Archive for January, 2009

A Pulitzer Prize for Global Journalism

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

The Pulitzer Prize is the shining medallion for journalists, one that is revered, flaunted, and used to prove one’s contribution to the industry. Yet it is only about America. In the journalism category, newspapers must be U.S. papers; in the letters category, publications must be those published in the US by American authors, the only exception being if you write about US history.

That’s fine. Certainly Pulitzer doesn’t have obligations to cover the entire world, and for literary works, there is the Nobel Prize although it would be nice and more along the lines of true journalism if it weren’t so nationalistic (The Nobel is incomparable to the Pulitzer- far less are given out every year).  I just think it’s very sad that the award that has become the staple of recognizing what is good journalism and not is only focusing on the United States. It’s even more disappointing that they are accepting online news but not global news.

You may argue that other countries have their own awards, but no award is internationally renowned as the Pulitzer. In Korea, there is a journalism award, but your publication has to be a member of the Newspaper Association in order for your article to be considered. That is not fair, because a newspaper’s alliance with a labor group is a political decision, which shouldn’t affect decisions in which articles are good or not. Forgive me if I am sour about this because the paper I used to work for was one of the three biggest national papers and we weren’t a part of association (actually seceded from the association but that’s another story).

It is true that journalistic standards, ethics, and such in other countries are in some cases, not on par with U.S. standards. But sometimes they are, and sometimes, there is a lot of excellent reporting. Those efforts should be acknowledged. Newspaper design, for instance, is acknowledged by the Society for News Design, and you can see that a lot of amazing designs come from all around the world.

There are a number of small prizes for a global community, like the Bastiat, Knight Awards, and numerous others, but they all cater to a specific topic or demographic.

It would be wonderful if some organization could begin a global journalism awards that is comprehensive like the Pulitzer. Especially now, with new media endangering quality journalism, such incentives are needed to inspire journalists. Journalists don’t work for money- they never have- all they want is to communicate to the public, hoping their efforts in seking truth will be respected. Journalists are being stripped of their honor and without honor, there is no reason to be a journalist.

Congressman Seeks Camera Phones that Click

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

U.S. news reports and blogs (here, here and here) are all over the fact that policymakers are fiddling with their gadgets. The proposed bill, called the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act, requires camera phones to make a sound if someone takes a photo. The reason is because “Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.”

Sound familiar? In 2004, Korea implemented that very same act, requiring Korean phone makers to make phones with a loud sound when a photo was taken. They even set a minimum in the sound levels– 65 decibels. (The proposed US act doesn’t have such details yet) The first reason was “privacy violation” because people were taking lewd pictures in fitting rooms and swimming pools. The rapidly rising image resolution of mobile phone cameras was the second reason.

Japan also has the same law, not surprising considering the fact that quite a number of Japanese men harbor a strong fetish for women’s undergarments (where else would you find a vending machine of panties?). The Tokyo subway system also plays a role in encouraging voyeurism (watch the YouTube video).

In Japan and Korea, the bill was triggered by pictures of teens (high school girls) and adult women. It seems like the US is respecting adult photos and focusing on the camera phone’s abuse of children. Even if Congress passes the bill, however, it will probably take them years to realize it. The Korean government was lucky in implementing the law because Koreans have a very short turnover when it comes to cell phones- an average Korean changes his phone at least once a year (as I recall from an old article; will have to find stats to back that up) and I wouldn’t be surprised if Japanese also change their phones frequently.

I know some people think Congress has better things to do, but hey, if people didn’t have a sick mind and kept their hands (phones?) to themselves, this wouldn’t have happened. It’s really disappointing that we had to have those few people ruin the photo-taking experience for so many of us. I take a lot of photos in museums, and for me, turning down the volume of a camera phone is an act of etiquette to other visitors.

Future Business Model for Newspapers

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

I love print. I’m sensitive to the paper- the texture, the weight, the smell. Did you know that thinner paper is more expensive to print than the 100g glossy ones? The paper itself may be slightly cheaper, but thin paper could tear and so the presses have to run slower. Of course, if you are shipping or making prints more than 50,000, thinner paper is cheaper- which is why you see more glossy, thick paper in magazines. Of course, magazines’ editorials lean towards the “glossier” side too, so you may see it as a chicken and egg thing. I love fonts, the graphic design of print layout, the beauty of words… all of which seem to have lesser meaning as we move into the digital age of news.

But how will newspapers survive? Clearly their current business model (relying 90% on print advertising) is not sustainable. Ethan Zuckerman suggests that newspapers’ CPM doesn’t make sense. I agree, but only because now, we have the web as an alternative for marketing. The high CPM of newspapers in the past was the cost advertisers paid not only to encourage sales of their products, but to also sell their brand, make an ego statement. It was a price they were willing to pay, and that high price barrier made advertising in newspapers all the more supportive of their ego.

