived to “go viral” on Twitter n’ Facebook, and that news orgs must think more about “social media integration” and less on, you know, actual news. Of course, she then admits her own outfit’s just as taken in by the madness as the rest of ’em.
esquire.com
Welcome to daylight savings time. Welcome to the “light” half of the year. Welcome to the little piece of manmade trickery that tells us the worst of the cold, dark time is over. Even though it sure didn’t look or feel like it today.
supervillain.wordpress.com
kirkland reporter
crosscut.com
shorpy.com
The Seattle Times is working on tablet and smartphone apps, which will feature paid access.
The paper’s also considering adding a partial “paywall” to its regular website.
This post is not really about that.
That’s because these moves coincide with something I’ve been feeling for a few weeks now.
Hear me out on this:
I believe what we now know as web ads, by themselves, will never earn enough money to support professional local journalism. No matter how hard you game the search engines or hustle for page views.
The “Future of News” pundits (Clay Shirky, Dan Gillmor, Jeff Jarvis, et al.) not only don’t know how to fund journalism, but I’m convinced they don’t care.
Or rather, they care foremost about preserving an “open web,” in which everything is free for the taking, the slicing, the dicing, the aggregating, the sampling, and the reblogging.
Even if nobody gets paid for making the original content all these other ventures use.
Aggregation sites, and indeed much of the “Web 2.0” model, are like an ever expanding variety of beautiful packages, all of which contain identical globs of dryer lint.
No matter how pretty the box, it’s worthless unless you can put something good in it.
Something worthwhile. Something useful or entertaining.
And in most cases, the really good things cost time and money to make.
So: Unless there’s a massive retro newsprint revival similar to the vinyl record revival, news will need to be distributed in the form of “bits” instead of “atoms.”
But your typical ugly, cheap-ad laden, one-text-per-page websites can’t pay for it.
Some online-news entrepreneurs are soliciting donations, sometimes through nonprofit and “low profit” organizations.
But that’s not for everybody.
An outspokenly “free enterprise” outfit like the Times needs to make money the old fashioned way, by selling something.
In the past, that “something” was print advertising. (The cover price usually paid just for the printing and distro.)
Print ads are way down these days and might not come back.
Web ads earn much, much less per reader.
That leaves either shrinking to the size of SeattlePI.com or worse, soliciting local business leaders to help subsidize the operation somehow, or finding new revenue streams.
A tablet app adds value to the news “product.”
It brings back graphic design.
It brings back a sense of a newspaper as a “whole” document, not just individual text and directory pages.
And perhaps most importantly, it brings advertisers back in eyeball contact with a publication’s entire readership, not just with an individual page’s “hits.”
So yes, let’s have tablet newspapers.
And make them worth paying for.
Papers that already have design-rich, paid-access tablet and/or web app versions include the Financial Times, the Guardian, the Vancouver Sun, the NY Daily News, and, of course, the NY Times.
They’re noble attempts.
And who knows, they just might succeed.
wallyhood.org
My adventure in Bellingham this past Sunday was cold but lovely. Will post a complete post about it a little later on.
And I’ve got another presentation coming up this Saturday, right here in Seattle! It’s at 2 p.m. at the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park, 319 2nd Ave. S. in pontificous Pioneer Square. (That’s right across from Zeitgeist Coffee.) This one concerns my ’06 book Vanishing Seattle, and perhaps all the things that have vanished around here since then. Be there or be frostbitten.
Now, to catch up with a little randomness:
kono packi, the capital times (madison wi)
Independents, swing voters, “moderates,” “compasisonate conservatives”—the Republican Party, at the federal and state levels, officially doesn’t give a damn about any of these people.
Or more likely, the Republican Party has given up trying to bring them back into the fold.
The only audiences today’s Republicans have anymore are the people cocooned in the “conservative bubble.”
That is, the people who ONLY listen to and read conservative-ONLY media (Faux News, conservatalk radio, the Drudge Report, Regnery Books, etc.).
People who listen to nothing but the one-sided party-line right wing spin on everything.
Partly because these guys look, talk, and use the buzzwords of a particular “Real Americans” subculture.
These pundits and politicians, and the megabuck lobbyists who wholly own them, have real agendas that often run counter to the self-interests of their audiences, and especially counter to these audiences’ proclaimed moral/social values. (Joking about wishing you could murder all your opponents, then claiming to be “pro-life”? Really?)
