Newspaper Blogs

I have written before about the local newspaper's entry into the online world and what this 'new world' means for 'new media.'

So it was with great interest that I read this piece about newspapers and blogs. While I obviously do not begrudge the Tribune its weblogs, something always...troubled...me about Gannett's sort of pseudo-control of their online space. I can't say it as well as this author did:

No surprise that the organized media wanted in on [the blogging phenomenon]. There was and is, however, a drawback to their getting in on it: which is that the space they come to occupy on the terrain of blogging they also transform just by that very act. In integrating this space into their own operation they make it part of whatever media organization they are, which is something else than the free space of the blogosphere.

Not to be misunderstood here: I'm not saying that those blogs operating under the umbrella of newspapers and other media aren't really blogs. They have too many blog-like features to be called anything else. But they are part of the press, as opposed to being part of the (free) blogosphere. Since the press is now online as well
as on paper, the boundary between mainstream media and the blogosphere isn't so sharp a one, anyway. But blogs and bloggers in the press domain are constrained in ways that independent bloggers aren't, and it's a domain, theirs, that isn't freely open to entry. Some will say that these constraints are to the good. They doubtless have their advantages. Yet they mean that the media-controlled blog-space is a less open, less various, less teeming and less colourful space than the blogosphere as such. Long may this great and noisy multitude flourish.

Blogosphere

In discussing the political dustup following David Broder's criticism of Harry Reid, Kathleen Parker makes some interesting observations about the blogosphere. While I disagree with her suggestion that anonymity is usually bad, I do agree that restraint is usually good:

Part of this devolution in discourse has been brought about, no doubt, by the volcanic explosion of the blogosphere, which has democratized free speech in a way that is not always positive or pretty. Everybody can type, but not everyone can write. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone comes equipped with the same skills and experience.

The disinhibiting effect of anonymity, meanwhile, has unleashed something dark in the human spirit that seems to have infected the broader culture. It isn't enough to say that Broder is all wet; instead he's ``foaming at the mouth,'' a ``gasbag" and a ``venomous'' bloviator,'' borrowing again from Begala.

I think some of her comments, though, hint at a bit of journalistic arrogance. In other words, I have read plenty of outrage in the mainstream media, and not all of it was genuine either.

A New Project

Lately I have alluded to a new project I have been working on. Tomorrow is the big day.

Regular readers will recall a series of posts and discussion about the future of media and news. In one post in particular, I wondered aloud about the possibility of a 'print blog.' That discussion continued offline with several of the local bloggers.

It culminates tomorrow. The first 'issue' of Electric City Weblog-Offline, will roll off the presses. Even though it is sort of my baby, it is really a collaborative effort. In fact, the first issue contains a piece from our friend David at GreaterFalls, as well as a blurb from Firefly. Ultimately, I would expect that you'll see some work from all of the local bloggers in it and, hopefully, from many other local writers as well.

That being said, this will be an experiment. A hobby. There might only be one issue. There might be three. There might be twenty. Let's just see what happens.

This is, as best as I can tell, a new idea. There's a fellow who will print your blog for a fee, but as far as I can tell, this is the first time a group of bloggers have ventured into the real world.

For those of you who are regular readers, can I ask a couple favors? First, if you have any ideas or suggestions, please email me at fallsblog@yahoo.com.

Please look for the print version. We will be setting it out at various restaurants and businesses around town. If you have a place for us to put it, please let me know.

I sold a few ads (mostly to myself!) but still went a couple hundred dollars out of pocket. If you want to support the project, please support the advertisers and tell them that is why you are patronizing their business. If you know anyone who might throw down a couple hundred bucks for an ad in a future issue, please let me know.

If you want to submit something for publication, please do. I will suggest, though, that the best way to get printed in this project is to start your own blog because encouraging new blogs is an important goal for us.

But most of all look for it. Read it. Give us some feedback.

I am excited about this. Mostly, though, I am curious. Please let me know what you think.

Halberstam

"These days, reporters regularly gather to bemoan the demise of old journalism and the rise of blogs. Future historians will peg Monday's death of David Halberstam, 73, in a California car crash, as a signpost of the old era's end."

Here.

Continuing Saga, Part III

I posted earlier about the 'new media,' our local paper's entry into it, and whether the whole concept might be turned on its ear. This post is designed to continue the discussion, specifically with respect to a couple points raised in comments.

First, the Treasure State Jew, a journalism major, suggested that page 2M of the Tribune would stand as an impediment to my 'business model' of a blog that moves into the print realm. (2M is the page that reports the local statistics such as courts, obituaries, and births.)

