Newspaper Ad Revenues Are Falling…Less?

Good news for those predicting the demise of journalism…revenues are falling at a less precipitous rate!

It’s pretty sad that I’m almost celebrating that the New York Times’ ad revenues are going to fall 25 percent instead of 30, but the positives have to begin somewhere.

McClatchey Company is expected to see ad revenues drop in the low to mind-20 percent range which is a 28 percent increase from last quarter.

I’m confused about whether to be happy to read this news or not.  The revenues are still dropping; that’s not positive.  But the freefall seems to be slowing, and maybe a tourniquet finally applied to the wound.  As these revenue drops recede maybe more time will be afforded to figure out new pay models to save the industry.

Here’s hoping.

Former LA Times Journalists Have Little Faith

A recent survey of former LA Times journalists, 124 of them to be exact, were surveyed about the future of the paper they once worked for.

Sadly, 84 percent of them expect the LA Times to eventually fold.  Their prognosis for the newspaper business as a whole was almost equally grim.  Only 25 percent of them believe that the newspaper industry can weather the current economic crunch.

The opinions varied from person-to-person, as was expected.  One interesting one was a worker who expected the newspaper industry to make it, but become entirely different as a mode of survival.

“Most papers will evolve into local rags with a heavy emphasis on entertainment and other ‘news you can use’ and time-wasting blogs to keep people entertained,” he said.  This is lending credence to the Rupert Murdochs of the world who believe that sensationalist journalism is the way to go.

A somewhat heartening result of this survey found that 42 percent of these laid-off journalists share an opinion in common with me.  These people believe that if the newspaper industry were to go under, quality, independent journalism will persevere in some form.

To me, this is the absolute right attitude.  I don’t have a crystal ball, so in no way could I predict the future of newspapers.  I can predict, though, that people will always want good journalism, and won’t always want juicy and salacious gossip.

This will survive, and so will journalis.  Even if the papers disappear.

Tiger Woods and his Escalade

By Raimundo Ortiz

Tiger Woods is an icon. He isn’t admired in the way an NBA fan might gawk atBoston Celtics guard Ray Allen’s three-point stroke, or an NFL fan would marvel at Baltimore Ravens right tackle Michael Oher’s ability to stop All-Pro defensive ends in their tracks.

No, Tiger is admired for more than his excellence in golf. He’s admired the way LeBron James, Roger Federer, Jay-Z, and The Beatles are. Globally.

Which brings us to the unfortunate incident involving the world’s most important golfer crashing his Escalade into a tree in front of his house despite not being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, according to police. Tiger refused to answer media questions, which is his right. He refused to answer police inquiries, which, I guess once you reach Tiger Woods’ stratosphere of celebrity becomes your right.

However, being the best in the world at what you, and the first ever billionaire athlete makes the public interested in you. When you inexplicably smash your car into a tree and then refuse to answer any questions about it, the public will want to know about it. The tabloids have to give their readers answers, and if Tiger won’t give them they still have to print something.

Speculation rose about Tiger’s wife, Elin Nordegren, beating him with a golf club after learning of her husband’s infidelity. Did this cause the crash? Tiger wouldn’t say. Tiger wouldn’t say anything besides it’s a private matter.

Unfortunately, public people don’t have private matters.

Enter Jaimee Grubbs, a waitress and participant on MTV’s Tool Academy. She is claiming to be the woman who caused the uproar in the Woods’ household. She has made public a voicemail of Tiger trying to cover-up their dalliance as well as salacious texts Tiger had sent her.

Here’s where it gets dicey. The crash is the public’s business. He was cited for reckless driving, and this is something newsworthy. Now the affair business….well…I’m not sure. On the one hand there’s no proven correlation between the alleged affair and Tiger’s reckless driving. On the other hand, Tiger is arguably the world’s most famous athlete and inarguably the richest.

Everyone has a right to their privacy, celebrities included. As an aspiring journalist, I’m watching this story closely with the proverbial angel and devil on each of my shoulders. People are certainly interested, and in a way, that makes it news.

Morally, though, I have qualms. If John Doe cheated on his wife Jane it would not be a news item. Tiger Woods’ children did not choose to be in the public eye. If this information isn’t pertinent to the real news, Tiger’s crash (see you already forgot that happened didn’t you?), then to me it shouldn’t be in the news. Tiger’s family should not be publicly skewered because of his faults and missteps.

I think it’s time to put this story to bed. When investigators get to the bottom of why Tiger crashed, it should be reported. Magazines and newspapers are no place for marital difficulties to be aired out though, even if it’s Tiger Woods.

Government’s Role in Journalism

By Raimundo Ortiz

Following up on the first post about Rupert Murdoch’s musings on jouralism’s future, it’s time to tackle the topic of cross-ownership.  Murdoch, shockingly enough, has a problem with the restrictions of cross-ownership.

His point is that television and news are no longer main competitors to one another, and that as times have changed it’s now ridiculous to disallow someone from owning a newspaper and TV station in the same place.  He likened it to banning a newspaper from having a website.

To this I say…eh.  I still don’t think cross-ownership is a great idea.  While online news and cable news provide more competition cross-ownership still would allow for someone to dominate a market.

