Category Archives: Internet

Blogs, social media and digital ethics

NBC Chicago is making me sad

Internet, Media,

NBCChicago.com – along with several other local NBC affiliates – rolled out a re-design at the end of July, less than a year after a previous re-design, which emphasized its local news coverage. Though the new site is more attractive than the old, and provides more ways for people to interact with the site’s content, it now seems less interested in delivering news than delivering the moods of its readers.

I wasn’t blown away by the design of the old site, but I admired how they seemed to be paying attention to what other sites were reporting. Many of the local news stories had outbound links, and even mentioned other sites by name. Like all good blogs, they combined original reporting with some analysis and related information. The tagline on the old site was “Locals Only” and while sometimes that meant silly contests like “Which is better: Lollapalooza or Pitchfork?” it also meant they snagged good local writers, like Steve Rhodes of the Beachwood Reporter, to cover politics.

The new site, however, seems to be more interested in proving it knows what Facebook is.

I don’t see the value or newsworthiness in asking people which of six feelings/actions they have/take after reading a story. Sure, it makes for an eye-catching interactive element on the homepage…


…but the forest is lost in the trees. The idea here (I assume) is that “NBC Chicago” (or “Peacock-Logo 70s-Font” as the case may be) is not some unseen group of editors and reporters. “NBC Chicago” is the readers of the site. And those readers are “furious about shady Olympics real estate deals” and you can read more about it by clicking that tagline. In a way, it’s an expression of what Brad Flora said in a post on the Chicago Media Future Conference site.

But it took me about 10-15 minutes of poking around the site to figure all this out. For those of you who spend time looking at metrics like “time spent on site” you know most of your readers don’t spend that kind of time on your site. Nor are they huge geeks like me who will take the time to figure out what’s behind all this. Instead, they’ll just see taglines like this…


…and – in an incredibly unfortunate juxtaposition – this…


Now, the first tagline suggests an ideological bent to NBC that I doubt is intended. But the second…well, if you were a professional news organization, would you want something on the main page of your site that essentially said “We think it’s funny that a hockey player beat the hell out of a cab driver over a matter of 20 cents?”

This erosion of NBC Chicago’s identity in favor of lulz wouldn’t be as much of a problem if the site could settle on a voice. Some stories are written as straight-ahead reportage, like this coverage of a death at Lollapalooza (although some copy editing on that dek would clear up what the story makes clear: This was the fire department’s only call to Grant Park, not its only call all day). But others, like this story on the Mayor denying that a developer will profit from the Olympics, play it cheeky with the Mayor identified on first reference as “Big Swinging D.” There’s nothing wrong with that per se – there’s plenty to be said for a tongue-in-cheek take on the news – but the context of both stories is identical, which is confusing.

Moreover, it wouldn’t matter that NBC Chicago offers cutesy features like voting on how a story makes you feel or contains comparisons of Mayor Daley to a large schwanz, if the site also made it easy to find breaking news quickly and easily. Yet I didn’t realize the new site offers up-to-the-minute traffic info in the right hand corner of the site until a few minutes ago. And this is after I spent a good half hour poking around.

To be fair to my local NBC affiliate, most of the above isn’t its fault. This new design is now in use by all NBC Local sites so it’s obvious this was a corporate dictum made from on high, whether NBC Chicago liked it or not. And there are some aspects of the new design that I like, like this “So Chicago” section. But with news execs constantly fretting about people “stealing” their content, it seems like the solution NBC decided on is one that makes it harder to find that content the first place.

This and that

Internet

There’s been lots going on. Here’s a summary:

* I’m getting to a point where I’m bored with using this blog for purely professional discussions “on media: social, local and otherwise” as the tagline above says. I’m thinking it ought to be more like “On media, local, and otherwise.” Then again, I’ve been here before so who knows. But…

* My friend Matt Wood shut down his Tumblr account. Frankly, the only reason I started a Tumblr account was because Matt did and if he thought it was worth trying then it must have been. But we both, independently, seem to have come to the same conclusion: We’d prefer to have one place for all our thoughts, be they long or short. For my part, I’d be much happier with this blog – and blog more – if OMIC was a combo of what’s been here and what’s been on my Tumblr account.

