The Editorialiste

What is a successful online media business?

2009-09-21T14:20:00.012-04:00

How do you measure a successful online media property?

By awards?

By pageviews?

By unique users?

By profit margins?

I struggle with this question each day.

Name recognition is valuable, but not if you don't make enough money to survive.

Popularity is deemed essential, but how do you make money from all that attention? (Surely you've got a better idea than banner ads.)

Profit margins are the mark of a successful business, but making a killing on a single customer might not pay the bills.

Luxury goods makers know how to make lots of money from few people. (The ones that don't have enough customers -- some couture fashion houses -- are dying as we speak, margins be damned.)

Electronics manufacturers know how to sell many products to many people, but need tremendous volume to make up for thin margins.

Media outlets know how to create engaging, original content, but must keep up a side business (classifieds, ads, retail products, sports teams, educational-prep services) to fund what's otherwise an unsuccessful business.

Some companies subsidize each method's shortcomings by offering both or several models.

But bloggers measure their success by pageviews.

Can you be successful with a small amount of influential, engaged readers? (Perhaps with a subscription.)

Can you be successful with a large amount of apathetic, fair-weather readers? (Perhaps with those advertisements.)

There is a limit to how many readers you can reach with the kind of content you offer and the monetization scheme you've designed. Isn't there?

A foolproof online business model has not yet been made. It's still the Wild Wild West out there.

Don't forget it.

A 30-year magazine veteran fights to keep storytelling relevant online

2009-09-10T19:21:00.008-04:00

When's the last time you were told a great story online?

(Probably not in a long time.)

I recently interviewed Jim Gaines, a former editor of Time, Newsweek, Life and People, who wants to change that.

He's taking a magazine-style approach to interactive multimedia storytelling with a new venture, FLYPmedia.

I interviewed him for SmartPlanet, CBS' new site about smart technology, business, people and ideas.

Though FLYP is still in its infancy -- it reminds me of some of the work I did as a digital media student in journalism school -- Jim made some interesting insights as a 30-year veteran of magazine publishing moving toward the Web:

"There are publications that are in print that don’t need to be in print and could be much more exciting in a digital frame."
"Text is not the most the important element. It’s really a navigational device that leads people through the media."
On producing interactive media: "It's like jazz. You all kind of stimulate each other. And it turns out better than anything you could have done yourself. When a video editor makes a great piece, it changes the story. When an animator does a great animation, it’s the same effect. It raises the game."

You can read the entire interview here.

Why quality journalism costs a lot of money

2009-08-27T13:18:00.002-04:00

We all love those long-form magazine articles, the meat-and-potatoes pieces that address the big issues.

When you're not in a rush, reading such a lengthy article -- it can be anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 words, believe it or not -- can be a revelation.

"I didn't know that," you might say to yourself.

With such length, you might suspect that the article took a lot of time to produce. That's probably true.

What you might not know is how much it cost.

Gerald Marzorati, assistant managing editor at The New York Times and editor of The Times Magazine, recently answered reader questions about the inner workings of the magazine he produces.

Some of his answers might surprise you.

Addressing a question about the viability of long-form journalism in an era of rapidly narrowing attention spans, Marzorati explains that the price of a cover story for the Times magazine costs more than twice the price of the average American home:

Long-form journalism is expensive: The Magazine is publishing a 13,000-word piece on Sunday (it will be up online earlier) that we did in partnership with ProPublica, the independent, not-for-profit newsroom. One of ProPublica's editors and I did a back-of-the-envelop calculation yesterday of what the total cost of the piece actually was, figuring in several years of reporting and nearly a year of editing. Estimate: $400,000.

That piece, "The Deadly Choices at Memorial," is about the poor healthcare decisions that arose in the Hurricane Katrina crisis in Louisiana in 2006.

Jon Stahl highlights the important points of Marzorati's Q&A session:

A cover story can cost several hundred thousand dollars;
A cover story can take years to produce;
Long-form journalism actually get more pageviews online than their shorter counterparts.

Most people probably have no idea of the costs of such articles. And the debate rages on -- even within the journalism community -- about whether articles of such length can be effective online.

But next time you read that article in a magazine -- followed by another one, and another one, until you get to the back cover -- think about the $5 it cost you on the newsstand.

If you're a journalist, job prospects are looking up

2009-08-13T22:06:00.004-04:00

"Class of 2008 journalism school students graduated into the worst job market for new journalists in nearly a quarter-century -- and those who managed to find a job usually had few benefits to go with a stagnant salary, according to a survey released Wednesday."

You ought to read the whole article in Editor & Publisher. But ignore the other statistics -- it's all reflective of the effects of the economic downturn.

This much is clear: If you're a journalism student right now, it's looking up. If you want to be a journalism student, an even better scenario awaits.

And if you're like me, a class of '08 grad, it can't get any worse.

Here's to the future.

Why I don't buy the argument for magazine cover photo retouching

2009-08-11T11:03:00.022-04:00

One of the most interesting issues that has cropped up in recent years has been the debate over the ethics of airbrushing and retouching the artwork and photos that appear on the cover of a magazine.

I've been watching the debate with great anticipation, because I feel that it's a bit of a make-or-break issue for magazine publishing. I don't believe too much will change in the short-term, but I do believe it will establish more concrete boundaries as to what is and isn't acceptable in terms of modifying artwork.

Many magazines have come under fire for choosing to heavily modify their cover subjects, who are usually celebrities: Vogue, Glamour, Marie Claire, InStyle, Shape and even Self (irony of ironies!) have all been called out for a gratutious "we'll fix it in post [-production]" attitude.

Heading the effort is snarky women's blog Jezebel, whose "Photoshop of Horrors" series documents various magazine efforts to, well, hide the truth.

But how true should the truth be in a women's interest or fashion magazine?

The criticism grew so great for a recent Self cover depicting Kelly Clarkson as thinner than she really is -- a big deal, since part of Clarkson's image is the rags-to-riches theme that she's an average (and average-sized) girl who made it big based on that uniquely American potion of talent, merit and moxie -- that the magazine's editor-in-chief Lucy Danziger felt the need to address the issue in a blog post on the mag's web site.

Here are some highlights from her lengthy response:

Pictures are meant to tell a story, express a feeling, convey an emotion or capture a moment. Portraits like the one we take each month for the cover of SELF are not supposed to be unedited or a true-to-life snapshot.

[...]

Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best. Did we publish an act of fiction? No.

[...]

This is art, creativity and collaboration. It's not, as in a news photograph, journalism. It is, however, meant to inspire women to want to be their best. That is the point.

[...]

Kelly says she doesn't care what people think of her weight. So we say: That is the role model for the rest of us.

[...]

Think about your photographs and what you want them to convey. And go ahead and be confident in every shot, in every moment. Because the truest beauty is the kind that comes from within.

If I may be so bold: does this not reek of excuses?

Allow me to address these points individually:

Danziger first defends the edits on their face by declaring that Self isn't supposed to be "true-to-life." Somewhat hypocritical given the magazine's title, but the most legitimate point in defending this practice for magazines.
But then she backtracks: We only did it to make her look "her personal best." That's impossible, because there's no way of reproducing a Photoshop job in real life. Her skin will not get unblemished. Her hips will not thin the way you've crafted them. Her teeth will not whiten so evenly. There's nothing personal about it.
Worse, that reason allows that the magazine assumes responsibility for Clarkson's physical appearance. Last time I checked, she's a public figure -- meaning she (and her publicist) are the ones in control of how she appears in public. That's the cost of being famous. That's your primary job: representing yourself. If she's not at her "personal best" at the time of the shoot, is it really your job as a publisher to pick up the pieces? (And, if you're into back-door dealing, is it really fair for a publicist to withhold their client because she can't manage her own image?)
By Self allowing image edits on Clarkson's figure under the excuse of Clarkson "looking her personal best," it allows that the magazine is now a part of Clarkson's public relations team. A thin line that all magazines straddle to be sure, but not something I'd readily admit to as an editor.
Danziger then tries to compare the edits to journalism. No one's criticizing their work based on the accuracy guidelines for war photos from Iraq. To me, Danziger is defending her decision on the basis of an issue that has not been legitimately raised.
Danziger then admits that Clarkson doesn't care, and uses that as an excuse to alter the photo. Again, hypocritical -- especially in light of the "personal best" reason (so we're kissing up to her!) and the following one, below.
Danziger finishes with a dashed off, clichéd line about how "true beauty" comes "from within." Besides the fact that the phrase rings empty, it still flies in the face of the effort, time and budget spent to modify Clarkson's photograph.

