The WELL: inkwell.vue.402: The Future of Journalism

#81: Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Wed 16 Feb 11 19:04

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:04:00 PST

We've reached the end of the time allocated for this discussion, though as always we can keep posting here if there's interest. I want to thank our distinguished guests for sharing some of their time and wisdom here.

I don't think the future of journalism is the Huffington Post or Texas Tribune or mobile dedicated news apps or data journalism, etc., so much as it's the ongoing boundless curiosity and dedication of journalism like those who joined this discussion, and will be talking in sessions at SXSW Interactive in March, as part of a future of journalism track we helped curate.

Good night, and good luck. [Read entire topic]

#80: Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Wed 16 Feb 11 18:57

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:57:00 PST

I just have a quick many to post, but wanted to add an observation that occurred to me when reading above about the 10x cost of HuffPo: I think AOL was buying process, not content. I heard that the HuffPo staff would be responsible for other AOL properties, too. So maybe the value equation wasn't based strictly on revenues. [Read entire topic]

#79: Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Wed 16 Feb 11 11:06

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:06:00 PST

<scribbled by jonl Wed 16 Feb 11 18:57> [Read entire topic]

#78: Peter Richardson (richardsonpete) Wed 16 Feb 11 10:46

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:46:00 PST

My impression is that Daily Kos's ad revenues aren't always so robust (#64). The site gets millions of visitors and lots of exposure but employs only eight people, I think. Its challenge in some ways resembles that of Ramparts and other precursors who found their audiences but not strong ad revenue. As Adam Hochshild pointed out to me, advertisers have easier ways to reach buyers. Political publications trade in ideas and outrage, not cars, jewelry, or snowboards.

Peter, you're right that FCC licensees are supposed to do public interest broadcasting (#66). Steve Coll considers that a joke now. His proposal is to drop that requirement in exchange for spectrum user fees that would support public-interest broadcasting directly.

Re: Jon's comment on direct public support for journalism (#67). Most countries do this, but our support, on a per capita basis, is puny. Public support isn't a radical idea at all, which is why Steve Coll favors it. We already have the infrastructure (PBS and NPR), but we can do much better.

We've always subsidized political journalism in this country--either through postal subsidies, advertising, union dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, etc. I don't have a problem with the nonprofit model but I'm not sure it will provide the kind of journalism I'm talking about--which is expensive and the first to be cut in hard times--at the scale we need.

In general, the journalism discussion reminds me of the health care debate, where we try to reinvent the wheel instead of doing the things that have worked well elsewhere--and in some cases, right here. [Read entire topic]

#77: Ed Ward (captward) Wed 16 Feb 11 10:28

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:28:00 PST

I think that to say that, you have to prove it's the same people consuming the goods, and I tend to think it's not. I think a lot of smart people are feeling a void in their information input these days. [Read entire topic]

#76: Gary Greenberg (gberg) Wed 16 Feb 11 10:21

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:21:00 PST

What's particularly outrageous about that "article" by Jason Linkins (really? Linkins?), besides its snottiness and its toadying and its illogic and its smug self-righteousness, is just how poorly written it is. And all those exclamation marks! I guess he really means it!

Seems to me that the Maggie's Farm model works for the writer trying to break in, the same way that the arts weeklies do (or used to do), and that the exposure may well be worth it for them. And for the person who would, twenty years ago, devote time to writing letters to the editor, the opportunity to be heard sufficient recompense for their time, and even an incentive to shape their craft--amateurs, in other words, in the best sense of that word (whose etymology includes "amor"). It can also work for the policy whiz or think tanker who can use an additional outlet, but who has a main gig somewhere else. But for those who might want to actually make a living at writing, who want to labor mightily over putting ideas together and supporting them and turning them into a story well told--for those that model is a disaster.

But you know, that craft may never have been in huge demand. Maybe it just happened that the gatekeepers--editors, by and large--were people who valued good writing, but that the audience never did, or at least didn't value it so much. Because the faxct that most of these blogs are just miserably badly written doesn't seem to make a difference in their popularity. [Read entire topic]

#75: Ted Newcomb (tcn) Wed 16 Feb 11 10:01

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:01:00 PST

Someone recently pointed out to me that the arc of history for media brought about by the digital revolution has replaced the Gutenberg printing area and brought us back to the oral tradition. This all seems to be some of the fallout from that. [Read entire topic]

#74: Sharon Lynne Fisher (slf) Wed 16 Feb 11 05:48

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:48:00 PST

<http://gigaom.com/2011/02/14/content-farming-is-online-media-just-a-digital-sweatshop/> [Read entire topic]

#73: Ed Ward (captward) Wed 16 Feb 11 02:06

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:06:00 PST

Dunno if you've had your snot quotient today, but I got enraged about four paragraphs into this.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/10/huffington-post-bloggers_n_821446.html>

Time to take these folks down a peg, I think. [Read entire topic]

#72: Peter Lewis (peterlewis) Wed 16 Feb 11 01:17

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:17:00 PST

In 2007 I freelanced a piece for the inaugural issue of the short-lived Conde Nast Portfolio (known around the water cooler as Fort Polio). I was paid $2 per word for a 1,000-word piece that was eventually cut until nothing remained but picture captions. Michael Lewis (no relation) also freelanced a piece for that issue. He was paid $10 per word. That's less than the $12 per word Tom Wolfe got. I believe that must have been the high-water mark for spending for freelance journalism, but I could be wrong.

Now we're in an era where good writers who used to command a buck or two per word are happy to get 25 cents. One editor tells me he pays writers "a penny per click." Not long ago Forbes offered me the opportunity to write a regular blog for forbes.com. Pay? Zip. "It's good exposure," they said. Sixty gazillion blogs are created every month (number is estimated). Most are self-financed.

HuffPo just sold itself to AOL for north of $300 million, more than 10X its annual revenue. HuffPo has a few staff writers who are paid decently, but the vast majority of pieces on HuffPo are written by writers who aren't paid a dime. (Not a dime per word; not a dime per article. They write for free.) A leaked document reveals that AOL expects its staff writers to produce five to 10 stories per day. Demand Media pays its freelancers $10, $15 or $20 per article.

There are still some print journalists who get paid handsomely. I know a few who command around half a million dollars a year. I know some writing stars whose six-figure salaries from leading publications merely cover the taxes on their income from speaking fees. The business manager of the not-for-profit Bay Citizen is paid $400K. The editor of the not-for-profit Texas Tribune is paid north of a quarter-million per year. The top editor of non-profit ProPublica tops half a million. But those lucky ones are exceedingly rare.

The harsh reality is that the pay scale for the average freelance journalist is reverting to zip. It's a textbook case of supply and demand. Supply is soaring faster than demand. These days, nearly every company is a media company, and nearly every sentient being with a computer is a content producer.

Demand Media: IPO Valuation $1.5 billion. Business model: Selling ads based on number of readers. Typical pay to content providers: $15 per 500-word article (certainly below minimum wage).

HuffPo: Valuation $315 million. Business model: Selling ads based on number of readers. Typical pay to content providers: $0.

Twitter: Best-guess Valuation $8 billion. Business model: Selling ads based on number of readers. Typical pay to content providers: $0.

FaceBook: Best-guess Valuation $50 billion. Business model: Selling ads based on number of readers. Typical pay to content providers: $0.

Groupon: Best guess Valuation $15 billion. Business model: Selling ads based on number of readers. Typical pay to content providers: $0.

You can bet that other media companies see the trend. When a content factory like Demand Media has a higher valuation on Wall Street than The New York Times, something is seriously upscrewed in the way quality journalism is valued.

Whaddaya think? [Read entire topic]