Jason's JRN 301 Blog
Don’t Hold the Notes of the One-Man Band
Leave a Comment
The more I hear about the one-man band idea, the more I cringe thinking about the stress that both current VJs go through and future ones will. It might be a while before potential journalists see the day where someone will accompany them to set up their shot, to give them suggestions, whatever. That day may never come. But, the idea of reporter, photog, and editor, each comprising a team, should not be expelled.
One person doing every possible ounce of work involved in gathering and disseminating a story is a worthwhile challenge. But doing it every day just seems like that person, despite being connected to their news organization, is isolated. Of course, there’s a producer to talk to if any problems occur, but that producer is depending on that one person to account for themselves. It’s do or die.
No matter what the subject matter is, two or three people involved in a story still has the same impact when everything is finished. The likelihood that something may be included that one person might never have thought of by themselves could go a long way when the news consumer is watching, reading, or listening. It could be the caveat that ties the whole piece together.
Comcast Casts a Huge Shadow Over Its Competitors
Leave a Comment
It wasn’t long before the deal was done. NBC has continuously placed last in network ratings, in large part because of a hefty risk. Now, the once powerful, dignified company has lost some luster. Earlier today, General Electric has agreed to sell NBC Universal to the cable giant Comcast, who will have majority stake in the new entity, Comcast Entertainment. This will all be finalized barring the deal passes regulatory review by federal agencies.
Comcast will add to its collection of cable channels with a film studio and theme park to boot. And, in effect, they may soon be swimming in a swath of cash. Many of its original and new channels bring in substantial amounts of revenue. Comcast not only poses a threat now to fellow cable giants, but also the conglomerates it can go toe to toe with.
Think about this: Comcast already reaches 27 million homes. With NBC in its grip, it will now reach almost double at 48 million. Cable was and still is its forte. Add Internet service and broadcasting, and what do you have? You have the production AND distribution of both news AND entertainment content.
Just imagine if you couldn’t watch your favorite show because you don’t have Comcast. If you had to pay to watch Hulu. If you had to pay more as a Comcast customer because Comcast charges other cable companies to more to have its content.
Sooner or later, now matter what media-related situation you’re in, Comcast could always be in the picture. Just imagine.
Tags: Comcast, Comcast Entertainment, GE, General Electric, Hulu, NBC, NBC Universal
AOL: You’ve Got Algorithms!
Leave a Comment
And once again, we turn to the whole idea of the blurring of journalistic church and state, editorial and advertising. This time, it involves AOL, who seeks to revolutionize the digital landscape.
The Wall Street Journal reported that in December, when AOL becomes a stand-alone company, it will begin to use a series of algorithms to predict the types of stories, videos and photos that will be most popular with consumers and marketers.
If you think about it, AOL is basically ensuring a stream of revenue from advertisers under their new system. Yet, it may not be enough. The most popular story one day might not attract as much dollars from advertisers as the next day’s most popular story. There will be a guaranteed stream of revenue, but it will be one that fluctuates nonetheless.
These days, it’s hard to find revenue online. And so, desperate times call for desperate measures. Although AOL’s measures are largely money-based, it is a justified business model. Catering to what the consumer wants to know while attracting ad dollars is ideal online journalism.
AOL, like any other online news hub, should know what people want. However, AOL could quite possibly succumb to the pressure of advertisers that influence story coverage. Although AOL is using algorithms to figure out what stories to write, you can think of the technology as performing a digital, globalized man on the street interview. If advertisers paid the company to sponsor an article, and it accepted, the company’s independence in newsgathering is undermined.
In addition to selling standard ads to run alongside the story or video on a Web page, AOL says it will offer custom content. For instance, AOL says, if its algorithms show consumers are searching for information about the Zhu Zhu Pets robotic hamster, a retailer could pay AOL to sponsor an article about where to find the hot toy.
Keep in mind the Society of Professional Journalists: Code of Ethics: Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
Let the technology (and the writers, of course) attract the ads, not the other way around.
Daily News Reflects Newspapers’ Fight to Survive
Leave a Comment
Finally, someone agrees with me that newspapers should survive. According to a story in the New York Times, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, owner of The Daily News, has spent more than $150 million into expanding the newspaper’s printing plant, installing advanced high-speed presses. Doing this reflects his hope that print will still be big business for another decade or two, if not longer.
But it also reflects a long-standing cliché in the business world: you need money to make money. And, that’s exactly what Zuckerman thought when he did what he did. He sought to improve the paper’s color photographs and graphics, making the pages crispier, less smudgy and devoid of pesky pinholes typically found around the borders. Yet, amid both declining circulation and advertising (what a surprise, right?), it’s obvious to deduce who this would benefit more.