Jezebel's criticism is based in the implication of an ethical boundary that has been crossed: women should not be fooled into thinking or idolizing something that is not possible in the physical world, and anything less than 99% truth is ethically reprehensible.

But it's not the ethical issue of representing women on covers for readers to look up to that bothers me the most. What's really aggravating is that no publishing professional has owned up to the real reason: a better-looking magazine sells more on the newsstand.

(And the unspoken inference: rightly or wrongly, the majority of people find thinner women more attractive. And "more attractive" is always a way to sell more magazines.)

Why is it so hard to just respond to criticism that way? If the decision is made not on the basis of ethics or representation or idealistic idolatry among readership, why not defend it on that ground?

(Certainly no one's holding Danziger's feet to the flames for mere color-correction.)

For sure, it's unfair that Danziger is being singled out in this post (and others) for her response. Self is hardly the worst offender of this practice. But her attempt to defend herself just fell flat to me.

The calling card of most general interest magazines is not their hard-hitting articles or their ethical rigidity. It's their ability to entertain. They are vehicles for leisure, and they convey that spirit through layout and design.

A magazine without that isn't a magazine at all, the way I see it. And at the end of the day, magazine publishing is a business. Period.

So why defend it any other way?

Update: Looks like Self entertainment assistant Ashley Mateo gets it. Amid meaningless fluff, she writes:

"Magazines don't hide the fact that they're always trying to sell issues--and to sell copies, you need to appeal to readers with the best writing and the best images possible."

Perhaps the corner office is too insulating?

Update 2: Jezebel's Margaret posted her own analysis.

Study: Texting increases copy errors by large margin

2009-07-27T21:27:00.002-04:00

From NYTimes.com homepage just a moment ago:

It sure looked like texting, at least.

Reflections on Reflections of a Newsosaur

2009-06-23T18:11:00.005-04:00

There's a great little piece by Priya Kumar in the latest American Journalism Review about the author of the popular journalism blog Reflections of a Newsosaur, Alan Mutter.

There was one "turning point" moment for Mutter in the story that struck me as curious. It goes like this:

The San Francisco Chronicle then hired Mutter to infuse the competitive spirit into a sleepy newsroom that some compared to a cruise ship. Mutter emphasized local news and investigative work.

The staff was talented and capable, Mutter says, but their chops had been dulled. He recalls asking one reporter to turn in a story by 5 that afternoon. Taken aback, the reporter said he had never reported and written a story in the same day.

"Well, today you will," Mutter replied.

Judging by the narrative, that was in the late 1980s. Reading this, though, I thought to myself: I don't know a single young journalist right now that can't turn in a story in a day.

In fact, perhaps even more than one story in a day.

Want to be taken aback in a post-blog world? Assign a story and ask a reporter to turn it in in a month -- or two, or three.

Now that's shocking.

(I strongly recommend regularly reading Alan's blog. He is, in many ways, the Seth Godin of the journalism world.)

New media reality check: The skills you really need in the real world

2009-04-20T17:36:00.017-04:00

I've had several people e-mail me with the following question:

"I'm a print/magazine/broadcast student, but I want to get into new media. What courses should I take/which j-school should I go to/how should I prepare so that I can get a job when I graduate? You were a new media student, Ed. Tell me -- how can I get hired?"

If you were wondering the same thing, you're not alone. As the economy tanks and media outlets of all persuasions cut back, lay off or refuse to hire, I'd be nervous, too. (And I was.) Everyone and their mother is telling you that you need new media skills to compete.

You must be a one-man-band of multimedia glory, they say. You simply aren't a journalist unless you're carrying a laptop, camera, camcorder, pen and pad all at once!

Shaking in your boots yet? You ought to be. Because there are very few people that can do that job.

The good news is that it probably won't be you. As new media has increased in popularity and usage, this myth has populated of the multi-talented reporter -- you know, the one carrying all the gear a few paragraphs back. And while it's certainly an ideal, it's not a necessity. In fact, it's barely a reality.

Thus brings my first point of this New Media Reality Check: most news organizations simply don't operate that way.

Do you remember how Henry Ford became famous? He did it with the Model-T, which was innovative because it was built on an assembly line. So instead of one worker needing to know how to put together an automobile from start to finish, workers were trained to be very good at one specific thing -- putting on a wheel, or attaching a transmission to an engine, or checking for defects. It made the process more efficient in both cost and speed.

The same thing applies to publications, moreso as it gets bigger. Whether the publication in question is a newspaper or a magazine or a radio/TV station or a website, the assembly line theory of the Industrial Age still holds true: a writer reports and creates the story, an editor edits it, a photographer shoots art for it, a production editor lays out a template for the story to appear and another editor (or two) looks at the entire package, all while being fact-checked and copy-edited by another person dedicated to that task.

As you can see, no one person does it all -- the photographer sticks to his or her camera, the reporter sticks to his or her story and the production editor doesn't typically interject his or her opinion about the reportage. Each person is a cog in the machine -- the bigger the machine, the more cogs, and vice-versa.

So how did we come to expect a journalist to do the same thing?

The reality is that, in most newsgathering organizations, you will have a specialized task. Maybe you'll be an interactive producer, spending your days working with Adobe Flash (in which case, you probably have a computer science degree.) Maybe you'll spend your days producing slideshows and simple infographics. Maybe you'll blog. But you'll rarely do them all.

So here is my second point of the New Media Reality Check -- my advice to journalists looking to get in on the new media game:

If you're just starting out j-school or a similar educational program, think about what you'd like to do when you graduate. Do you want to work in broadcast television? Do you want to work online? Do you want to work in print? Radio? Whatever it is you think you want to do, pursue the skills needed for that field within your studies. It's that simple. If you want to dabble in other skills, that's fine. But you don't have to as an online journalism prerequisite.

If you're already a journalist, or you're in a print-specific educational track (newspaper, magazine, etc.), consider where you want to end up, job-wise. Do you want to be a photo/video journalist or interactive producer? Then you'll have to attain specific skills, via a proper class or a dedicated friend (or yourself, if you have time). Do you want to simply be able to write online and be comfortable with the Web? Good news -- my advice to you is the following: Don't return to j-school, and don't take a course.

That's right. Instead, start a blog. (You can do so here or here, among other places.)

A blog isn't a diary anymore. It's parlance for a type of publishing platform -- you now have the very machinations of a publication at your fingertips, for free. Once you start one, start playing around in the HTML editor of each post. Start reading about CSS once you've got a handle on HTML and its code snippets called "tags." And post about something on your beat. Or journalism. It doesn't matter.

That's it! You now know everything needed to work online. Seriously.

For most online journalism, all you need to know is how to blog and how to use a CMS, or content management system. That's it. What does that entail, exactly? Allow me to lay it out for you:

How to blog

Know how to write a story in Microsoft Word or on paper? Great! That's 90 percent of what you need to know to blog. Seriously. If you can write with clarity and an engaging demeanor on first draft -- which I believe is the skill to have in 21st century journalism -- you're already ahead of most people.

What about the last 10 percent? Well, the first 5 percent is learning basic HTML. For example, the little pieces of code, or tags, that allow you to bold and italicize and insert an image (which you may have to size appropriately). You may be able to do this using a "visual editor," which doesn't show tags, but you should learn how they work. That five-minute lesson will save you when something goes awry as you write.

The last 5 percent? Getting over the mental hurdle of hitting the "publish" button. Some publications have bloggers who are edited; others don't. And it has nothing to do with how big or prominent the publication is, either. So whether you're writing a column or a piece of investigative reporting, there's a good chance you'll have to publish it yourself, live to the website. All it takes is pressing "publish," but you'd be surprised how many journalists don't realize that they have that power at their fingertips -- and even more surprised at how many refuse to use it.

