Showing posts with label future of the media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label future of the media. Show all posts
Monday, June 1, 2009
Cash Cows for Online News?
Monday, June 01, 2009
Profit generation is one of the most challenging aspects of the digital news revolution. Digital media expert Rishad Tobaccowala offers some fundraising suggestions, from the conventional to the offbeat (at least for news outlets), in the May/June issue of the Columbia Journalism Review (link courtesy of IJNet.org).
Among Tobaccowala's ideas:
* Charging for select archived material (many online papers do this already)
* Selling merchandise
* Targeting Web advertising towards individual readers
Read more of Tobaccowala's suggestions (and add some of your own!) here.
Among Tobaccowala's ideas:
* Charging for select archived material (many online papers do this already)
* Selling merchandise
* Targeting Web advertising towards individual readers
Read more of Tobaccowala's suggestions (and add some of your own!) here.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
J-School’s should urge students to specialize
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
With the new industry in turmoil and layoffs and buyouts of editorial staffers continuing, throughout the country, former journalist turned-teacher Ron Martz questions whether the age-old academic approach to journalism curriculum needs an overhaul. A general communication or journalism degree simply does not prepare today’s students for tomorrow’s jobs, he argues. He urges schools to require students to undertake a specialized focus or even second degree to lay the ground work to tackle beats with a sophistication needed in today’s market. He writes: “As society and business have gotten increasingly complex, journalism has failed to keep pace by failing to properly educate, or insist that reporters be properly educated, about the intricacies of what they cover.” A specialization could help reporters to land a job in which they become indispensible to the news organization, and provide the in-house expertise needed to elevate the organization’s brand and reputation.
Newspapers urge reporters use common sense on Twitter, Facebook
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
In recent weeks, the Wall Street Journal joined The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, among others, in establishing guidelines for reporters on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Most top editors say they’d like to encourage reporters to use social media tools to spur discussion and interest in their publication, but caution that too much sharing (especially of a personal or controversial nature) could jeopardize a reporter’s newsgathering ability -- and the publication’s reputation. Joe Strupp, senior editor at Editor & Publisher, gives an insightful round up of the various policies crafted at these publications that seek to shape the online behavior of news reporters, on and off the clock.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Future of Information
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Knight Foundation is putting its money where your mouth is. The Miami-based foundation just launched a new community site called Knight Pulse. This site - www.KnightPulse.org - will be a place where interested people can talk about the future of information and other pressing topics facing the evolution of journalism and media.And it's not just lip service. Knight Pulse "is a place for conversations that might later become collaborative projects considered for funding," according to Knight. With more than $25 million earmarked for community news and social media experiments in the next five years, it's a chance for all those innovators to join the funding fray.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Don’t Worry, I’ll Save Democracy!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
(This item was originally posted on Tactical Philanthropy/www.tacticalphilanthropy.com)
USC Annenberg Dean Ernest James Wilson III drew chuckles last week with his take on the state of the media as part of the a Media and Philanthropy mini-summit held at the Newseum during the annual meeting of the Council on Foundations. The headline: Traditional media is dying/changing, and democracy is at great risk.
Nothing new there, but through the hundreds of cocktail receptions and dinners he’s obligated to attend, Wilson identified the common syllogisms of journalists pleading their importance to democracy.
According to Wilson,
If you’re a member of TRADITIONAL MEDIA you argue:
1. Newspapers are vital to democracy
2. Newspapers are dying, therefore:
3. Democracy in the U.S. is at great risk.
If you’re part of DIGITAL MEDIA:
1. New media is opening new channels of communication and networking for all
2. Democracy is all about the interchange of ideas, therefore:
3. Democracy is being enhanced by digital media.
If you work in PUBLIC BROADCASTING:
1. The non-commercial media space is essential for democracy
2. Public broadcasting is slow to adapt to digital media, which has resulted in a shrinking audience, therefore:
3. Democracy is at risk.
If you are with COMMERCIAL MEDIA:
1. Commercial media are desperately trying to leverage their assets and cut costs
2. Democracy is good in principal, but the government has moved away from regulation, therefore:
3. Commercial media pays little attention to democracy.
Levity aside, Wilson raises a good point that more cross-sector collaboration on the challenges facing media is vital. No one sector will "save media" - and self-importance won’t help their case either. I’ve seen the silo-ing firsthand through my work as a journalism program officer, meeting with a variety of organizations claiming to have "solutions" to the changing media landscape.
Wilson’s call for increased cross-media dialogue is useful for funders considering investing in media and groups working in the sector.
USC Annenberg Dean Ernest James Wilson III drew chuckles last week with his take on the state of the media as part of the a Media and Philanthropy mini-summit held at the Newseum during the annual meeting of the Council on Foundations. The headline: Traditional media is dying/changing, and democracy is at great risk.
Nothing new there, but through the hundreds of cocktail receptions and dinners he’s obligated to attend, Wilson identified the common syllogisms of journalists pleading their importance to democracy.
According to Wilson,
If you’re a member of TRADITIONAL MEDIA you argue:
1. Newspapers are vital to democracy
2. Newspapers are dying, therefore:
3. Democracy in the U.S. is at great risk.
If you’re part of DIGITAL MEDIA:
1. New media is opening new channels of communication and networking for all
2. Democracy is all about the interchange of ideas, therefore:
3. Democracy is being enhanced by digital media.
If you work in PUBLIC BROADCASTING:
1. The non-commercial media space is essential for democracy
2. Public broadcasting is slow to adapt to digital media, which has resulted in a shrinking audience, therefore:
3. Democracy is at risk.
If you are with COMMERCIAL MEDIA:
1. Commercial media are desperately trying to leverage their assets and cut costs
2. Democracy is good in principal, but the government has moved away from regulation, therefore:
3. Commercial media pays little attention to democracy.
Levity aside, Wilson raises a good point that more cross-sector collaboration on the challenges facing media is vital. No one sector will "save media" - and self-importance won’t help their case either. I’ve seen the silo-ing firsthand through my work as a journalism program officer, meeting with a variety of organizations claiming to have "solutions" to the changing media landscape.
Wilson’s call for increased cross-media dialogue is useful for funders considering investing in media and groups working in the sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