News consumers will now be able to view a sort of mural rather than just a painting. O.K. But the Daily News and advertisers will be jumping for joy, or in this case, for green. In other words, circulation may increase a tiny bit, accounting for only a tiny portion of revenue, while money that comes from advertising will account for a bigger portion. What advertiser doesn’t want ads with color nowadays?
Color ads are a change in the right direction, but will never amount to online or television ads. But, that’s beside the point. What one can see here is that better, longer, more in-depth stories weren’t the driving force of making positive profit. There will always be a business side to journalism, a side where advertisers, local or national, will be waiting in the wing. I’m not saying that news companies don’t care about the editorial side of things (Or, maybe that they care less?) I’m saying that green is preferred over black and white. And, especially now, the latter is more dependent on the former.
Where I’d Be in the Media Ecosystem (After Graduating in December)
Leave a Comment
I understand that the media ecosystem favors online journalism over print and television. However, I remain fervent in my belief that both will survive and remain resilient through digital media’s rise.
Personally, I would prefer to integrate myself into either the print or online portion of the ecosystem. I feel I express my thoughts best when I write them down and, no matter how hard I try, I just can’t seem to possess a clear head and organize thoughts in front of a camera.
I would probably have more opportunities in getting an online job, but working for a print publication would equally suffice. Since I want to pursue sports journalism specifically, I figure that either print or online would allow me to do so. Sports equal entertainment—there’s always room for coverage in one form or another.
Still, you have to work your way up right? Start from the bottom of the ladder? Let’s just say if I were to graduate in December, I would probably have high hopes working for the NFL, NBA, or MLB right out of the gate. I might just start out covering high school sports around areas I have been familiar with—the North and South Bronx to be exact.
But, if I did not have some sort of journalism-related job/internship after graduating, after searching and searching, I would attend journalism graduate school (maybe with a retail job to boot). And, maybe with a master’s degree, I would land a job much quicker. That just depends on how the industry changes during yet another two years of education, which of course, is unpredictable.
Discussion Points from Michael Rosenblum and Brian Farnham lectures
Leave a Comment
Farnham
How long will Patch.com survive on advertising revenue?
Are some towns in the tri-state area being wrongly excluded from coverage based on the determinants of which town receives a “patch”?
Rosenblum
How can reporting on what “betters” people generate just as much income as reporting on what people would rather hear/see/read?
How important is reaching out to a global audience for both the church and state aspects of journalism?
Three Questions for Brian Farnham
Leave a Comment
I see that Patch.com is a hyperlocal site dedicated to the coverage of communities and towns. If the site covers local news, what is the main source of funding? Does most of your revenue come from ads or grants/donations?
Only towns and communities within three states–New York, New Jersey and Connecticut–are covered. How many towns besides the current ones do you hope to cover? Do you want to expand the number of states that receive hyperlocal coverage?
I understand that you, Mr. Farnham, left Time Out New York as editor. What drove you to leave and why did you start your own Internet ventures?
Three Questions for Michael Rosenblum
Leave a Comment
I believe that there are two sides to journalism—church (reporting) and state (business)—unless of course one is a business reporter. Otherwise, the two remain separate, yet totally unequal. The media moguls/entrepreneurs get to swallow up as much organizations as they want while the little old reporter (and even the photographers, copy editors and graphic artists) gets chump change for feeding news to the world.
O.K., I understand that without business, there is no journalism. Papers don’t get circulated, ads don’t run. Wait? Isn’t that happening even WITH business? But, at the same time, without journalism, there’s no business. How else would an investor know the best stock to buy tomorrow?
All I’m saying is that for what journalists do every day, no matter if it’s disseminating the latest company’s financial woes or not, they are the ones that need the bonuses. What they DON’T need is to succumb to the money-hungry will of the mogul/entrepreneur who wants to cash in on sensationalism rather than reporting that matters, using editors as their puppets. So, I question the whole business side of journalism, asking: How much has editorializing to increase revenue undermined in-depth, relevant reporting in journalism today?
To me, the business side is taking over across all platforms. And, as they are converging, financial plans are becoming ever so vital. Print, broadcast, magazines, radio. All of them have to adapt to the online age. And so, another question arises?
How difficult is it for all the traditional platforms to adapt to an Internet platform where some information claimed to be “news” really isn’t?
It’s no surprise that the Internet has forced some consumers, who enjoyed news from traditional platforms, to unavoidably consume more online news. At the same time, however, some online news sites, like Newsday, are avoiding certain news consumers to maximize profits. So, my last question: Are certain news consumers being deprived of news because some organizations are financially nervous?