* My wife and I are house-hunting. It’s alternately fun and terrible. But also terribly exciting to be taking this step.

* Work’s been crazy. More on that and the next step in the Chicago Media Future Conference soon.

Chicago Media Future Conference non-wrap-up

Internet, Media,

I don’t really want to make any proclamations about the Chicago Media Future Conference yesterday. That isn’t because I don’t have an idea about how it was received by the attendees and those who followed the conversation in our live-blog and on Twitter; I spent most of the event walking around the room to get a true feel of the mood and talked to many people afterward who thankfully offered their honest assessments. My co-organizer, Mike Fourcher, and I ran through a shortlist of things we could have done better, and what we thought worked, on the El ride home.

But I’m more interested in hearing what everyone else has to say first. So if you were there, please comment in our open thread on the chicagomediafuture.org site or blog about it; we’re linking to the responses we see.

And thank you to everyone who gave us the gifts of their minds and time on a Saturday afternoon.

Thanks, Esquire!

Internet, ,

In this month’s issue, Esquire magazine published a list of things that are “Not Worth Your Time” One of them was playboy.com, which stung a little only because I like Esquire.

But then I thought about it, and wondered if they thought all men’s magazine web sites were a waste of time since Esquire‘s online editorial strategy seems to be “port over everything from the magazine and then throw up some YouTube clips.”

Then I thought about it some more and there’s usually only one reason why you mention your competitors: They’re getting to you.

So thanks for the free advertising, Esquire, and thanks for helping me get motivated this morning – I love a good fight. Good luck with your next fancy magazine cover in a medium on the decline. We’ll be publishing original content on the Internet, if you’re looking for us.

Secret is as secret does

Internet, Media,

Last Thursday, there was a meeting of news publishers and editors. According the James Warren, who broke the story on the Atlantic Web site:

There’s no mention on its website but the Newspaper Association of America, the industry trade group, has assembled top executives of the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication Inc., among more than two dozen in all. A longtime industry chum, consultant Barbara Cohen, “will facilitate the meeting.

The subject of the meeting? “Models to Monetize Content.” (Let’s leave aside for now the notion of how much sense it makes for the same people who broke the system to be the only ones involved in fixing the system.)

Warren reported it as a “secret” meeting, and from the reaction of the people and sites that follow these “future of journalism” discussions, it would seem he’s correct.

But on Friday, Editor and Publisher published this story:

Michael Golden, vice chairman of The New York Times Co. and chief operating officer of The New York Times Regional Media Group, defended the controversial Newspaper Association of America meeting Thursday in Chicago, saying there was nothing secretive about it.

“The characterization in The Atlantic that this was a ‘secret meeting’ was inaccurate,” Golden, who attended the event, told E&P Friday. “If it were secret, there wouldn’t have been a sign on the door saying ‘NAA meeting.’ This was a meeting that had been planned for weeks — you can’t get these people together without planning it over a period of time.”

The question now is how much bullshit to call on Golden.

There’s no mention of the event in the Events section of the NAA‘s website and no press release in its Press section. I’ve run half a dozen Web searches for anything remotely resembling an event like this and come up with nothing. And again, the reactions of the people who make it their business to know this sort of thing has been akin to “Wha wha whaaa?” so…

Let me help Golden with an operational definition here: A meeting is secret if no interested parties – other than the participants – know it’s happening.

And you know what? This meeting had to be secret, in order to do what Golden and the rest of the cabal wanted to do, which was to create ways to make people directly pay for content they’ve been getting without direction compensation up to now. (Notice I don’t say “for free” as that’s a misnomer but another subject for another time.) If it wasn’t kept secret, the NAA would risk attention from the feds for anti-trust actions.