How to use a CMS (content management system)

This is actually a trick question. The thing is, CMSes are proprietary -- meaning they vary from publication to publication. Many larger publications have their own customized CMS. Some combine a CMS with a blog publishing platform! (You'd be surprised at how many sites/outlets are in this group.)

In other words, there's no way you can learn something that only applies to a single publication. And neither can online journalists who work elsewhere! If you, esteemed print journalist, and I, online journalism fan, both apply for the same job, we're pretty much in the same boat when it comes to that publication's CMS.

So what should you do? You started that blog I told you to sign up for above, right? Good -- a blog is a kind of CMS, so by filling out the "headline" and the "tags" and other fields, you were doing the exact same thing you would do in a CMS. Really!

Congratulations. You're an online journalist!

Pretty easy, huh? Notice I didn't mention anything about splicing video in Final Cut Pro or Avid, or mixing audio in Pro Tools or Audacity, or using Adobe Flash. Perhaps you'll use Photoshop, but likely only to resize images.

That. Is. It.

Allow me to repeat: you will not use any of these expensive, complex tools for the majority of online journalism jobs. You may down the line, but it's exceedingly rare that anyone will expect you to have prior knowledge of any of those skills.

I spent much of my "new media" journalism time playing with Adobe Flash and Final Cut Pro. The thing is, I didn't take a job doing interactive or video production -- so believe it or not, I haven't cracked either program since I finished my formal education. None of it truly had any bearing on my job prospects, and by the time I'm shopping around for my next job, I'll be so many years out of the loop that I won't be able to rely on those skills if I decide to switch.

I'll be honest, I did enjoy playing with those programs late into the night, because I learned a lot about myself and how I learn things. But I didn't need them to work online, which I currently do full-time (as in, when the Internet is out, I cannot work).

What I do wish is that I had spent more time learning lower-hanging skill fruit -- CSS, which is a coding language similar to HTML, and formal design and layout classes, because I'd like to produce my own online publication beyond The Ed. CSS and design skills are far less specific, and much more widespread in their use (and helpful in their implementation), than Adobe Flash or Final Cut Pro (for the typical online journalist). Period.

So: you wanna be an online journalist? If you haven't started yet, plan accordingly. If you have, skip the formal classes and start a blog. Then stop calling yourself a print journalist -- because we're all online journalists now.

The problem with magazines à la carte

2009-04-15T19:13:00.013-04:00

When Time Inc. first announced its plans to offer its magazine content à la carte, called "Mine," my first thought was that it was catching up with the times. After all, isn't that what people do on the Web? Pull what they deem the best from several different (and sometimes competing) publications?

But instead of posting, I thought I'd sit on the idea for awhile and let it stew on the backburner of my brain. It's never wise to rail against or praise a business model in a knee-jerk kind of way -- these things are often more complicated then they appear, and business models are chock full of competing interests.

Now that I've had some time to think about it, it occurs to me that with "Mine," certain magazine staff are getting the short end of the stick.

First, let me explain how Time's offering works. The consumer gets to pick five titles from the Time Inc. stable -- the largest in the business -- and soon that reader gets tailored issues pulling content (or stories, in the printed parlance) that matches his or her interests.

Interested in the executive life? You'll probably get material from Time, Money, Golf, Food & Wine and Travel + Leisure. If you're more a fashionable jet-setter, perhaps a combination of Real Simple, InStyle, Travel + Leisure, Time and Golf.

You get the idea.

Curiously, some titles that would match others are left out of the mix: Fortune. Coastal Living. People. Essence. Entertainment Weekly. Wallpaper*. Cooking Light. This Old House. Et cetera.

I suspect that decision is threefold: to avoid pillaging the company's entire portfolio; to keep subscribers of several magazines (it's likely that a Money subscriber already also gets Fortune; a similar possibility exists for Travel + Leisure and Coastal Living) subscribing to distinct publications; and to make sure that advertiser dollars are coming in without them trying to shortchange established rates for individual publications.

Whatever the reason, though, I don't like it. It seems to be a massive convenience for the user, but it really takes away from the point of a magazine. And that's what gives me pause.

Magazines are powerful because they are packages. Whereas newspapers are intended to deliver information quickly, magazines are intended to be leisurely read, analytical (or, at the very least, big picture) and a form of entertainment. They are less an information vehicle as a leisure activity, so much as information can be entertainment.

A big part of that "package" is the design, layout and story selection of the magazine. A big part of editors' (and publishers') jobs is to make sure that the magazine flows from cover to cover. It's not a piecemeal exercise. Magazines are, by their nature, a curated collection.

So while magazines a la carte seems appropriate in a world of RSS feeds and customizable content delivery, it's really at odds with the very nature of a magazine. It turns magazine content into, well, content -- separating it from the infrastructure that a magazine issue provides. And that's a problem for the editorial and business departments alike.

I've previously criticized magazines for not jumping on the Web sooner and in a better fashion. My argument was that they were missing a great branding opportunity, a great chance to extend the brand with far less overhead than a spinoff publication (Vogue Living, I'm looking at you). There's no reasonable limit to how much content can be produced on the Web. And the price of ink and paper doesn't even factor into it.

Of course, the challenge of the Web is in reproducing the perfected magazine form in a new medium. So when I look at this a la carte service -- which eschews planning altogether, reducing magazine content to words -- I cringe.

And that's exactly what Time Inc.'s "Mine" is -- unplanned. It's offered to you in printed form or via online delivery to your inbox. I haven't had the pleasure of seeing either form (Time Inc. doesn't offer you a preview without you handing over all of your vitals), but I can't see it being a successful publication in its own right. The content is generally disconnected from itself, it may overlap and it, in all likelihood, has little flow to it. It's a very utilitarian approach, which is at odds with magazines as entertainment. They're simply not necessary to live. They're just nice to have.

The "Mine" endeavor smacks of marketing, and very little of editorial. There's nothing wrong with that on the face of it, but if the company wants to effectively create a new publication, it will need oversight. And it takes at least half a traditional magazine staff just to curate previously-published content in a way that it could fit together. Even then, the fit isn't perfect.

Above all, new endeavors must pass a simple litmus test: does it solve a problem? (Or does it make enough money that it doesn't matter?) I see neither of these options. By offering "Mine," Time Inc. is backhandedly shunning the work its editors and art directors for the (likely freelance) writers. It doesn't solve the magazines-on-the-Web problem; it doesn't solve the declining print circulation (and thus ad revenue/pages) problem.

So what's a publishing house to do? Well, in a global economic downturn like this, it's to make sure its portfolio (and thus its staff) is lean and mean, both in printed and digital forms. "Mine" just strikes me as fatty excess, even though it appears to be a cost-saving way to reuse content.

With such limited appeal, exposure and choice on the part of the consumer, I doubt any "magazines à la carte" solution has the legs to stand the test of time. With "Mine," you can have it.

A word about Columbia J-School's 'Existential Crisis'

2009-03-11T19:24:00.012-04:00

Former New York Sun editor Erica Orden wrote an interesting post today on New York magazine's Daily Intel blog entitled "Columbia J-School’s Existential Crisis," detailing the difficulties that the school is having adjusting to what it calls a "new media mindset."

Orden writes:

The media bloodbath hasn’t made for happy days at Columbia Journalism School. When the Times recently announced that its new, hyperlocal blog experiment “The Local” would be assisted by journalism students not from Columbia but from the City University of New York, you could practically hear the collective gasp echoing in the hallowed halls uptown. CUNY? Since when does CUNY trump Columbia? Well, since digital journalism became the single ray of hope on an otherwise dark media horizon, and Columbia’s vaunted ability to train students as print reporters began to appear obsolete. And so the school is trying to change. Fast.

To back up that statement, Orden notes the arrival of Bill Grueskin, former managing editor of WSJ.com, and the upcoming change in curriculum to focus more on digital endeavors -- which has, according to Orden, "raised the ire of some professors, particularly those closely tied to Columbia’s crown jewel, RW1."