I’m working on an essay for the general election season, tentatively titled Talking To Your Conservative Relatives.
One of its lines of reasoning will go as follows:
Don’t believe the hype. To be more specific, don’t believe the demographic and psychographic marketing. (Yes, I’ll explain what those things are. Essentially, they’re the schticks advertisers use when they talk about the “cigarette for women” or the “diet drink for men.”) To be more specific, be EVEN MORE SKEPTICAL of politicians, pundits, etc. who claim they speak on behalf of your own values (including the values of family, hard work, faith, freedom, etc.). The more these guys insist they’re “one of you,” the more you have to sniff out for the putrid scent of a confidence game going on.
Don’t believe the hype.
To be more specific, don’t believe the demographic and psychographic marketing.
(Yes, I’ll explain what those things are. Essentially, they’re the schticks advertisers use when they talk about the “cigarette for women” or the “diet drink for men.”)
To be more specific, be EVEN MORE SKEPTICAL of politicians, pundits, etc. who claim they speak on behalf of your own values (including the values of family, hard work, faith, freedom, etc.).
The more these guys insist they’re “one of you,” the more you have to sniff out for the putrid scent of a confidence game going on.
tinyprints.com
…the last places in America where books are still a dominant part of the culture, consumed, discussed, pondered, and critiqued with gusto.
I’d mentioned that the Capitol Hill Times, the weekly neighborhood paper for which I’d worked in a couple of stints, is now owned by a legal services entrepreneur as a vehicle for legal notice ads.
The new-look CHT has now appeared.
It looks clean and modern.
And it looks like the new management is truly interested in providing space (if not much money) toward neighborhood news coverage.
And it’s got a locally based editor, Stephen Miller, who seems to really want intelligent discussion of the issues of the day.
That’s certainly what he says in his column for the Feb. 8 issue.
It’s about Seattle University’s Search for Meaning Book Festival, held the previous Saturday. Besides book sales and signings, the festival included speeches and panels by authors representing myriad flavors of religion in America.
Miller talks about the need for good questions instead of easy answers.
And he talks briefly about some search-for-meaning related trends in the news, as discussed by speakers at the festival. Among them:
The threat of Sharia law. A Mormon nearing the White House. Federal funds paying for abortions. A redefinition of marriage.
Except that trends 1 and 3 do not really exist.
Nobody’s trying to impose Sharia law in any part of the U.S.
There is no federal funding for abortions, and nobody’s proposing to start any.
These are merely right-wing scare campaigns.
They’re just as fake as the right-wing-only cable channel’s annual hype over a nonexistent “war on Christmas.”
If Miller did not want to address this complicating factor in his limited print space, he could have described these “trends” more accurately as allegations, promoted by some of the festival’s speakers.
Miller’s column asks us to pursue “intelligent discussion.”
A big part of that is distinguishing what’s really going on in the world from the spin and the bluster.
Don’t work for free under the guise of ‘good exposure’. It is bad exposure. If you don’t value your own work, neither will anyone else.
entertainment weekly via getty images
Our ol’ pal, Posies singer-songwriter Ken Stringfellow, is quoted at the East Portland Blog as saying the Madonna/M.I.A. halftime show at Super Bowl LSMFT was all OK but doesn’t really signify “empowering women.”
That sort of “feminist victory,” Stringfellow claims, will only occur when “50 percent of the media companies are owned by women.”
“Ownership,” of course, is a slippery thing with NYSE- and NASDAQ-listed companies.
Such companies could easily be more than 50 percent “owned” by women. Overall, a sizable majority of all corporate stock shares officially are.
But this “ownership” is often filtered through pension systems, trusts, mutual funds, broker-managed accounts, and other schemes that don’t infer practical control.
Of the major media companies operating in the U.S. today, only a few have any significant degree of individual or family ownership. Among them:
Redstone’s and Murdoch’s daughters have taken major roles within their respective aging dads’ companies, and may take greater roles in the future.
But they’ve shown every sign of supporting regular showbiz-content gender roles, including the roles Stringfellow derides as “T&A” and “soft porn.”
I, and I suspect many of you, wouldn’t count that as a “feminist victory.”