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 Guardian parsed the NY Times‘ latest financial numbers. Some of its conclusions:
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:
artist's rendering; via kiro-tv
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.
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?
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.
american institute of architects—seattle
stranger cover, 8/30/95, art direction by dale yarger, illo by neilwaukee
I haven’t gotten all the details yet, but it appears Dale Yarger, a mammoth force in Seattle publication design, passed away over the weekend.
He’d been living in California for at least the past four years. But his local work is still a huge influence around here.
Yarger was one of the Rocket’s several rotating art directors in the 1980s. He created many memorable covers there and also made an early iteration of the Sub Pop logo, back when that was the title of Bruce Pavitt’s indie-music review column.
During that time he also co-founded a gay paper called Lights, art-directed The Oregon Horse magazine, and collaborated with artist Carl Smool on a memorable anti-Reagan bus sign.
Yarger became one of Fantagraphics Books’ first Seattle hires after the comix publisher came here from L.A. He redesigned the company’s Comics Journal magazine (where I first knew him), and essentially did every visual thing on its comics and books that wasn’t done by the artists themselves. He instilled the appreciation for top-notch design, typography, and production that now marks the company’s admired graphic novels and comic-strip collections.
By 1995 he transferred over to that other hip bastion, The Stranger. In his three-year stint there, Yarger took the alt-weekly from the look of “a zine on steroids” into the slick product it’s been ever since.
He also had a hand in the visuals of Seattle Weekly, the University Book Store, and Dana Countryman’s Cool and Strange Music magazine.
I will always remember him as a cool head even when surrounded by hot heads, a perfectionist who still understood schedules and budgets, a man with a knack for making even the most mundane assignment sparkle.
UPDATE: Now I’m told Yarger had stomach cancer, for which he’d had surgery some time last year.