“Fuck new media,” the coordinator of the RW1 program, Ari Goldman, said to his RW1 students on their first day of class, according to one student. Goldman, a former Times reporter and sixteen-year veteran RW1 professor, described new-media training as “playing with toys,” according to another student, and characterized the digital movement as “an experimentation in gadgetry.”

Orden goes on, accurately and with great detail, as to the "zero-sum" struggle of new media vs. old media resources; of hiring professors who know the former better than the latter and training those who know the latter and not the former.

Orden details the struggle at Columbia deftly:

Part of the problem is the perception that the situation is a “a zero-sum game,” as one person put it, where adding lessons in video production or law for bloggers will dilute or displace the school’s long-heralded focus on journalism’s core precepts: concise prose, ethical reporting, and sophisticated editorial sensibilities.

But the hurdles are practical as well as philosophical. Because many of the tenured professors haven’t worked in new media themselves, their classes require the addition of tech-savvy adjuncts, which has Lemann worried about “blowing out the budget.”

Orden wraps up the story with a sentiment I think all of us can agree on: that the real issue isn’t whether j-schools can afford to change, but that they can’t afford not to.

I believe this article reveals, faithfully, the administrative and honest struggle that journalism schools are having coping with a sudden rush of new media. The temptation to "dive in" headfirst without figuring out how to apply it, or without looking at return on investment for new storytelling methods. The struggle to convince "old media" journalism professors that new media is worthwhile, and vice-versa.

It's a game of politics, but I think everyone is equally concerned for the same reasons: j-schools must continue cranking out the best journalists. But how?

I believe this article is framed incorrectly, however. The meat of the article is accurate, but the lede and the style used to make the point is misleading.

I've written before about my experience in the new media program at Columbia, and I mean in no way to be an apologist or defender of Orden's claims about the school. But I feel the obligation to clarify some of her inferences about and references to the school using the reality I experienced there.

The CUNY vs. Columbia "slight" in the lede is a creative way to play off Columbia's establishment position as the training ground for the New York Times, but Orden infers, without directly saying so, that Columbia has suddenly snapped out of its print mindset to catch up to the new media forerunners.

That's simply not true. The new media program has existed at Columbia, albeit in a much smaller form, since the 1990s. Much of its development is thanks to chief new media evangelist (and dean of students) Sree Sreenivasan, who has taught at the school since 1993. The program has evolved over time with the technology it covers, and has in recent years seen a noticeable bump in students who apply for the "new media" program. So it seems to me that the program has changed to address student demands, rather than trends in journalism directly.

Secondly, Orden credits Grueskin with that change, who arrived on June 4, 2008. I don't know firsthand just how much Grueskin has contributed behind the scenes. What I can say, however, is that the curriculum change for new media students was in the works long before he arrived, because Sreenivasan showed us a working draft of it sometime late that spring.

As for RW1 -- Columbia's core reporting class, the nuts and bolts course -- Columbia "webified" the course for the first time for the school year 2007-2008, adding a content management system so that students could post their stories. Many of the difficulties Orden details about convincing old-time professors certainly do exist. However, Orden singles out one professor as an example of the skepticism -- and I must take issue with that.

I had the pleasure of taking a course from the professor that was singled out, and we produced a fine website for the class. In no way was my imagination limited by the professor with regard to that site. It's true that several professors at Columbia are new media tone deaf. And why should they be anything different? Some of them, particularly those of an advanced age, don't have a perceived need to be trained in new media. But that's not to say they aren't receptive to using it, even if they don't understand how to do it.

What's more, to debunk one of my own points, some of the oldest professors at Columbia are actively involved in the new media program. And I think that shows a lot of heart and willingness to learn, if nothing more.

Finally -- and most notably for Orden's lede -- the new media coordinator that she quotes was, prior to taking a full-time position at Columbia this past May, a new media adjunct at both CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and Columbia. For someone trying to start a new media war in her lede, that's a serious omission -- as are the other adjuncts who pull double-duty at both schools.

But Orden knows that -- she graduated from Columbia's j-school in 2006.

Still, I think the takeaway from Orden's post is far more valuable than the clarification I attempted to provide above. In every journalism school -- like as in every printed publication -- there's a generational, fight-or-flight, ROI-questioning debate about the place and weight with which we should approach new media and the storytelling techniques it provides.

And for that reason, I believe we're all in this together -- it's not at all a race to be the "new media" king. Especially if the publications at the bleeding edge of adopting new media prefer computer science grads to journalism grads.

Among j-school grads, I believe there's a kinship, a knowing bond that has developed from being in the experimental incubator together -- be it in New York, Missouri, California or Illinois (or Arizona, or Ohio, or...). From what I've seen, no one knows the answer to the great "new media" question -- especially j-schools. That's because the publications the schools are supposed to prepare their students for don't know, either.

I don't want to appear as though I look through rosy lenses -- I have my criticisms of the journalism programs I have graduated from. But they seem to be far more prepared to handle the change than most of the publications I've worked for.

The policy is that there is no policy. As a journalist, I think that's wildly exciting.

UPDATE: Via Twitter, NYU's Jay Rosen directed me toward these meeting minutes from an NYU journalism school think session. It's a revealing look into what journalism educators are grappling with at this moment.

Tina Brown and the fight to save journalism

2009-02-13T11:36:00.010-05:00

If you're a writer, get out of your comfort zone.

If you're an editor, surround yourself with writers.

And if you're starting an online publication, do so with conviction. It will work.

Eventually.

Sage words from celebrated editor Tina Brown (Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Talk, and now The Daily Beast) last night at Columbia Journalism School's Delacorte Magazine Lecture, a weekly public lecture by notables in the publishing world put on by Victor Navasky of The Nation.

Brown's Daily Beast -- for which at least one friend of mine writes -- has been in the spotlight since its launch last fall. A new media venture by an old-media person, if you will. An online pubication brave enough to not accept (interns aside) free work. A digital venture (questionably) backed by IAC's Barry Diller.

But Brown revealed last night that the venture is very much her vehicle for figuring out how publishing can survive in a "free," online-only environment. Correction: not just survive, but thrive. And in this current state of media flux, it's exciting to me to know that someone is pursuing something with conviction, and not floundering about trying to stay afloat.

Highlights which I'd like to pass along to you, readers:

Deploying narrative journalism on the web successfully is Brown's greatest challenge.
The Daily Beast continues Brown's tradition of high/low coverage (or "class and trash," as I like to call it.)
Some of her best writers didn't start as writers at all. Some of her best writers were passionate about topics they weren't writing about for a living. It was Brown's challenge -- and naturally, to her benefit -- to correct this. Example: Dominick Dunne, whom she told to keep a diary; Jeffrey Toobin, whom she simply gave enough time to develop his own (less-than-legalese) voice.
Editors must "make their world writers," and surround themselves with them. They are immensely creative people, she said, and you must know their strengths and weaknesses and, of course, always have talent on hand.
A big area for development is in-depth, feature-length business journalism. Not closing-bell coverage, but CEO profiles and such things. "Capture characters," she said.
The Daily Beast is doing what newsweeklies should be doing -- analysis and less breaking news coverage -- in the smart and intellectual way that Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report are struggling to transition to at the moment. But, with the added benefit of linking off to the best of the web's stories.
The advantage of analysis: "People are gadflies, but they're also obsessives." So while hopping on the breaking news train is fine, people are still drawn to long-form, in-depth analysis telling them something they didn't already know.
"A good editor (at least, one in the vein of Tina Brown -- Ed.) likes a strong staff around them." Strong as in personality: "I have a terrible weakness for irritants."
Working online is actually less stressful/anxiety-ridden than print, because there are much fewer moments when someone's piece is cut because of limited space. "It's more physically grueling, but it's not as stressful in terms of disappointing people."
"It's so fashionable to trash the press all the time."
On the theory behind paying writers and investing in them: "You have to invest in people." Unlike her big-budget Conde Nast days, Brown can't hire writers on contract anymore, so the web environment makes it harder to develop people and give them a financial safety net at the same time. On the other hand, limitless space is helpful in that regard.
2009 is the year of the freelancer. "The Gig Economy," she called it.
The Daily Beast has started to solicit advertisers, which will be its main revenue stream. Ads will appear in the spring.
On outsourcing journalism: "I think it's preposterous."

