I was grateful to attend the Chicago Journalism Town Hall today, organized by Ken Davis, a long time WBEZ news director, with the purpose of exploring, essentially, how to save the Chicago news business.
I said I was grateful for going because I thought I was going to listen and partake in a thoughtful conversation on business models, to explore what works/what doesn’t, where the news is headed, etc. What I got was much different.
Image Credit: www.bwog.net
A quick glance at the experienced and talented panel kind of said it all. A lot of big names in Chicago journalism were up there. Glaringly absent though were advertisers, managers and any academics from some of the fine Chicago j-schools. Basically, what was needed to have a thoughtful conversation looking at different angles of the journalism business was not included (except for Andrew Huff of Gapers Block and Ben Goldberger of Huffington Post). Instead, we got what was to be expected from a room full journalists and PR pros in a crumbing industry – a lot of complaining.
The conversation actually started out on the right note. Mike Miner from the Reader said that papers are like utilities who are unprepared for this day in age and has to be replaced by “younger, brighter and more creative managers.”
It became a bitch-fest full of bad ideas from there.
John Calloway said that the advent of online media was leading to traditional journalists’ stories being “stolen” and not credited elsewhere on the web.
Geoff Dougherty of ChiTown Daily News advocated the non-profit business model for new media ventures.
Carol Marin of the Sun Times argued that big media and their budgets are needed so that journalists can challenge access to sealed and hard-to-get documents in court.
Eric Zorn of the Tribune said the problem with Chicago journalism isn’t lack of interest, it’s how to monetize that interest.
Lee Bey said that newspapers were successful only when vertically integrated. The news organizations had to own the means of production and the delivery mechanisms.
Another high(low)light came from Carlos Hernandez-Gomez who said that non-”professional journalism” brought stories with a point of view. Taking a position, he said, is not journalism. Hmmm. Was he aware of the whole media bias thing floating around out there in the world? Or the fact that both the Tribune and Sun Times endorses candidates. Does that maybe call into question “accurate” reporting?
Finally, PR pro Carolyn Grisko suggested journalists should stop giving away content for free. Content should be paid for by the people who use it. Wait, didn’t the New York Times abandon the Times Select model because it failed? I thought we were over the paid content wall of several years ago.
Eyes started popping though when Sachin Agarwal, President and CEO of dawdle.com, argued that online publishers can make money and can make big money. Traditional media outlets just had to abandon their ways of doing business and adopt new models of sharing, linking and delivering news in compelling ways.
Brad Flora, founder of WindyCitizen.com, then pointed out how far the panelists had gotten off track. First, he said traditional journalists stole stories and story ideas without credit to their original authors constantly. There is no recognition of that. Second, news aggregators like his site and other online media who link out are good things for traditional journalists. They need not fear traffic diverted from their sites. After all, Flora said, good content will get noticed and the crap ignored. The good content will get linked to and that’s just good for any journalist and media outlet looking to sell advertising.
Carol Marin brought some sensibility to the panel when she responded to Flora that she did sense the panel was not looking beyond their narrow worldview. But just as much as journalists have to learn from new media pros, new media pros also have stuff to learn from journalists too. That’s a great message.
But, if I can pontificate here, the panelists missed the point big time and it’s clear the next generation of media pros did get it. I talked about the Tribune’s bankruptcy months ago and said at that time good content rules. In other words, there’s always a market for good content. In the 0nline and linked world, good content is easier to find and connect with. Journalists need to focus on content and the other side of the business needs to focus on delivering content in a way that makes sense, listening to their audience and building relationships with them. That’s the formula cystalizing for successful and sustainable media.
12 responses so far ↓
Kiyoshi Martinez - nerdlusus blog – Chicago Journalism Town Hall: Ideas to help news organizations bring in revenue // February 23, 2009 at 5:28 am |
[...] Jesse Greenberg blog post [...]
Eric Zorn // February 23, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
I agree that the panel needed more diversity of expertise — I’ve suggested to Ken that he do this again with an entirely different panel that includes some of the younger voices who spoke up at the event and advertsing/marketing/money people.
I don’t agree that it was a “bitch fest” or that all the ideas were necessarily bad. It does strike me as important to identify the problem and look at the lay of the land and not to simply take ideas off the table.
What you say in your conclusion is correct but, with all due respect, pat. And it waves its hands at the revenue problem — you say there is always a “market” for good content . I would amend that to saying there is always an audience for good content, and the riddle is now to translate an audience into a market in a sustainable way.
DeBartolo // February 23, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
no eric, i think jesse nailed it; it was a “bitch fest” … unfortunately, the new media guys in the audience somehow managed to out bitch the pros … but when dawdle dot com was raised to prove one of their points – that online publishers can make millions, the pros folded – none of them ever hear of it …. today, i’m sure the pros are scratching their collective head – how the hell can a site where kids “Buy and Sell New and Used Video Games, Systems, and Accessories with other Gamers Online” have any bearing at all on saving the chicago news business? … personally, I can’t wait for round 2 … this time, they should sell tickets.
Chicago Journalism Town Hall » Blog Archive » Here are some links to Post-Town Hall comments // February 23, 2009 at 6:46 pm |
[...] thoughtful comments have been posted today by Kyoshi Martinez, the NP Communicator at CMW, Jesse Greenberg, Ryan Blitstein and a variety of others. Windy Citizen has been doing a nice job of cellecting [...]
Eric Zorn // February 23, 2009 at 8:19 pm |
@Debartolo — Yes, the Dawdle.com rant was quite a moment and I’m even more mystified now than I was before about how his experience — long may he prosper, but.. — is relevant to the experience of a news organization.
I heard a lot of people genuinely searching for answers and others optimistically offering up generalities.
I, too, hope for a Round 2 with a wholly different group of panelists.