Then comes along web advertising, which is, in many aspects, entirely different. Web advertising is not so much making a statement, but getting sales. Conveniently, one can track how effective one’s web ad is. Print media now has competition, and competition (in the free market) drives down the price, right? With more advertising mediums (Internet, mobile… who knows what will come next?) it’s inevitable that advertising prices go down. Newspapers should have seen it earlier- it was so obvious- and quickly adjusted their business model.

Will web ads make up for their losses? Never in a billion years. Do the math, it’s not going to work. Even if all the articles were porn-laced content that gets high traffic, it won’t work. That is why- in addition to the journalistic reasons- it’s not financially worth it to write trashy articles. It may get you a few extra bucks, but it won’t be enough to pay another full-time, quality reporter. So what do we do? You can only cut capital costs (printing, delivering, etc) to a certain extent and cutting human resources (your reporters and editors) may save in the short-term, but will put you out of business in the long term because if you don’t have good, original content, no one will bother to read you anymore.

I don’t have a solution for national newspapers, but I have a suggestion for regional newspapers– something that would only work when it is targeting a community that is geographically specific. Local papers should actively engage citizen reporting to produce real-time news only for its (free) website, and publish a weekly paper newspaper that contains more feature stories, op-eds, lifestyle stories, etc. (A couple pages can be used to publish briefs on major stories from the past week) The reason this needs to cover a small area is so people can personally relate to information that they would otherwise have no access to. National news can be obtained everywhere and it will be impossible with a small staff to cover anything better than what other papers have covered.

Social networking is a key point in getting people to visit the website, by letting them pitch tips, and participate in discussions. I found that online forums take on more life when they are hyper local, because the issue at hand is always very close to heart.

The local paper shouldn’t have more than five full-time employees and doesn’t require a huge office– it doesn’t have to have an office at all, except that the weekly paper production would be easier if the staff were together. Frankly, I think two or three editors is all that it takes to run a local paper, as long as it actively engages the community, utilizing freelancers, collaborating with local bloggers, etc.

In addition to print and web ads, local newspapers have the advantage of making money from hosting local events because it has such strong ties to the local community and its brand name. When I was running Ewhaian.com, I had no idea this could be an actual way to earn money until I saw that offline events were bringing in much more money than online ads, and that the events were not only profitable in terms of finances, but also good in bringing more content and more people to the site. Of course, this involves having people who are event planners, not necessarily journalists.

We are at the brink of facing at least a decade of degrading journalism. Newspapers have to wake up. Here is an interesting business model about a regional paper that is charging its readers and working on technology to make a “closed” web site. I don’t know if that’s the right direction, but it is an unique success case.

(cross posted on arcticpenguin)

NYT needs to change the role of shareholders

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

It’s great that the market has a kind of bottoms-up thing where shareholders have a say in the management, but I think that more often than naught it’s the shareholders that really mess things up. I’m not against capitalism or free trade– I just think that sometimes people who run the business should be given more responsibility to make their own decisions, which may in certain cases, not necessarily coincide with the thoughts of the shareholders.

A recent NYT article on how a Mexican billionaire is thinking of investing in the NYT got me really angry, because according to the alleged deal, Mr. Carlos Slim Helu “would invest $250 million in the form of 10-year notes with warrants that are convertible into common shares… As part of Mr. Slim’s investment, which resembles a loan, he is expected to get a special annual dividend, perhaps as high as 10 percent or more on this investment.”

Why the *** is the NYT paying dividends when the company’s finances are staggering? I’m sure the Sulzbergers are enjoying their dividends, but now is really the time to cut those dividends and put the investment back into the company so that it stays afloat. I mean, look at the profit Google is making and it doesn’t have dividends. You may argue that Google is a tech company, but now that media is inevitably linked to technology, can one argue that the Times is not a tech company (or that Google is not a media company?)

Shareholders are about short-term benefits– those benefits could be days, months, perhaps years. But management should look at the company from a more sustainable standpoint– especially if it’s a media company like the NYT. I know many people think Rupert Murdoch is evil, but hey, that guy has a vision, and it’s not all about money. Think of the makings of the great media companies, the great film production houses… and all of those that succeeded had a very strong leader at the helm. When it comes to media, it matters who is steering, and for the Times, the biggest problem is that it doesn’t have that visionary leader. No amount of money is going to save the Times if it continues its current path.

Despite the Times’ strong statement to “go digital,” its plans for new digital business operations are very vague and general and do not seem to utilize all of its existing resources. In an analysis of the Times’ annual report, I found that the company was successful in reporting how they cut costs, but failed to present any structured plans for the group’s future. It does not tap into the potential synergy effects that its groups could have, nor explore the possibilities of how its acquisitions and other investments play into the bigger strategy. It also addresses potential problems regarding the Class B stock owned through a family trust, but doesn’t explain what kind of influence the family actually has, or draw om this situation.

When seeking new businesses, the Times must always keep their mission in mind because giving up on those values for short-term profits will sever their customers’ loyalty and lead to long-term losses that will be difficult to recover. The New York Times should especially be careful, because now, although their profits aren’t as high as before, they still have a strong patronage-perhaps one that is even stronger than before-but a couple wrong steps could easily break that down.