Media Redux

One of the great dilemmas facing traditional print media is the idea that the internet makes everyone a publisher-writers are no longer beholden to publishers who guard the gate to large printing and distribution systems. In the mobile age, publishing capabilities literally sit in the palm of your hand--and when you add the ability to develop large networks via social media and substantial self-funding sources, the game has changed completely.

This past week, as I was considering what to write for my column, I scored what I call a homerun post. It took off and amassed more than 24,000 page views at last count. I had another that barely broke 200. So it goes in the world of writing on the web.

As I write this column, the Newtown, Conn., shooting tragedy is still a raw, gaping wound in the national consciousness. We have seen the face of evil, and those of us in the press who cover breaking news have been left to report on the horror. I'm sad to say we haven't always done it elegantly or with compassion for the victims or their families. What's worse, in an effort to be first, blatantly wrong information was published.

Every modern journalist needs a certain set of key skills. Certainly you have to know your way around social media to publicize your work, but these days, you also need to be able understand and make use of data.

In my last column, I discussed some fundamental rules that remain in place even as journalism is changing before our eyes. But as the role of journalism changes, we are still bringing new generations of journalists into the fold--and I happen to have one in my own house.

There is little doubt that we are living in a new age of journalism. The internet has clearly put pressure on traditional publications. Stories are published faster. There is less fact-checking and editorial oversight. Virtually anyone with even a hint of technical savvy can publish to the web. Many of the more traditional rules of journalism have gone by the wayside, and while much of this change is positive, that doesn't mean all of the old rules don't still apply. Some should remain guiding lights, regardless of the medium, but too often lately we have seen modern journalism steer off course.

I read several books during my summer vacation. And each time I came across a passage about a person reading a newspaper over breakfast, I checked the copyright page at the front of the book. You just don't see people casually reading the paper over coffee anymore-at least not in the U.S. It's a quaint vestige of an earlier, slower time.The daily newspaper has been replaced by the internet. People don't even casually eat breakfast anymore. They grab a coffee, probably at a chain such as Starbucks, and chug it on the run. They get their news on their mobile devices or laptops.

MSNBC (now known as NBC News) has learned to embrace analytics and social media to help drive traffic to its various properties, and if you're smart, you should be doing the same thing with your websites.

I continue to be amazed by the inability of big media in general—and newspapers in particular—to understand the internet. This is 2012 after all. The web is more than 20 years old now—old enough to drink. You would think we would have arrived at some basic level of knowledge about how to use the most important communication tool of our time—but no, apparently not.

I'm in the process of reading Walter Isaacson's excellent biography of the contradictory and unpredictable man that was Steve Jobs. Isaacson wrote that in 2010, wracked with cancer, Jobs was on a mission to accomplish as much as he could before he died-and to that end he turned his keen attention to journalism.

As we watch newspapers continue to struggle with the digital transformation, it's worth looking at another time in history when newspapers grappled with a disruptive technology. That's right, the introduction of the internet was not the first time newspapers were rocked by revolutionary upheaval. In the middle of the 19th century, as the telegraph started to take hold, newspapers initially saw it as a threat before coming to a realization: It could actually transform the industry. Sound familiar?

You wouldn't know it to hear publishers griping, but newspapers have a long history of giving away content-or at least selling it on the cheap. That didn't change with the internet; what's really changed is the advertising model.Think about how newspapers were sold in the 20th century. The newsstand cost was actually very cheap, perhaps 25 cents a copy -- and sometimes it was free -- so the subscription revenue was never much to speak of.

When it comes to defining old media, you don't get much older or stodgier than The Associated Press (AP), which has been delivering the news for 165 years. In December 2011, it decided to finally join us in the 21st century by defining a new policy that would go beyond merely breaking a story first and go so far as to add value to it with analysis, video, and more.

There seems little doubt that the advent of tablets, the ultimate media consumption device, had a positive impact on the news business. But until the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, in collaboration with The Economist Group, released a study in October, the exact impact was mere speculation.

Guess what's back in vogue: that lovely old chestnut, the paywall. In September, The Boston Globe announced it was putting up a paywall for its new http://bostonglobe.com website, leaving the very popular http://boston.com intact but apparently with less free content.It's part of a trend we are seeing in the newspaper world. Desperate to find new sources of revenue, traditional media is trying the tried-and-true paywall. The New York Times--which owns The Boston Globe by the way--made the transition last spring, but this was a paywall with a twist. It wasn't so much a wall as maybe a hedge.

It seems baffling to me that in 2011 there are media companies that are still so clueless about the realities of digital publishing. In fact, many act surprised, as though it's something new that just dropped into their laps rather than a transition that's been happening over the past decade.

For many years it seems, AOL has been a brand in search of a business model. For a time it appeared to be stockpiling journalists and properties in order to become a go-to destination for online journalism. But when the "AOL Way" memo leaked in February, it showed a far different picture.

Last December, WikiLeaks stirred up debate when it, once again, released sensitive government documents to the world. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief, quickly became a public enemy, and the story brought up a wide range of issues about the role of journalists, governments, and the freedom of the press. The leak, however, also raised the question of just what a publication is in the eyes of the government and if press freedom should extend to web-only publications, especially when they may not be based in the U.S. (or anywhere else, in this case).

As we head into the homestretch of 2010, we've seen a lot of activity in the journalism world—many experiments and attempts to find a working, profitable content creation and delivery model. Maybe we've finally gotten past the blame game and gotten to the point where we are actually looking for answers. The problem, however, remains a stubborn adherence to the idea of maintaining control over the content. With few exceptions, publishers seemed focused on finding new ways to lock down content.

By the time the media industry caught up with the profound changes brought on by the World Wide Web, it was late in the game and they were forced to play catch-up with lean web-native startups that understand the delivery channel much better than they do. The main issue was (and remains) that traditional media companies viewed the web as a separate channel.

Rupert Murdoch threw his annual anti-Google hissy fit this past April, when he screamed to anyone who would listen that Google is stealing his content. As usual, it was timed to coincide with the annual meeting of the American Society of News Editors (ASNE). Excuse me while I yawn.

Think about the last time you ran into a registration wall. How did you react? If you're like me, chances are you gave up and left. Yet newspapers and magazines are deluding themselves into thinking that pay walls will suddenly, magically be the solution to their revenue crisis this year. To put it mildly, I'm dubious about this scheme.

What would happen to content providers such as News Corp. if Google went away tomorrow? Would they be better off, or would they be back where they started?

Let's not pull any punches: It's been a horrible year for newspapers. We've watched as one newspaper after another has closed down or gone to a limited online-only model. Newspapers are suddenly frantic to find a way to make money online, as though the commercial web is something that came along last month instead of 15 years ago.