Apple Thinks About a Monthly Subscription for TV Programs
1 Comment
As if Apple wasn’t getting enough revenue from iPods, iTouches, and iPhones, it now wants to hop on the online content bandwagon. Apple has pitched to various TV networks that it wants to deliver TV programs via its iTunes software and store for $30 a month as part of a subscription. To me, that seems a bit pricy for the same shows that can be watched for free.
At the same time, it’s better than paying the average cable bill, more than twice as much as what Apple would charge. Depending on how many network and cable content owners take a stab at working with Apple, Apple will be able to offer unlimited access to both new and old episodes of select shows on select channels.
It’s hard to say though who will partner with Apple in their quest. Comcast and Time Warner may be keeping a close eye on those who might betray them. So, in effect, while Apple could be a potential source of revenue for a network, it can also cause the network to lose revenue from subscription fees of those cable providers it has existing relationships with.
Whoever decides to partner with Apple will be a part of an already existing trend of online television. And because money is tight these days, Apple’s idea becoming reality may quicken the pace of the decision of free online content providers like Hulu to charge money.
Pandora’s Quick Rise to Fame
1 Comment
Remember Paul Saffo’s 30-year rule? Well, while it may take most technological ideas an average of thirty years to seep into a culture or society, there’s one that has fallen more than two decades below that average: Pandora.com. 
With close to 30 million accounts to date, it seems like this breakthrough has emerged overnight. Not so, however. Although Pandora was launched in 2005 for everyone to use, it was thought of five years before then. Now, with the revolutionary premise of user control of radio, the rate of Pandora’s adoption into society is quickening.
Here are the five characteristics incorporated into Saffo’s rule that help explain Pandora’s fast adoption rate:
Relative Advantage: The main advantage that Pandora has over other pick-and-choose Internet radio sites like TagWorld and Last.fm is its automatic delivery of personalized stations. Once the user creates his or her perfect library of stations, all that needs to be done is to sit back, relax and enjoy.
Compatibility: People just don’t listen to Pandora; Pandora listens to people. Based on feedback from listeners, such as favoring or “unfavoring” a particular track via clicking either the thumbs up or thumbs down button, the stations that users create will be refined to their utmost liking.
Complexity: Operating Pandora is very simplistic. Much like watching a video on YouTube, station tracks can be paused and skipped. Many options are provided to listeners at the click of a button, such as “Add Variety to this Station” or “Delete this Station.”
Reliability: Pandora is based on the Music Genome Project started in January 2000 by Tim Westergren. The project’s goal is to study and collect details, such as melody, harmony, instrumentation, rhythm, vocals, and lyrics, and tailor each to match the desires of listeners. Fifty musician-analysts listen to every song, new and old, and study over 400 of their attributes for 20-30 minutes.
Observability: Before Pandora launched on the Internet in 2005 as a free radio program, listeners of traditional radio, whether in their car or on their computer, may have eagerly awaited their favorite. With no way to manipulate the airwaves, they might never hear what they want. So, with the introduction of the program, based in Oakland, California, more and more people’s desires to control what they listen to FOR FREE were fulfilled. And, since Pandora’s launch in 2005, it has really taken off. Tim Westergren reported to hispanicbusiness.com that the Web site sees 50,000-60,000 new accounts made daily.
Despite such positives for Pandora, it does have its limitations. There’s no rewind, repeat or specific points of the track that you choose to play. Users are only allowed a certain amount of skips per month. And, no matter how many categories are created, one artist can’t be played continuously.
Pandora, advantages and disadvantages, almost went out of business thanks to expensive royalty payments to record labels. However, it reached an agreement with SoundExchange, a company that collects the royalties on behalf of the labels. This is what Westergren had to say about it on Pandora’s site:
Webcasters, artists, and record labels have reached a resolution to the calamitous Internet radio royalty ruling of 2007. Pandora is finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates. This ensures that Pandora will continue streaming music for many years to come!
Nonetheless, the amount Pandora must still pay a significant fee to SoundExchange, enough that advertising revenue won’t completely cover the cost. As a result, a free account user is limited to 40 hours of listening per month. Users can continue unlimited streaming for the month by paying $0.99.
While a free subscription is supported by advertisements, a fee-based subscription without ads is another form of revenue for Pandora. This upgrade, known as “Pandora One”, costs $36 a year and increases bit rate to 192 kbps.
Tags: 30-year rule, Last.fm, Music Genome Project, Pandora, Pandora One, Pandora.com, Paul Saffo, SoundExchange, TagWorld, Tim Westergren