According to Zachary M. Seward:

Why so cautious? Well, surely the executives discussed ways to charge for content online, but they can’t appear to be coordinating a move to erect pay walls around their sites. That’s illegal. The industry would like an antitrust exemption, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supports the idea, but the Obama administration is opposed.

Seward also posted a statement from NAA President John F. Strum that read, in part:

With antitrust counsel present, the group listened to executives from companies representing various new models for obtaining value from newspaper content online. The participants also shared success stories in driving new revenue to their newspapers products.

Emphasis mine.

So how does that work exactly? Does the antitrust lawyer sit there and interrupt someone whom he or she thinks is about to say something that could be construed as collusion? ‘Cause then I imagine the meeting sounded a little something like this:

By the way, if you’re interested in a not-at-all secret meeting of people interested in coming up with innovative solutions to news publishing, might I suggest the Chicago Media Future Conference on June 13? Don’t forget to register!

Huffington Post needs an intern; copy-and-paste experts need no longer apply

Internet, Media, , ,

I regret that too often this blog is replete* with bomb-throwing posts directed at just a few targets. Even I think “Move your needle to a different groove, son.” But sometimes it’s just too easy:

AdAge: Someone Bids $13,000 for Huffington Post Internship

I don’t know what the job description is, but it most certainly does not include re-publishing reviews from local publications…anymore.

Hey, do I at least get points for doing something constructive? Truth be told, The Chicago Media Future Conference is why this blog has languished as of late. But on the plus side, we’re close to announcing our full slate of panelists, and we already have some interesting posts up about SEO, unbundling content and the Trib’s new Chicago Now project. Head on over there and check it out, and sign-up for the conference if you’re so inclined. It’s free!

* Confidential to Chris Jones: This is the proper use of this word.

The Chicago Media Future Conference's rallying cry?

Internet, Media,

Normally, I’d just toss this on my Tumblr blog as a quick quote, but since I’ve been using this space to promote the Chicago Media Future Conference, I thought it best to note this passage from a NY Times story last week:

“‘New media’ doesn’t mean transplanting old media to a new medium; it requires a new vocabulary, a new relationship with the audience — a massive social network that now talks back — and, sometimes, a new set of expectations about objectivity and timeliness.”

If there’s a better outline of what we ought to be talking about at the CMFC, I haven’t read it yet.

Thanks to the Trib’s Rob Elder for the tip.

The Lackner Andrews blog also had some thoughts on our project:

Understanding how media habits are changing – and how news operations can adapt – should be a top priority for all media managers. Before you can talk about how to make money, you have to know how people are consuming your product.

[Snip]

Google isn’t killing journalism, but Google has changed the way people find, consume, and share the news – and do so in ways that circumvent the old revenue models.

[Snip]

Professional journalism is still wanted and needed – but we have to start saying out loud that news organizations are not providing their work in ways that meet the needs and habits of their audience. And by not adapting to this reality, the news industry is losing credibility, relevance, and revenue. News orgs need to figure out the nature of their product and its value to the consumer before setting their sites on making money. Business models are not solutions for what ails journalism right now.

I’m not sure I agree that “business models aren’t solutions for what ails journalism.” They’re not the ONLY solution, but I think they’re part of it. Then again, I could be wrong. It’s a point for debate, and that’s why we’re doing this.

More on The Chicago Media Future Conference.

Note: The Chicago Media Future Conference website launches May 1.

Don’t let Zell fool you: The Trib isn’t opposed to giving it away for free

Internet, Media, , , ,

Sam Zell’s recent interview with Bloomberg News is getting a lot of attention because he’s calling his purchase of TribCo “a mistake.” But it was this quote that stuck with me:

“I think we’re looking at every option at the Tribune Co.,” he said. “It’s very obvious that the newspaper model in its current form is not working. And the sooner we all acknowledge that the better. Whether it be home delivery, whether it be giving away content for free, I mean these are critical issues.”