DeBartolo // February 23, 2009 at 9:04 pm |
back @ u zorn: could not agree more … i felt everyone’s intentions were quite honorable — the new media folk looking a better way, the seasoned pros trying to remind everyone what it really takes in terms of time/dollars to produce news that matters…it was a worthwhile 1st step on a rather long & difficult trail … i can only hope there’s a 2nd.
David Ormsby // February 23, 2009 at 11:12 pm |
Jesse,
Insightful piece. Good job.
David Ormsby
Brad Flora // February 24, 2009 at 7:16 am |
About the bitch fest, I feel responsible for that and I’m disappointed that I took the tone that I did.
That said, the Dawdle guy’s specific industry isn’t relevant to what he was trying to say. That’s why he didn’t understand why people kept asking him where he worked. He wasn’t speaking as a media guy but as someone who buys advertising on web sites to promote his company, which happens to sell video games. He was also speaking as someone with experience starting and running a business.
He buys advertising on Gapers Block because they have a very simple, elegant advertising system. He has paid other web sites a great deal of money to advertise on them, because they have a defined audience and he knows what he’s going to get out of the transaction. They have an explicit point of view that he thinks syncs up with the goods he’s trying to sell.
The counterargument to him pointing out Pitchfork and Ars Technica, which Eric has pointed out, is that these are publishers with a national focus. So they’ve got it easier than a publication that tries to go local.
I would say though that we can still learn from their example: pick a beat for your publication and own it. We could in fact get a new all-purpose Chicago newspaper sometime in the future. More likely, we’ll see a killer city hall site, a killer Chicago restaurant news site. I.E. more publications following the Crain’s or Blockshopper.com models of local publishing.
I’m also hoping there’s another gathering of this sort in the future. There’s more activity like this in Chicago than anywhere else. I tend to blame the J-schools in the city for this, but it’s at least interesting.
New Tool to Track IL-5 Online Buzz « Jesse Greenberg // February 24, 2009 at 11:21 pm |
[...] another note, Chicago media organizations, particularly the ones who were on the panel at the Chicago Journalism Town Hall take note. This is the kind of tool that enhances your readers’ experiences, provides [...]
Sachin Agarwal // February 25, 2009 at 6:14 am |
Brad characterizes my point well. It’s not about what we do – aside from the fact that companies like ours will be the advertisers of the 21st century.
This I know for sure: you can make a profit being an online-only publication that relies entirely on advertising. You don’t need to boycott Google or something else asinine. Hell, I applaud the WSJ for innovating “first click free”. This is what got me agitated. There are people who want to get paid personally who have no idea what the marketplace for information looks like.
I don’t know for sure, but I have a strong personal opinion on the future of journalism: I think it needs a point of view. Ars has a POV: “technology is awesome”. Doesn’t necessarily make them biased when they report news or review products. The Trib and the Sun-Times have plenty of reporters, but they’re terrible at telling stories.
My job as an advertiser is to find people who can deliver me profitable audiences. That means institutions of the relevant scale and demographics. Newspapers have long since failed to do that. I offered up but one suggestion to perhaps help – I could be wrong about the POV, and I know that – but I’m not wrong that the S-T and the Trib are failing us as institutions, despite the size of their newsrooms. And unless they fix that, they’ll lose the scale they have. That makes it harder for me as an advertiser and it fails me as a citizen.
Where is Journalism Headed? « Jesse Greenberg // April 14, 2009 at 8:18 pm |
[...] seems this gathering promises to talk about the questions that should have been talked about at the Chicago Journalism Townhall back in [...]
Karen Kring // June 20, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
Thanks for your post.
I was at the Chicago Journalism Townhall too. I didn’t get a printed program at the discussion; maybe there wasn’t one, but listed as a panelist would have been the one academic on the panel: Dr. Barbara K. Iverson of Columbia College. (Don’t know if any of the others might have been adjuncts.) Dr. Barb, known on Twitter as @drbarb, had brought more information about business models, but didn’t get the chance to elaborate on them much that day, but offered more later on your website at http://currentbuzz.org. (Dr. Barb’s site also offers information about the Chicago Media Future Conference, said to be a follow up to the townhall. a conversation that started in physical space this month and will continue online and eventually in physical space again.)
A lot of us wanted to hear more about business models too. Some of us were ready to hear from advertisers too. I believe Ken Davis’ effort was to start bringing journalism colleagues up to speed at least to a certain point (and I’d say that included some of the panelists) and get us talking face-to-face to share our perspectives and what we knew at that moment. My understanding is that he purposely only included the wide range of newsworkers in the room, plus the hand-full of other stakeholders. Just getting that crowd talking to each other, and listening, was a feat; I thought it was not even as big a “bitch-fest” as it could have been. In a follow up post, he agrees that the next ones should include more advertisers; see http://chijournalismtownhall.com/?p=455 . I was grateful for the one advertiser who spoke up, Sachin Agarwal.
I don’t agree that all that the discussion was full of bad ideas. I heard starts to viable solutions.
As a visual journalist, I’d say missing even now in the conversations the broader journalism and tech folks are having are the designers. Changes in news delivery and advertising is part of what is driving the erosion of traditional business models. Dudes at http://revenuetwopointzero.com have addresses some of that, though I don’t know as I write this what the progress is of their solutions based on current technology that are based on proven funding strategies.
And lastly usability needs to be discussed more in the conversations I’m having in the journalism circles I’m in. I agree with your assertion that the journalists need to focus on producing strong content and the others in the business need to focus on delivering the content in ways that make sense. Makes sense. How do we do that? As you suggest listening to audiences and building relationships…which will improve usability. As you say, good content is easier to find, in the online world, but not easy enough yet for enough of us yet. Don’t get me started about access.
Karen Kring