Before attending, I knew little of Brown. I knew she and Arianna Huffington (The Huffington Post) were often cited as brash new editors-in-chief/publishers in the new media/online journalism world. I knew Brown had a fantastic pedigree. I knew she was British.

But that's about it, honestly. So I was surprised when I heard these wise words come from someone who has been in the magazine business so long -- and who seemingly got into online publishing by necessity.

Brown spoke honestly and thoughtfully -- she wasn't there to publicize The Daily Beast, and didn't really reference it unless it was referred to in a question she was asked.

In listening to her opinions and advice, I came to respect her for this reason: she had a clear view of what she wanted and where she wanted it. An entrepreneur, she was pursuing publishing online, she wanted talented writers, she didn't want to cut corners nor spend funds happily.

Personally, I don't like everything about The Daily Beast. (For one, I think its design, while adventurous, is a little hard to digest.). But I do now understand why things are the way they are on the site, and the thinking behind those decisions.

An old professor of mine likes to use the phrase, "Acts of commission, rather than acts of omission," when referencing online work. I can see that in operation at The Daily Beast.

Brown's vision may not be an ironclad business model, but it was her conviction that struck me. At a time when so many journalists -- newspapermen and women, freelance writers, editors, publishers, etc. -- are running to the next thing (blogs! Facebook! Twitter!) or just simply lamenting their own downfall (layoffs! cut pages! no ads!), I found it refreshing -- exciting, really -- to hear such a clear voice at such a cloudy time in journalism.

Did the NY Observer plagiarize a Radar trend story?

2009-01-28T17:25:00.009-05:00

(Image: myownprivateidaho.com; Getty Images; outnow.com via Observer.com)

In today's New York Observer ran a saucy trend piece by Joe Pompeo titled "The Hipster Rent Boys Of New York," whose dek explains the story: "No more L train for us! In frigid economy, striving young men are turning to the oldest profession to make the city work for them."

In other words, prostitution among twentysomething, possibly-gay, Williamsburg, Brooklyn-inhabiting hipsters.

But a colleague of mine suggested that he had read this story somewhere else, not long ago...yes, that's it! It was in Radar's September issue, by Jessica Pilot, titled, "Secrets of a Hipster Hooker," with a dek that reads: "The author's friends are stylish, well-educated, and professionally successful young women in New York City. They also turn tricks on the side for $2,000 an hour. One day she decided to follow in their footsteps."

Now, the story isn't plagiarized in the most common sense, in that it's copied word-for-word. It's more an intellectual property plagiarism -- you know, running the same story in the same market in almost the same time frame (five months).

Any good editor would deny a reporter who came to him or her with this "idea." But did Pompeo copy Pilot? And who was reporting the story first?

Hard to say, and there are differences: Pilot's story is about women, whereas Pompeo's is about men. Pilot's story was written pre-recession; Pompeo's uses it as a motive for the prostitution.

So it's fair game, right?

Well, what if I told you they quote the same source as their token "expert"? (That would be Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociology professor at Columbia University whose expertise lies in high-end male and female escorts.)

What if they use the same obvious Eliot Spitzer-Ashley Dupre foil in the story?

Now what do you think?

For me, it's a little too close for comfort.

What does it take to be a multimedia journalist?

2009-01-22T10:08:00.007-05:00

(Illustration: Steve Garfield)

I've had this discussion with a few people who currently practice in the general area that is "multimedia journalism." At the highest echelon, are you more journalist or programmer?

The New York Times' multimedia team explains in the latest Ask the Newsroom:

Aron Philofer:

As for learning these skills, there's some disagreement among those on my team with formal computer science backgrounds on whether taking computer science classes is worthwhile. Some say college courses are often too theoretical, but others believe that even the theory provides a solid foundation for problem solving. I wouldn't know because, like several other members of my team, I'm entirely self-taught. So I'm living proof that it's possible to learn enough to write a few production Web applications, manage a development team and not crash NYTimes.com (yet).

Gabriel Dance:

What I see far too often in journalism schools, and I feel is a mistake, is the idea that somebody can just learn computer programming in a semester or two. Developing interactives and projects on the Internet requires a love of computers and a deep interest in technology. Most of the time, people develop these skills on their own, or pursue a technology-related career. If you really feel that you want to be a journalist-programmer, I encourage you to take some courses in the computer science department. It will give you the foundation that you just can't get by taking a couple of Flash courses.

Steve Duenes:

The journalist portion of the journalist/programmer combination shouldn't be neglected. We've had a number of strong technological performers pass through our department, and some of them had difficulty knowing which information to pursue or how to pursue it efficiently. Some had interesting ideas, but they weren't able to fully articulate what they wanted to do, and as a consequence, they were frustrated when we had to make decisions about which graphics to go after.I'm not saying that a master's degree in journalism is the thing to do. It might be. But the important thing is to find an environment where you'll be pushed and where you can grow. If you're surrounded by a few people with good experience and if your internship or job requires you to behave like a journalist, that's good.

From my experience -- self-taught but not extensively so, thus better than the average new media graduate but poorer than the average programmer -- a journalism grad with new media experience is no longer the desired employee for the leading online publications (like the Times). More often, it is the programmer who took a few journalism courses, rather than the other way around.

The good news is that means the bar is much higher now, ever rising, and stories can and will be told with such depth and nuance thanks to a team that has mastered the tools needed to express them.

The bad news is that a new media journalism graduate who wants to work in multimedia won't be able to at the highest levels without some serious coding expertise under his or her belt. In other words: perhaps a master's degree in computer science will do you more good than one in journalism.

Why NYmag's decision to cut pay, keep staff writers is a good one.

2009-01-16T14:10:00.014-05:00

We've all seen the headlines.

"Editor Bob Jones laid off." "Conde Nast freezes salaries." "NYTimes lays off staffers."

It's a tough time to be in the publishing industry, whatever the medium.

It's easy to hate on management for this, since they're the ones throwing the switch. Yet the most responsible (public) handling of the economic crisis yet by a media company has been that of New York magazine's, who decided to keep the money flowing toward its dedicated staff, rather than cutting it off.

It's not as much of a cost-saving move, but to the staff writers who were affected, it's everything. It's a job, albeit not enough of one, in an expensive city. It's the opportunity not to serve lattes while you're planning out your next freelance pitch. It's a safety net. Some money will come in.

At least some money will come in.

It's tough being cut if you're editorial. Your job is to create a publication, not sell ads. Sure, what you produce shouldn't be ad-averse, but when the sales side doesn't make enough cash, you're just as much at risk as they are of termination. And that's a tough pill to swallow, especially when (with a global recession) the whole thing is out of their hands, too.

So I commend New York for hanging in there. It's not a popular move from the top -- hell, if they weren't a private company, they probably wouldn't have been able to make such a move -- but to a writer, it's an incredible display of understanding.

You will continue to receive some sort of paycheck. You will continue to have your work published under our notable masthead somehow.

So owner Bruce Wasserstein, editor-in-chief Adam Moss, managing editor Ann Clarke, and whoever else was involved in the discussion, you've shown considerable tact in this move. Everyone expects something to happen, and everyone hopes it isn't them who is affected, but this is saving a lot of face in a lot of places -- even if it's a small staff to begin with.

(It should be noted that not everyone made it this year: there were a handful of layoffs in December, including senior editor Jesse Oxfeld and restaurant critic Gael Greene.)

When every publication in New York City is fighting for the best talent, it's also a good way to keep it in house. I'm continually impressed at the quality of magazine that staff puts out each week (!). Here's hoping keeping most people on board will continue that trend.

Online, have rules of journalism ethics changed?

2009-01-16T13:39:00.007-05:00

A new post by Robert Miles on OJR.org analyzes the challenges print journalists face as they transition to the web -- specifically with regard to the assumptions they make regarding ethics and procedure.