As far as government aid to newspapers, a la auto industry, Murdoch posits that this would be devastating to the industry as a whole.  ”The Founding Fathers knew that the key to independence was to allow enterprises to prosper and serve as a counterweight to government power. It is precisely because newspapers make profits and do not depend on the government for their livelihood that they have the resources and wherewithal to hold the government accountable.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.  If the newspapers can’t hold the government accountable then they’re not worth having.

I find Murdoch’s take here interesting…he’s worried about journalists and their ability to check the government at the same time as spouting about “give consumers what they want” which is code for print tabloid-esque stories.  This is clearly because the government inhibits his grand designs on domination.  Nonetheless, his point about government bailouts of newspapers is spot-on.  I must give him credit for that.

If I were graduating in December…

If I were graduating in December, I’d try to hook onto a newspaper first and foremost.  I’d do this with the understanding that the pickings may be slim, however.

I’d also look to see if any papers were looking for bloggers.  I’ve come to like the format of blogging, and the freedom I’m allowed.  I’d try to be a sports blogger.  It would be interesting if a paper would give me a beat and give me free reign to just follow stories and blog about them.  I’d be just as comfortable with trolling sites, espn, and other networks for interesting tidbits and giving my two cents on them as well.

Blogging offers plenty of possibilities.  The daily Tiger Woods revelations (being beaten to death in my opinion) offer a plethora of angles to take.  A job as a blogger would be extremely fun and challenging in ways other types of reporting aren’t.  Because of the freedom alotted, increased creativity is expected.  I’d relish that challenge, especially if I’m being expected to write about sports.

Rupert Murdoch’s Take on the Future of Journalism

By Raimundo Ortiz

Rupert Murdoch has an interesting take on the future of journalism.  It touches on many of the different theories, aspects, and threats that lie in wait for us as we leave the protective cocoon of college.

I agreed with some of his points.  Others…not so much.

One thing I like is his optimism.  Journalism will fail if all of us continue to say “Woe is me” and assume everything’s going to hell.  It isn’t.

Murdoch said,”Newspapers have prospered for one reason: the trust that comes from representing their readers’ interests and giving them the news that’s important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful. Technology now allows us to do this on a much greater scale.”  I think he’s absolutely right.  Might print newspapers suffer?  Yes.  However, as technology becomes part of our lives we, as journalists, have to embrace it.  If print newspapers move online, so be it.  The journalism can remain the same. Bright minds figured out payment models to allow the profession to succeed, and the bright minds of our generation will do the same.

A major point he made is that news organizations need to give their customers “what they want.”  I took this to imply that he means employing a more salacious, gossipy style that will appeal to the masses.  This, I disagree with.  The New York Times avoids tabloid-type coverage and does just fine.  To me, finding a lane and staying in it with quality material is the way to go.  Quality journalism will always be rewarded to some extent.  His model, similar to the one Michael Rosenblum proposed, strips journalism of its truest purpose.  That is to inform.  His comment that decreased sales mean that editors are writing news for themselves is offensive to me.  No editor writes for themselves.  They write for their own audience dedicated to them.

His second point is that content must have a price.  To those who say “they won’t pay,” Murdoch rejects.  He says people will pay for content worth it.  On this point we agree.  I pay for the New York Times because I’m satisfied with their news coverage.  I pay for the New York Post because their sports section is excellent.  If these all move online, if the quality remains people will pay for it.  Simple as that.

His third point had to do with the government’s role in regulating journalism.  But that’s another topic for another blog.

Rosenblum TV- “Church and State becoming one”

By Raimundo Ortiz

1) If  “pure” journalism and “dirty” journalism were to combine and become a business first and foremost wouldn’t that eliminate journalists’ ability to be watchdogs of people in power?

2) Furthering the first question, if stories come to light that would be bad for business yet need to be made public, does a business-driven model have the guts to publish?  Will stories that negatively impact business be buried?  If this is so then “Church being sublimated into State” means the journalism profession sells its soul for continued relevancy.

3)  Expanding on the second question, if this is the case and journalism loses its integrity in the process of remaining financially viable, is the profession really still necessary?  If the public is being informed of things only when they’re not damaging for business, then I think there isn’t a point to having journalists at all.  They just will become public relations drones with different titles.

Raimundo Ortiz- Star Ledger Cuts

Despite cutting newsroom staff by 40 percent last year to avoid closure, The Star-Ledger is cutting 50 more jobs, 25 coming from the newsroom.

This is on the heels of other New Jersey papers The Asbury Park Press, The Home News Tribune, Courier News, the Courier-Post, the Daily Journal, and the Daily Record are enduring what columnist John Koblin calls seasonal cuts.

Kindle Competition

By Raimundo Ortiz

Soon Time Inc., Hearst, Conde Nast, and there is speculation that Meredith Corp. too will be joining in a venture to create a new digital reader that will try to improve on the Kindle’s capabilities.

This new reader will be more magazine and newspaper-friendly, because Kindles render in black-and-white and don’t replicate four color ads.  This will presumablygive users more of the online experience than they would have with a Kindle.

In my mind, its like cutting-edge handheld video games and their improved graphics.  It’s far more like its console counterparts than, say, game boys were during the ’90s.

This is a big step in the consumption of online content, and if successful, should provide greater incentive for newspapers and magazines to step their game up online.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!