This isn’t the first time Zell has complained about “giving away content for free.” In 2007, he said:

“If all the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content for nothing, what would Google do? We have a situation today where effectively the content is being paid for by the newspapers and stolen by Google…That can last for a short time, but it can’t last forever.”

The Beachwood Reporter columnist Sam Singer takes Zell to task from a legal perspective over the folly of trying to fight Google on this and says:

“Their best bet, I believe, is to embrace aggregation, to invest in optimization strategies that will ensure their content a more prominent place among the search results.”

The thing is, the Trib is already doing this. In fact, it did this on Bloomberg’s Zell story, effectively taking advantage of the strategy just as its Chairman and CEO railed against it.

Right now, the Trib article is the first result in Google News if you search for “Sam Zell.”:

(Click to embiggen)

This isn’t an accident. It’s because the Trib has a well-executed SEO strategy (just ask this guy, he’ll tell you), and it uses services like Google News (the kinds of services Zell is referring to when he talks about giving away content for free) to build revenue. More traffic to the Trib makes its website more attractive to advertisers. And speaking of ads:

(Click to embiggen)

That’s the Trib article in question; I’ve sloppily highlighted a few areas on the page. Those are ads the Trib is selling against content that’s comprised mainly of an interview by another news organization. And they did this – hang on, this is shocking – to make money. Against content that’s “given away for free.”

In a previous column on Beachwood Reporter, Steve Rhodes had this to say:

As I’ve written before, newspapers sell ads against content created by others all the time, be it Oprah, the Cubs or American Idol. Not only is it mutually beneficial, but it’s the responsibility of a news organization insofar as cultural criticism – including that of the media – is warranted.

He’s right, of course. Newspapers have been making money this way since they began, and now many of them have figured out how to do it online. None of this is sneaky or underhanded. It’s industry standard at this point. And it’s how media companies monetize their content. The Zell story is one of many on the Trib site alone (every time you read the headlines on their movie reviews, you see their keyword strategy at work to hilarious effect), not to mention many many other sites.

So when Sam Zell says “giving content away for free” isn’t working, he only means they’re not making enough money on it yet. Not that they’re not making any.

The Chicago Media Future Conference: Now is the time for solutions

Internet, Media,

It’s probably a little pompous to call something “The Chicago Media Future Conference.” After all, who really can say for certain what the future holds for local print and online news publications? And yet, that’s the name its organizers have chosen. Spoiler alert: One of those organizers is yours truly.

February’s Chicago Journalism Town Hall brought tremendous energy, intellectual curiosity and talent together in one room. The discussion sparked many conversations and ideas, online and offline, about a range of topics. Having been in on many of these discussions, we knew the desire for another event was palpable. So my friend Mike Fourcher (a friend and former colleague from my Chicagoist days) and I along with Barbara Iverson (a Columbia College professor and editor of CurrentBuzz.com and ChicagoTalks.org) decided to hold our own event focused on one of those discussion topics: How news coverage can successfully migrate to profitable on-line distribution. (See the bottom of this post for complete bios of all three organizers.)

The Chicago Media Future Conference will be held Saturday, June 13 at Columbia College’s Film Row Cinema (1104 S. Wabash) from 1:30pm to 4:45pm. It will consist of two 90-minute, moderated, five-person panels, with a 15 minute break in between. Each panel’s topic will be introduced by a 10-minute “scene-setting” informational presentation.

We planned The Chicago Media Future Conference with a few stipulations in mind:

* The conference would be about the future of news. We broadly define news using the intentionally broad dictionary definition, “1: a report of recent events 2: previously unknown information.”

* The innovative future of news will take place online, while print, television, and radio will remain necessary and vital mediums for analysis and reporting.

* People are already paying for news online, in direct and indirect ways. These solutions need to be acknowledged and discussed in detail.