The practice of journalism is an act of service. But if we are going to be able to continue to serve our audience, we will need to change some of the conventions and assumptions we've brought to our practice if they now stand in the way of our ability to serve. What good are conventions designed a generation ago to protected our public image if following them today leaves us with a shrinking audience and no advertisers to support us?

Miles takes three popular tenets of traditional journalism ethics that he believes journalists must change in order to remain relevant online:

Old rule: You can't cover something in which you are personally involved.
New rule: Tell your readers how you are involved and how that's shaped your reporting.
Old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
New rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
Old rule: There must be a wall between advertising and editorial.
New rule: Sell ads into ad space and report news in editorial space. And make sure to show the reader the difference.

It's clear that the op/ed beginnings of the blogosphere have affected journalism, and the debate's out as to whether that's for good or not. But writing standards and news cycles aside, it's clearly forced journalists to reconsider the rigid rules they were taught on the job or in school -- which I applaud. The old adage is, "if your mother says she loves you, check it out." So why do we take journalism's rules on face value?

With consideration to skepticism, why aren't we questioning our very journalism education?

Above, Miles clearly isn't suggesting that journalists change their core beliefs; rather, he's redefining how journalists can best empower readers with valid information. And I think we ought not follow journalism's rules with such religious fervor so much as follow journalism's intentions -- purpose, really -- with that same energy.

Ad pages in magazines dropped 11.7% in 2008

2009-01-14T17:29:00.005-05:00

Of the more than 230 magazines tracked by the Publishers Information Bureau, only 42 -- or about 18% -- saw ad pages increase for the year, according to figures released by the Publishers Information Bureau via Folio's Jason Fell.

Of the more than 230 magazines tracked by PIB, only 42—or about 18 percent—saw ad pages increase for the year. In other words, it was the biggest dropoff since 2000, the earliest year comparative PIB numbers are available.

Each of the top 12 advertising categories declined in 2008. Hardest hit? Automotive, with titles such as Hot Rod and Automobile, which saw ad pages fall 24.3 percent and revenues decline 20.5 percent to $1.67 billion.

Next up were business magazines. SmartMoney, owned jointly by Hearst and Dow Jones, saw the most severe decline, with ad pages falling 29.7 percent for the year. Mansueto Ventures’ Fast Company was the lone holdout, which posted a 23.9 percent gain in pages. (It should be noted that FastCompany effectively shuttered their online unit and pushed its resources exclusively toward the printed product. -Ed.)

Newsweeklies were next. U.S. News & World Report, which will become a monthly, saw ad pages plummet 32.4 percent for the year. The Week was one of two magazines that posted flat ad page results for the year.

Finally, music magazines. Fell writes that Blender is on "life support" and saw ad pages fall 30.6 percent for 2008. Rolling Stone, which shrunk its signature-sized magazine this year, wasn't far behind, with ad pages declining 23.8 percent.

See if you can pick your favorite title out of this table:

So, who wants to be a magazine editor? Anyone? Anyone?

UPDATE: A great related article by Salon's Rebecca Traister. Here's a good bit from it:

Despite decades of premature bell-tolling about the death of print, turn-of-the-21st-century magazines were, in many ways, plump geese, fattened on big advertising budgets, a seemingly limitless market and an expanding class of consumers eager to spend money on expensive things (whether they could afford them or not). Americans wanted to eat well, dress fine and live lavishly, and that was good for food and shelter and fashion magazines. Americans wanted to wallow in celebrity gossip, and a passel of glossy weeklies was born, delivering Hollywood gossip in photo-larded installments. The pesky divide between editorial and advertising melted with the development of magalogs, publications like Lucky and Domino devoted entirely to introducing readers to stuff they might want to buy.

Good stuff.

'Putting content on the Web would destroy our paper'

2008-12-22T10:17:00.013-05:00

In today's New York Times, Media Equation columnist David Carr explains the story of the TriCityNews of Monmouth County, N.J., who he says has prospered by shunning the Web entirely:

"Why would I put anything on the Web?” asked Dan Jacobson, the publisher and owner of the newspaper. “I don’t understand how putting content on the Web would do anything but help destroy our paper. Why should we give our readers any incentive whatsoever to not look at our content along with our advertisements, a large number of which are beautiful and cheap full-page ads?"

Which, given the current state of media affairs, is a shocking pronouncement.

Carr elaborates on his column, describing a way of thinking that is best summed up as, "if it works, work it." He mentions John Koblin's New York Observer piece (perhaps this one, though Carr's article sadly and ironically doesn't link) describing how business magazine competitors Forbes, Portfolio and Fortune went through layoffs, with the Web getting hit the hardest. He mentions popular new media poster boy Nick Denton of Gawker Media, who predicted a 40 percent decline in Web display advertising.

Carr's solution in this week's media equation? "It's probably not a great time to be indexing into the Web either."

In other words, he doesn't really digest it at all.

David Carr is a smart guy. I've been lucky enough to meet the guy a few years back, before the book, back when the Carpetbagger was a new phenomenon.

But I don't think he quite solved this equation.

While his column is lean, and his space limited to explain nuance behind the situation, I really don't think he adequately explains the references he draws between very different types of publications. For example:

When it comes to brand advertising, print has a strong track record. Advertisers like the analog presentation in TriCityNews for the same reason they come back in droves to Vogue.

Well that's a real tough connection to draw. The TriCityNews is a local newspaper; Vogue is a national luxury fashion magazine. TriCityNews' advertisers are local and faithful; Vogue's advertisements are a part of a major campaign -- and when times are tough, luxury retailers pull back in a big way. Vogue has the advantage of being a glossy magazine, in which nearly nothing is "news" by any stretch of the imagination. And while I don't know anything about TriCityNews beyond the scope of this article, it seems to be a local neighborhood rag more for local interest than breaking news. And I suspect -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Jacobsen -- that advertising doesn't fluctuate nearly as much as Vogue's, which, by the way, is often sold as an advertising package alongside sibling mags such as Glamour and W.

My point is this: To connect the lessons learned from this small publication that "the Web is to be avoided" to the larger media landscape -- even if only inadvertently implied by the very publication of Carr's article -- is to be misleading.

Let's look at some of the references:

The business magazines: All three mentioned are owned by major magazine houses (Forbes is Forbes, Portfolio is Conde Nast, Fortune is Time Inc.), and all three bring in luxury advertisers to a degree. Forbes has been in need of reinvention for awhile, and its website is hard on the eyes. Portfolio is a new magazine that never quite distinguished itself among the pack and whose publisher deliberately avoided investing online. Fortune is a Time flagship magazine but whose CNNMoney.com website is popular but woefully underused as a confusing catch-all pot for Money and Fortune's material.

Gawker Media: A collection of upstart blogs, Gawker is popular in major metropolitan areas (especially New York) but not much elsewhere. Gawker sites generally rely on being "first" in a string of reposting of news articles from other sources. Occasionally the sites have original commentary -- Denton himself contributes the site's most digested thought and Hamilton Nolan often comments just with his selection of stories -- but generally, it's a site that thrives on being the online trendsetter. Advertising has been experimental throughout the sites' lifetimes; Denton hasn't really settled on a system for more than a year's time and any sites that don't work from a financial standpoint are quickly spun off (Consumerist, Wonkette, etc.), no matter how popular.

The Wall Street Journal: Big media newspaper whose site, unlike almost all, including the Times, charges for most access. Paid subscriptions are up 7 percent from a year ago, and the implication is that with advertisements down, it's easier to get money from the readers themselves.

So my point is that it's unfair to lump together, even in passing reference, a family of breaking news and commentary bloga that exist only online, three magazines with different root problems (but the same financial symptoms) and a local city paper whose readership simply doesn't use the Web to read truly local news. Contrasting that with the sole exception in the news business -- the WSJ, whose rabidly loyal and wealthy readership continues to pay up front -- seems to be even more misleading.

(And for the record, when I want to read a Wall Street Journal article that's behind the pay wall, I just go without. The Times usually has a similar treatment to a story anyway.)

