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!
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?
existing blue tree in vancouver bc; konstantin dimopoulos via kplu.org
early 'new yorker' writer janet flanner photographed by bernice abbott; tacoma art museum
The cherry blossoms agree with the calendar that spring has arrived. Why does the weather argue?
washington beer blog via seattlepi.com
First, thanks to the more than 50 people who crowded Roy St. Coffee and Tea for the History Cafe presentation on old Seattle restaurant menus Thursday evening. And thanks to my fellow panelists Hanna Raskin and Taylor Bowie for making it easy for me. Each of them had so many insights about the old restaurants, their menu designs, their food items, and their respective places in cultural history, that I didn’t have to say much.
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.
Learn how we and our immediate forebearers ate!
I’m participating in a History Cafe session about old Seattle restaurant menus. It’s 7 p.m. Thursday at Roy Street Coffee (the off-brand Starbucks) at Broadway and E. Roy on curvaceous Capitol Hill. It’s sponsored by KCTS, HistoryLink.org, MOHAI, and the Seattle Public Library.
Be there or be yesterday’s “fresh sheet.”
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
inventorspot.com
crosscut.com
storebrandsdecisions.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: