Newspapers Deliver Across the Ages
nielsen Insights 12-15-2016
"Ever hear the phrase “print is dead”? Well if you check with almost 170 million Americans, they’d tell you that nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, a recent Nielsen Scarborough study found that more than 169 million adults in the U.S. read a newspaper in a month—whether it be in print, on a website or via mobile app. In total, newspapers reach 69% of the U.S. population in a given month."
Read the entire article.
By NICHOLAS FANDOS
Entire article in The New York Times
Here's the start:
It did not take long after election night for the donations to start pouring in to America’s nonprofit journalism organizations.
Almost a month later, the money keeps coming, in $10 and $20 and sometimes hundreds of dollars or more from small donors all over the country.
At the Center for Public Integrity in Washington and its international investigative arm, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, individual donations are up about 70 percent compared to the same period last year.
Jack Shafer | Politico October 18, 2016
Read the full article
Here is the start:
What if almost the entire newspaper industry got it wrong?
What if, in the mad dash two decades ago to repurpose and extend editorial content onto the Web, editors and publishers made a colossal business blunder that wasted hundreds of millions of dollars? What if the industry should have stuck with its strengths—the print editions where the vast majority of their readers still reside and where the overwhelming majority of advertising and subscription revenue come from—instead of chasing the online chimera?
That’s the contrarian conclusion I drew from a new paper written by H. Iris Chyi and Ori Tenenboim of the University of Texas and published this summer in Journalism Practice. Buttressed by copious mounds of data and a rigorous, sustained argument, the paper cracks open the watchworks of the newspaper industry to make a convincing case that the tech-heavy Web strategy pursued by most papers has been a bust. The key to the newspaper future might reside in its past and not in smartphones, iPads and VR. “Digital first,” the authors claim, has been a losing proposition for most newspapers.
These findings matter because conventional newspapers, for all their shortcomings, remain the best source of information about the workings of our government, of industry, and of the major institutions that dominate our lives. They still publish a disproportionate amount of the accountability journalism available, a function that’s not being fully replaced by online newcomers or the nonprofit entities that have popped up. If we give up the print newspaper for dead, accepting its demise without a fight, we stand to lose one of the vital bulwarks that protect and sustain our culture."
One of our core values (SCS's) is helping to preserve newspapers to hold the powerful accountable. We also think that unthinking abandonment of the print product to produce only digital content is a faulty business model. We encourage our customers to preserve both publication environments.
Link from E&P to the article
published by the Committee to Protect Journalists
Should There be Legislation in Place Preventing Politicians from Banning the Press?
published by E&P
An article by Jack Shafer | PoliticoSeptember 12, 2016
"When it comes to news, I'm an ocean that refuses no river.
But when it comes to immersion—when I really want the four winds of news to blow me deeper comprehension—my devotion to newsprint is almost cultistic. My eyes feel about news the way my ears feel about music driven from a broken pair of speakers—distorted, grating, and insufferable. Reading online, I comprehend less and I finish fewer articles than I do when I have a newspaper in hand. Online, I often forget why I clicked a page in the first place and start clicking on outside links until I'm tumbling through cyberspace like a marooned astronaut."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/newspapers-print-news-online-journalism-214238#ixzz4K9f2hFn3
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
"Conservatively, our prison story cost roughly $350,000. The banner ads that appeared in it brought in $5,000, give or take."
as reported in Mother Jones
“Be editors and reporters. Write stories instead of content. Remember you are in the service of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, not curating and monetizing content. Remember that journalism—real journalism—is essential to freedom and justice among a free people.”
Tom Henderson, McMinnville News-Register
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Journalism (HBO)
The newspaper industry is suffering. That’s bad news for journalists — both real and fictional.
Here's a humorous look that we need to pay attention to and take seriously.
And then here's a rebuttal from NAA's CEO, David Chevron which concludes with
"I would just ask Mr. Oliver to spend more time talking about what the future of news could be, and less time poking fun at publishers who are trying to get there."
And a counter rebuttal from Margaret Sullivan of the Washington Post (published by Editor & Publisher) including
"John Oliver’s 19-minute riff about what’s become of local newspapers made me laugh. Parts of it also made me want to cry.
But it did not make me want to complain — even for one second — about the comedian’s acerbic commentary on journalism in his “Last Week Tonight” show Sunday on HBO. Because the whole Oliver piece was a pitch-perfect ode to how important newspapers are to their communities, and how troubling it is that they are fading."
By: Nu Yang
When Donald Trump decided to revoke the Washington Post of press credentials in June due to its “dishonest” and “phony” coverage, the newspaper became the latest media organization to be blacklisted by the presidential candidate. The Post joined the likes of Politico, Univision, Huffington Post, Gawker, BuzzFeed, and the Des Moines Register—just to name a few.
Post executive editor Martin Baron responded in a statement: “Donald Trump’s decision to revoke the Washington Post’s press credentials in nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished.”
Organizations such as the Newspaper Association of America and the American Society of News Editors publicly condemned Trump’s decision to ban the Post.
“Candidate Trump’s move to sanction coverage of his drive to win the presidency is an unprecedented dismissal of the First Amendment freedoms essential to our democracy. The public is best served when a fearless, unfettered and independent press is present at all campaign events, speeches and political forums,” according to the statement from the ASNE.
NAA president and CEO David Chavern commented that Trump’s “treatment of journalists and the press isn’t just offensive or rude or political theater. It is a danger to our Constitutional Rights.”
When Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan contacted Trump’s camp for further explanation of the ban, she didn’t receive a solid answer, but vowed she would keep trying to get Trump to answer her questions. She also noted that candidate Hillary Clinton has given no press conferences or very serious interviews during her presidential campaign.
“None of this bodes well for press access in 2017 and beyond,” Sullivan wrote.
And she’s right.
Press access is crucial, especially during a time where only 20 percent of Americans have confidence in newspapers (bit.ly/1Ua5RBQ). This “all-time low,” according to the Gallup poll, “marks the tenth consecutive year that more Americans have expressed little or no, rather than high, confidence in the institution.”
The uproar that occurred when Trump banned the Post made sense, but what about the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that resulted in Gawker Media’s bankruptcy? Filed by former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan (whose legal name is Terry Bollea), the lawsuit stemmed from a sex tape that was published on Gawker. In March, a judge awarded Hogan $115 million for economic harm, emotional distress and invasion of privacy, according to a New York Times report.
“Gawker got what was coming in a karmic sense,” criminal defense attorney and civil litigator Ken White wrote in the Los Angeles Times. But he also pointed out, “From a legal and constitutional perspective, even Gawker haters should be troubled by its fate.”
“We don’t need the (First) Amendment to defend popular speech, we need it to protect unpopular speech,” White wrote.
As this election year continues, I’m certain more “unpopular speech” will continue to be said from all sides. We need the press to document it, and we need to defend it. After the Post was banned, the York (Pa.) Dispatch’s editorial board actually challenged Trump to ban them as well (bit.ly/1UUMpTJ).
“We (believe) you’re acting like a spoiled-rotten child—the petty poster boy for why we need a strong Fourth Estate,” according to their editorial. “A spoiled, foul-mouthed child, we might add. You’re so quick to insult other members of the media for doing their jobs—‘sleaze,’ ‘loser,’ ‘scum’ — yet never once have you singled out The York Dispatch. Let ‘er rip, Mr. Trump. We can take it.”
Now if that’s not unpopular speech, I don’t know what is.
Published: August 5, 2016 by Editor & Publisher