When you read any article, the first thing you should ask yourself is "why?" As in, "what is the point of this?" Usually, it's general interest, or news, or contextual.

I read this column looking for the big "So what?" and all I got were contradictory anecdotes. I didn't get an equation -- I got an expression.

Which may have been Carr's intent -- to say, look at this one publisher in the midst of others! But what I fear is that the lesson implied by the article is that the Web isn't quite the Holy Grail publishers should be chasing after. And for that, I disagree -- perhaps a tiny local paper need not use the Web (though having contact information and subscription information would be useful) for its news content, but all the other national publications must, just by their very nature.

To boot, I think the economy came a little to early in the print-to-Web transition, and with funds at risk, people are pulling back into something that's comfortable: the print business model. All of these publications, be it newspapers or magazines or online, have had 10 years or more to really sit down and think about the Web as a new business model. And yet so many have failed to think outside of the box. So it's a matter of confidence: when the money's at risk, they slash online staff, thinking that those readers and the staff that write for them are worth less to the publication. And that's true. But they're worth more to the brand and its future, and that's the misstep I see happening.

After all, if we're counting pennies, pixels are a lot cheaper than paper.

Why You're Losing Your Magazine Job

2008-12-15T11:03:00.010-05:00

Magazine behemoths such as Time Inc. and Conde Nast (and Hearst, more quietly) have been slashing staffers and budgets in large numbers recently.

The reason? The economic downtown.

Or is it?

AllThingsD's Peter Kafka notes in a new post that publishing houses are also shedding ad dollars left and right, indicated in this graph from MediaPost, which is based off ad sales data from magazine trade publisher Media Industry Newsletter:

The problem? It's not just the steep decline of ad pages due to the recession -- no, it's because magazines were running flat even before the decline, thanks to a fundamental shift of ad dollars away from print and toward the Web.

In other words, magazines were barely getting by as it was, and an economic throttling just sunk an already barely-seaworthy vessel.

Remember two and a half years ago when I asked why newspapers were beating glossies to the punch on the Web? In that article, I lamented the ill-preparedness of magazine publishers in their Web dealings: flashy but poor "destination" sites with poor usability and poor brand representation that served only as subscription centers, rather than as logical extensions of the brand with original content (CondeNet, I'm looking at you).

Now it looks like magazine companies are finally paying the price for their (expensive but ineffective) dabbling.

Or, in other words: that's what you get when you only have one full-time staffer ("Web editor") for a magazine's entire online presence.

So should magazine editors contemplate an online-only career? Maybe -- it's not clear, because the magazine as a vehicle for content still has the tangible value: the bring-it-into-the-bathroom factor (a factor not as strong as it used to be).

Logically, then, I expect magazines to go on a decline, but not bottom out. Unlike newspapers, who peddle breaking content (strictly, "news"), magazines peddle much more design and commentary. So while daily newspapers will gravitate toward analysis to keep their printed product afloat, magazines already have a safety net in the basic nature of their product.

So what about magazine jobs?

It still doesn't look good. Kafka writes:

"It's unclear how many jobs the Web is going to offer, since digital content is worth so much less than its analog counterpart, at least in the eyes of advertisers."

But that's quickly changing, since there are so many more eyeballs on the Web. As circulation numbers steadily decline, advertisers will gradually place more value in the Web, and publications would be wise to encourage that. After all, there are no printing costs (just hosting), and overhead is so much lower thanks to almost-free distribution.

There are even rumors confirming such things: For example, the dissolution of men.style.com (for which I've previously expressed my disgust) and the launch of distinct sites for GQ and Details.

But that still doesn't replace the original magazine, and in that way, the website will forever be an extension of the original (printed) brand.

Still, I blame magazine publishers for not being prescient enough. For example, have you seen the website for T, The New York Times Magazine? It's not perfect by any means, but it's an innovative way to make a website stylistically mirror the printed publication. There are several highfalutin publications that see T as a competitor. Why not also one on the web?

So where does that leave the magazine editor?

Well, start polishing that resume and brushing up on your HTML -- if you don't know what CMS stands for, you're just as much in trouble as the editorial assistant who hasn't heard of Adobe InDesign.

Twitterverse: Layoffs at NPR

2008-12-10T15:08:00.004-05:00

Twitter's themediaisdying reported that NPR laid off 65 people by the end of the day today, and here it is documented on the site via The Editorialiste's Twitter feed:

Thirty-four staffers were cut from news, but no cuts were made to digital media staffers, according to the report.

Either way, it's strange to see it happen in real time -- notice in the picture that the updates were just a minute apart.

A sad, sad day.

Update: Entry-Level Journalism Jobs and Me (And Lessons Learned)

2008-11-17T15:06:00.011-05:00

Considerable time has passed since I wrote "Diary Of An Unemployed Young Journalist: An Open Letter To Entry-Level Journalism Jobs Everywhere," detailing my job hunt as a young journalist, fresh from graduate school, on the market for the first time.

As a result of that post, which appeared on Poynter.com's Romenesko, I was inundated with comments, equal parts scathing and helpful (You can still read all the comments -- they remain below that post -Ed.).

In response, I wrote "Responding To Romenesko: Thoughts On Your Comments" to clarify my situation, which brought forth another deluge of comments, this time a bit more helpful than the first batch (that post also was picked up by Romenesko).

It occurred to me recently that I, regretfully, have neglected to update the story since that post. That's not fair to you readers, who put energy into reading all those words (and writing those comments). So I'd like to give you an update.

My "Responding" post was written July 31, and I spent most of August interviewing in New York City, as I promised I would do, while working temporarily at a large magazine company (One that has since laid off hundreds of people, including at the title I was working at -Ed.). I had several applications in various states by mid-month, with several interviews under my belt that were still moving forward. I took several edit tests, interviewed all over the city and completely wore out my suit.

Then the economy began to collapse.

My luck changed in the final weeks of August, when a job that I had been working part-time at for several months (in addition to my full-time, but temporary, magazine gig) decided to extend me an offer.

I accepted.

Then I informed the other places at which I was still under consideration that I would be taking the offer. A bit of song and dance ensued with one job prospect that I had gone deep into the process with (A job at a company that several commenters said could and would never happen -Ed.), but when it became clear that they weren't able to produce an offer in time, the search was officially over.

So where does that leave me? I can't say where I work outright, since I decided when I began this blog that I would try to leave my work life out of the picture. What I can say is that I work in the online branch of a major, big-name mainstream media organization wearing three hats: editor, producer, blogger. I make a solid salary that makes it possible for me to live in New York and pay off my student loans, and I work in an environment that matches what I value in a workplace.

If you search Google, it's not hard to find me. I'll leave it at that.

But am I happy? You bet.

Here's what I learned from the whole process:

Send in applications everywhere you think you've got a shot -- then prove it to each company in your application. It's worth the time to tailor your application, even if you never hear back.
When you've sent out all that you can, send more. I can't stress this enough. The job search becomes exhausting, but you must persist.
Contact friends and mentors and coworkers not for jobs, but for advice. Very few actually can and have jobs to offer you, but everyone has a wealth of experience on how they got where they are today.
Tell everyone that you're looking. I had several friends, not all of them close, regularly send me jobs they came across. Some I had seen, some I hadn't, but those morning e-mails were a great pick-me-up when things felt grim.
Take a break. The job search is nerve-wracking because it feels as though fate is closing in on you as your funds for living run out. Don't go a day without sending an application somewhere, but don't go a day without smiling. The whole job search is an internalized affair, like a tea kettle nearing boil. So make sure you get out of the house and see friends. Or go to the gym. Mental health is important at this time.
Take people's advice with a grain of salt, but listen. As a journalist, this goes without saying. I received a ton of contradictory comments in the two posts I wrote, but what I gained most from the whole affair is that people are listening (I even received a freelance offer). Use that momentum as inspiration to keep applying places.
Keep your online presence up-to-date. I received lots of comment when I changed my LinkedIn status message to "Looking for a job."
If you get rejected, politely ask why. I was rejected for a position that I thought I had a particularly good shot at; turns out that with so many job layoffs, the publication was overwhelmed with overqualified applicants. So I replied and asked what I could have done better as an applicant. The editor was kind enough to answer in specifics why I didn't make the cut, and encouraged me that I was a solid applicant who was just blown away by the circumstances. She also offered to take my pitches for stories, which would have been important had I not taken my current position. Remember -- editors know what it's like, and more often than not, they'll relate!