* Most people are interested in retaining the commonly-understood ethical standards for news delivery currently followed by offline media. Many standards and best practices already exist for online news delivery, though some sites don’t always follow them. Some ethical standards have yet to be established, as technology often outpaces “the rules.”

* Our panels should look forward, not backward. The time has passed for lamenting what used to be. We’re not interested in talking about problems unless we’re also discussing solutions.

The working title for the first panel is “How do people consume news and what do they do with it?” The second is “How do you make money selling the news and who is willing to pay for it?”

Right now, we have not confirmed any panelists though we’ve got a short list worked up of editors, business managers, digital strategists, bloggers, tech developers, ad sales managers, news publishers and SEO strategists. But we also want to hear from you – the people who have an interest in this sort of thing – about whom we should invite. One complaint I’ve had about past conferences like this is that they inevitably end up having the same panelists over and over or the organizers end up asking only those they know to participate. We wanted to avoid that, as much as possible. Truth be told, the reason why some people end up over and over on panels like this is because they’re the smartest minds on the subject. Having said that, if you’ve got an idea about a panelist who fits one of the descriptions above, send an e-mail to info (@) chicagomediafuture.org.

We’ve also launched a website, ChicagoMediaFuture.org, though there’s nothing there but a splash page right now. Eventually, ChicagoMediaFuture.org will be an information resource, built around a WordPress template, with online registration, panelist bios, and context for both the Chicago and national media landscapes. We also hope it will be a vibrant means of continuing the discussion after the event. We’re planning to launch the site in full on May 1.

By the way, if you ever have website design needs, allow me to recommend Stephen Schmidt, who is the brains and brawn behind ChicagoMediaFuture.org. Seriously, look at that graphic. How cool-looking is that? Hire this man.

In the coming weeks, we hope to have more announcements about panelists, and the content of The Chicago Media Future Conference. Until then, we could use some help with the following:

Input
What do you think about all this? Does it sound interesting? Do you foresee some problems? What topics do you think we should be discussing on these panels? Do you want to recommend someone as a panelist? Let us know at info (@) chicagomediafuture.org.

People
This is a pretty big undertaking. There’s a lot to do, and we’re hoping to get some smart, talented folks to help us. Here are the tasks we need help with:

* Day-of assistance with check-in, answering attendee questions, herding people around, etc.
* Audio and video recording of the event (and possibly to edit said footage)
* Photographing the event

Just a note, everyone involved in this project is volunteering their time and talent (though it’s possible we might buy you a beer at some point) for this non-profit venture. But we will go out of our way to credit you for your work and throw a little business your way, if we can (just look at the nice things I said about Stephen up there).

Speaking of money, we’re also looking for…

Sponsorship
There are some incidental costs associated with an event like this (renting the space, buying refreshments, hiring a tech person to run sound, etc.) so we’re hoping some local businesses out there will be interested in throwing a tiny bit of cash our way in exchange for the honor and prestige of being named a sponsor of the first Chicago Media Future Conference. Think of it: You will be able say you were at the forefront of the revolution of Chicago news! How often does an opportunity like that come along? Once in a lifetime!

Ahem.

Lastly, we need lots of help with…

Promotion/Word of mouth
We want your help in telling people about The Chicago Media Future Conference. Write about it, blog it, Twitter it, text it, Digg! it, post it on your Facebook page, and tell your smart friends about it.

We want this conference to be a room full of people working together on the future of Chicago news who then go out into the world and turn words into action. I hope you’ll join us on June 13th and online at ChicagoMediaFuture.org.

The Chicago Media Future Conference organizers are:

Mike Fourcher
Mike Fourcher is founder of Purely Political Consulting, with dozens of state and local candidates across Illinois. He has built a dozen political websites, served as staff to California Congresswoman Lorett
a Sanchez on Capitol Hill and served in the in Clinton Administration on the personal staff of then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. More recently Mike wrote for Chicagoist, founded Cloutwiki.org and RudyGiulianiMarriedHisCousin.com. After obtaining an MBA from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2003, Mike consulted for daily newspapers and lead an investor group to purchase alternative newspapers around the country.