He pointed out:

"[P]rofessional media will always take a higher place on the food chain than those of us that occasionally dabble in it.

The reason? Page 2M. That is the most important page in the Trib for most people. Who was born? Why died? Who got arrested? Its all right there. And filling that page is nothing but drudgery that an occasional dabbler like me, or even a more regular dabbler like you, will take the time to do right.

Not that the Trib often gets it all right on page 2M, but at least they try every day."

I have a couple points in response. First, I am trying to make it clear that I do not think that the end is nigh for newspapers. I am just curious whether there is not some other format or model for delivery of the news that better melds the online and print worlds, than newspaper websites, YourSpace! and all.

Second, let's assume someone did want to compete with 2M. I would posit that there are better ways to do it than pure "drudgery." For example, if I had a solvent business enterprise (combining offline and online work) I might well choose to offer the 2M information only online.

And I might well choose to go to the agencies where that information is generated, and provide them with software at my own expense that would automate the creation and posting of court and birth information. (Obits are a paid service anymore; I could do that too. Or maybe not, maybe one could still offer them for free, but require electronic submission.)

Next, there were several comments about the credibility of information found on blogs. The gist, I think, is that most information we receive is 'biased' in some way or another, and most true consumers of the news simply acquire and digest what they can, considering the source along the way. As Wolfpack points out, while this blog lacks journalists, there are many different perspectives to be absorbed along the way.

Again, the question is not whether newspapers are facing their demise, or whether blogs are. The question is whether there might be some different method to obtain and disseminate at least local news that is as good as or better than the Tribune.

New Media

I know this is probably a violation of blogging etiquette, or at least bad form, but I am going to elevate what is probably a comment discussion to post status. Yesterday I wrote a piece about the 'new media' and the Tribune's attempts to move into it. I received two thoughtful posts, and would like to respond to each.

First, Wolfpack posted here.

Wolfpack's main point is that many blogs have posters or commenters with specialized knowledge beyond that of the 'typical' Tribune reporter. He states: "A Tribune reporter at best is a journalism major who may or may not have even talked to an expert and may be reporting on topics that they don’t fully understand. This is why many readers find inaccuracies when reading stories about issues they have a high degree of knowledge in." (Although I am sure Tribune reporters would never end their sentences with prepositions.)

I think Wolfpack's point is mostly valid. Nothing against journalism majors, but is it really fair to expect them to write intelligently about subjects that others spend years studying? Beyond the most cursory analysis of some complicated issues, I think they are necessarily reliant upon others for much substantive knowledge. (Interestingly, one can contrast this thought with their own self-image. I am reminded of the editorials that appear with some regularity explaining why the Editorial Board chooses to make political endorsements. Invariably they refer to the fact that they are involved in the news business as giving them greater knowledge about such things. The perceiver and the perceived, and all that.)

Can we expect a reporter to know and understand the law relating to covenants not to compete? Can we expect a reporter to even know what questions to ask?

This is not intended as a put down of reporters generally. Many do an excellent job, and I believe it is probably extremely difficult to acquire information from divergent sources and distill it into something that is readable and contains a reasonable level of completeness.

Then, Rooster posted here.

Rooster made a few points. First, he disagreed with what he thought to be my premise that that newspapers in general, and specifically the Tribune, will fail in the long run. That was not what I intended, but I will discuss the future below. He likes newspapers (and so do I).

Second, Rooster's main argument holds against what he considers inaccurate press. He points out that blogging is all well and good, and is a good backstop for the 'mainstream media,' but asserts that journalists are paid to get the story right.

I agree with Rooster too. I am uncertain why a few local bloggers can dig deeper into the coal plant story on their spare time than the Tribune does. In other words, bloggers stories seem based not just on the interviews that the Tribune so thoughtfully conducts for them, but also on digging up the references to the actual materials, the contracts, the meeting minutes, etc. Then the bloggers seem to be asking the harder questions while the real reporters' stories seem based more on conversations with parties.

A clear example can be found in a coal plant story. Ms. Balzarini and Mr. Lawton were asked about the City's plans to sell power to the residents. They have repeatedly stated that they would like to offer power to the residents as an alternative. Ms. Balzarini wrote in the Tribune that "the City has not made a final decision" on the issue. Yet, a local legislator sponsored a bill that would require local residents to buy their power from Electric City Power. Why did the Tribune's reporter not press local officials on that point during his interview?