And finally, when it comes to the actual job: negotiate that salary.

Once you're settled in, don't forget to repay the favor to your friends by helping them find jobs or listings. With this recession as it is, I can't tell you how many friends ended up on the job hunt after I finally finished mine.

Ed's Top Posts, Oct. 2008

2008-11-17T14:48:00.005-05:00

Here are the top posts and recent comments on The Editorialiste for October 2008:

Why We Need Journalism School Rankings
"I SO agree. I've been searching and searching and I'm all set to tear my hair apart. We really need rankings for J-schools. Because for one, I dont even know which are the Journalism colleges around the globe." -shravya
Intern Injustice: Gannett Gives The Middle Finger To Three Ala. Interns
"Interns are only the beginning - Gannett papers all over have been told to cut X amount of dollars. In Louisville they are getting rid of Long-term employees. People who've been with the company 20-30 years." -anonymous
BREAKING: RADAR Magazine Folds, Again
Journalism Internships Are A Joke (Financially). Period.
"I think the financial implications of studying journalism begin at the undergraduate level, and they’ll probably run until the graduate eventually qualifies as a senior reporter." -C.M. Patrick
Stuff White People Like: Journalism?
"Have you read 'mediated' by thomas de zengotita? check it out. it deals with some of the things you talk about in this post -- plus a whole lot more. i'd like to check out the book on 'overculture.' " -todd
How Much Do Bloggers Get Paid?
Digital Front Pages: Obama Elected President of the United States of America
Diary of an Unemployed Young Journalist: An Open Letter to Entry-Level Journalism Jobs Everywhere
"When any straight-laced HR person or editor visits your personal site or this blog, he or she will probably be more repelled than drawn to you. You come off as snarky, holier-than-thou and supercilious." -anonymous
Advice For Young Journalists, Or How Not To Be An Angry Journalist
"As a person who just applied to (and was rejected from) several graduate journalism programs, I'm kind of back at square one and am trying to reassess how I can get my foot in the door in the field. I'm 30 and would be making a career change at this point." -MPP

Study: Huffington Post Favors Male Bloggers

2008-11-13T12:32:00.007-05:00

Or, to put it another way, female bloggers are out of favor when it comes to appearing on the front pages of the massively-popular Huffington Post.

Arianna Huffington.

In a fascinating study by Extra!, only 255 of 1,125 bylines, or 23 percent, of stories that appeared in the 13 "featured blog" slots on HuffPo's regularly-updated home page at a time belonged to women.

Extra! achieved these figures by recording featured bylines twice every weekday for nine weeks and coded them by gender. The study period lasted about two months, from 7/7/08 to 9/5/08.

More insight: Parity is scarce. Arianna Huffington, appearing 57 times, accounted for more than a fifth of all women's bylines; 45 of those occupied the most visible top post. Only once, in fact, did a woman other than Arianna Huffington get her byline in the most visible top slot—Post editor-at-large Nora Ephron.

Former HuffPoster Jessica Wakeman reports at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting:

Women's voices have long been lacking in corporate media. As Internet outlets compete more and more with traditional media as a source for news and opinion, will women's voices be heard there more frequently than in print publications? If the Huffington Post, one of the most prominent and successful blogs today, is an accurate barometer, the answer is no. [...]

While the Huffington Post provides an outlet for certain voices that seldom make it into the corporate media, it falls perfectly in line with elite print media's abysmal gender numbers. In Extra!'s 2005 op-ed study (5–6/05) of major newspapers and magazines, U.S. News & World Report led magazines with a still-dismal 28 percent of op-eds penned by women, followed by Newsweek at 23 percent and Time at 13 percent. Newspapers fared even worse: Women's bylines appeared on 20 percent of op-eds in the Los Angeles Times, 17 percent in the New York Times and 10 percent in the Washington Post. For syndicated columnists, the numbers were likewise low, with women writing 24 percent of columns at the eight major syndicates (Editor & Publisher, 3/15/05)—which still beats the Huffington Post.

Which left me with some simple questions: I acknowledge the scarcity of women overall, but just how many of the Huffington Post's revolving stable of active bloggers are women? I'd be interested to know if there's parity when it comes to the flow of content coming in -- is the lack of women on the front page the result of editorial bias, or are there simply less women writing for HuffPo than men? (I don't have those answers, but I'd like to know more.) And if so, why?

Of course, if Huffington herself is wooing more female bloggers than male, than perhaps these numbers are indicative of something greater. But, as complicated as the Huffington Post site is, so is the ability to root this theory in data: is there gender parity within the politics section, clearly the favored section of HuffPo? Or does the imbalance of, say, "green" stories (and the writers who write them) perpetuate this problem on the site's penultimate front page?

(HuffPosters, if you're out there, I'd love to know.)

Nick Denton: 'Flat Is The New Up? We Should Be So Lucky'

2008-11-12T13:31:00.009-05:00

Gawker Media head Nick Denton has a lot to say about this recession we're in, and much of it is worrisome.

A concise, backed-up take on what Denton thinks is going to happen to Online Media in coming quarters:

To judge from a hysterical press, one might think the apocalypse was already upon the media industry: rolling cuts this month at Time Inc., the hallowed magazine group; a new catchphrase among advertising pundits, flat is the new up; and revisions even of the internet advertising that was supposed to be the salvation of the media industry. J.P. Morgan's Imran Kahn just slashed projected growth next year of US online display advertising from 16% to 6%.

We should be so lucky. These supposedly brutal layoffs at Time and other titles amount to only 6% of headcount at the bloated Time Warner magazine group. Other media groups such as the New York Times and Conde Nast—a hiring freeze, how callous!—are being even more squeamish. From conglomerates to internet ventures, executives should be planning now on a decline of up to 40% in advertising spending during this cycle. Instead they're sleepwalking into economic extinction—even those lean online ventures which were supposed to take up the mantle and preserve New York's position as a media capital.

His Machiavellian take to online publishers? Plan for the worst - now. How? Six ways:

Get out of ad-averse topics like politics
Renegotiate vendor contracts
Consolidate titles
Offshore more
Variable compensation
Offer more value for marketers

I don't agree with everything here, but Denton makes a good greater point: changes must happen soon, and they must be educated.

Read the post: Doom-mongering: A 2009 Internet media plan

Digital Front Pages: Obama Elected President of the United States of America

2008-11-04T23:19:00.038-05:00

When there's a historic moment, people like to chronicle the front pages of newspapers from the next day. But in this day and age, I thought the digital front pages of news organizations would be far more interesting, snapped moments after the big story broke. Here's how some of the most popular news outlets in the world handled the story, "Obama Elected President of the United States of America."

See how each handles the gravity of the story:

The New York Times:

Wall Street Journal:

USA Today:

Los Angeles Times:

Washington Post:

Chicago Tribune:

Chicago Sun-Times:

New York Daily News:

New York Post:

Boston Globe:

Philadelphia Inquirer:

Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Houston Chronicle:

Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

San Francisco Chronicle:

Detroit Free Press:

New York Newsday:

Anchorage Daily News:

CNN:

ABC:

CBS:

NBC:

FOX:

The Huffington Post:

New York Magazine:

Le Monde (France):

La Reppublicca (Italy):

The Guardian (U.K.)

Truly fascinating.

Stuff Magazine Editors in a Recession Like: Interns

2008-11-03T15:01:00.005-05:00

It just occurred to me that while all the job boards are bone dry with posts, the intern listings are hotter than a turtle shell on I-95 in Southern Florida.

That is, for magazine editors who have somehow managed to stay on board during extensive layoffs, interns are the new black - and free labor trumps all.

Keep this in mind, young journalists!