Barbara Iverson
At Columbia College, Barbara teaches, talks and blogs about blogging, citizen journalism and digital technology. She blogs at Currentbuzz.org and is also co-editor and publisher of ChicagoTalks.org. She has a Ph.D. in Public Policy Analysis from the University of Illinois at Chicago and is a specialist in web publishing, interactive multimedia, integrating technology into arts and media courses, and training teachers to use technology in the classroom.

Scott Smith
Scott Smith is now a Senior Editor at Playboy.com, having recently spent two-plus years at Time Out Chicago as Web Editor. He previously worked as co-editor at local news and culture blog Chicagoist, where he wrote about music and movies, and has spent time in radio promotions, teaching, tech support and social work. He has also freelanced for Metromix and Centerstage Chicago, and has been a commentator on Chicago Tonight, WGN Radio 720, and Filmspotting, a film review podcast.

Arianna on ChuffPo’s plagiarism: "The intern did it."

Internet, Media, ,

This week, Time.com published a piece by Belinda Luscombe about Arianna Huffington. It’s one of the few profiles of her that addresses the plagiarism (Time’s word for it, not mine) that the Chicago branch of Huffington Post (or ChuffPo) engaged in last year. It’s interesting for a couple of reasons, including the new spin Huffington is putting on the issue (2nd page):

In December the site’s Chicago section was found to have been plagiarizing. “This was a problem with an intern,” says Huffington. “There was no excuse, and we corrected it.”

Really? An intern? That’s your excuse? Where have I heard that before…? Oh I know!

When I thought about what to write for The Huffington Post I was stuck on the idea of writing about the Huffington Post, because that’s who broke the Cindy McCain story where she, or an intern her people say, lifted recipes from the Food Network’s web site and put them on John McCain’s web site as her own “favorite family recipes.”

[SNIP]

So thank you to The Huffington Post for looking out for the busy, the overworked, and the overheated chefs in America.

Yeah, Arianna Huffington is a regular Norma Rae.

Now, I’m not saying Huffington is lying here but here’s what Wired’s Ryan Singel was told about it in December 2008:

The Huffington Post co-founder Jonah Peretti says the contretemps are overblown — that the complete re-printing was a mistaken editorial call and that The Huffington Post’s intention in aggregating other publications’ content is to send traffic their way.

Wow, what incredible freedom Huffington Post interns have! They get to make editorial judgment calls about the content of one of the most-read Web sites in the country! No wonder people will work for them for free!

The Time article also summarizes the SEO methods HuffPo uses to create a competitive advantage over the sites whose content it uses. Luscombe says these methods as “complicated and mostly secret,” which is only half-right. They ARE complicated, but not at all secret if you’re hiring the right SEO experts.

In the article, Huffington says the trade-off is all the pageviews that she sends the way of the sites from which they take content. If my time as Web Editor of Time Out Chicago is any indication of the traffic other sites are getting, the number of page views we received from the reviews they lifted was minimal. And it’s hardly worth the loss of ad revenue from search engine traffic. Back to the article:

While this is wily, it’s legal. But news organizations may not tolerate others cherry-picking their content and repurposing it for profit for much longer. “Someone is going to sue the Huffington Post,” says Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University. “It’s not just about the volume of the content that it appropriates, it’s about the value.” There are other aggregators, but HuffPo is the most tempting. “It’s a big player, and the site that has got closest to the line” between fair and unfair use of copy, Benton notes. [Emphasis mine]

The sad thing is, there’s an ethical way to aggregate. And ChuffPo’s actions – intern or otherwise – have soured many big media types on the idea of it, when it really could be a boon for their sites.