But enough of all that. The real point of the post yesterday was to try and prompt discussion about where it is all going. I do not believe that newspapers will vanish anytime soon.

Let's turn the discussion on its head for a moment. Instead of thinking about the online future of print journalism, what about the print future of online journalism?

Consider the business model. From the Tribune's perspective, it has a large base of paying customers and advertisers. Due to market demand, it has moved into the online field. At this point, it acquires some new customers who largely receive Tribune services for free. It offers new services to existing customers without additional revenue, and gains some advertising income, although my guess is that this revenue pales with its print advertising revenue.

How about the blogger, though? He or she has a relatively small base of customers (readers) who receive the blogger's 'services' for free. He or she may have some relatively small stream of advertising revenue. If the blogger takes his or her act into the print realm, though, there is a huge market of potential customers who might pay for the product as well as improved opportunities to gain advertising revenue.

If you were looking into the future, what business model would you choose?

And let's take the idea a step further. What if, as Wolfpack points out, the 'reporters' for the print version of the blog are essentially the participants (or at least experts) in the stories? Would such stories not be at least as credible as what we are buying today?

And, perhaps, the 'print blogger' might even be able to convince the participants to write by offering them anonymity. For example, what if you could buy a printed version of a blog with an emphasis on the Benefis/Clinic dispute. What if, in addition to the blogger's story, there was a story from an individual identified only as a manager at Benefis, and another from a person identified only as a Clinic physician. Would you, the reader, be able to sort out the biases of the various writers and reach your own conclusions? Would you be receiving information that is better than what you are receiving now?

If you think about it, this is really not all that different from what is being done currently, except that we are removing one possible source of bias: the intermediary. Reporters get their stories from sources, anonymous or not, and then cull them down to a final product. Why not eliminate the culling and let the readers decide the credibility?

I used to sit on the Tribune's Readers' Panel. At one point I asked why the reporters did not use the internet more for background or information on which to base skepticism. The response was that, on the internet, you're never really sure about the quality of the information you are receiving. Well, frankly, I am long past the day when I would consider the AP as an ironclad source about anything.

Isn't disclosure better? Provide the information and let the reader 'consider the source.' That is, essentially, what we are all doing already on the internet.

Maybe that is the new media: we are all the journalists.

Someone please explain to me why I am full of it.

Ch-ch-ch-changes

I know that I have been very critical of the Tribune (sometimes, of course, they deserve it). Therefore, when they do something right it's only fair to point that out as well.

The Tribune is clearly trying to embrace the 'new media.' They are focusing more on local news with an emphasis on interactivity at their website. They are pushing blogging among their staff. They are emphasizing their blogs within the paper.

They are trying to increase reader participation through their forums. They have even created a special forum called YourSpace! for readers to "post links to videos, other news stories and so on."

It's obvious that the folks at the Tribune have taken a hard look at what they believe to be the trends in media, and have taken steps to emulate or copy them. For that, they should be commended and I do.

I, personally, think that they have made one mistake, however. I do not think the mistake will be apparent in the short term, but taking a longer view will, I think, demonstrate one important fact about the 'new media' that is missing from the Tribune equation:

The growth, expansion, and blossoming of the 'new media,' the 'personal media,' or the 'media of one,' cannot and will not be controlled by or dependent on the behemoths of the old media. In other words, as laudable as the Tribune's efforts are, I do not think they will ultimately succeed in morphing into some sort of melded on and offline super outlet.

In the short term, they will succeed. They have the readership. They can tout their forums and blogs daily with their thousands of readers, and many readers will check them out. Their website is useful and practical, although greatly in need of several technical updates.

But in the long run, I don't think they can succeed because the internet is beyond control. They can emphasize local news in the paper, but the old media mindset will always allow growth of alternative sources. (The "old media mindset" might state that it is "only the journalists who have a role in development of the news stories; reader participation is good and interesting, but leave the news business to the pros.")

And, with all due respect to the writers, I enjoy the blogosphere precisely because it is not the same writers as we find in the paper. This community has many talented writers, and they don't all work in that brick building by the river.

The Tribune forums can be entertaining, but for the most part they seem dominated by the voices of a few (despite 2,600 registered members). They often degenerate into ad hominem attacks.

The YourSpace! feature is a fine idea, but it's been done.

Thus, while I think it is great that the Tribune is trying to move forward, I think the new paradigm will actually be something different.

Which brings me to the final point of this long-winded thought: What will the new media look like? Can on and off-line media be blended in a way that is new and interesting? Something beyond newspaper and newstation websites? How do you think it will look?