The New York Times: Print vs. Digital

One of the main concerns that many consumers have about the journalism industry is that print journalism is on the way out.  Newspapers and magazines are a thing of the past, everything is going digital.  The New York Times, which is a constant in the print journalism world, recently erected a paywall for their website.  The Times recently released they have 100,000 new subscribers since they installed this new policy, which brings in an estimated $26 million in revenue.  Evercore Partners analyst Doug Arthur said about the new subscribers, "It's an excellent figure...I (was) only looking for 200,000 subscribers in year one."  An estimated $13 million is being spent to promote the new online subscriptions.

Photo credit: mandiberg

The downside of the policy is that there has been a 15 percent drop in the overall traffic of the site because of the article limitations, which was expected. The new subscribers are coming at a good time for The Times, their print advertising revenue is on the decline.  Their revenue declined 4.4 percent on a 7.5 percent drop in print ad revenue, even though their digital ad revenue rose 4.5 percent during the first quarter. Their net income fell 57.6 percent to 5.4 million (4 cents per share) from 12.8 million (8 cents per share) a year ago.

Other newspapers have also reported disappointing quarter results such as Gannett and Media General.  Other newspapers who have had success with charging for online access have been few, such as the News Corp's Wall Street Journal and Pearson Plc's Financial Times.

In this constant digital evolution, will there be room for print papers, even The New York Times?  Some have a more positive outlook than others.  The Onion, trying to find humor in the decline, released an article, "Why Did No One Inform Us Of the Imminent Death of the American Newspaper Industry?"  You can read it here.

What do you think?  Do you think the imminent death of the newspaper industry is inevitable or do you think consumers will never get enough of their print newspapers?

Journalists Utilize Facebook

Social media has become an essential tool for journalists.  From sources to breaking news to interacting with the audience; sites such as Facebook and Twitter have become integral in journalists' everyday routine.  Top executives from Facebook have said they are looking to "strengthen its relationship with the news media and has already helped boost traffic to to news websites," according to the Huffington Post.

News sites and blogs have been using the Facebook "like" button as well as the recommend option more and more.  This leads to sharing between social  media friends and online connections.  This helps connections between these users.  Chief Operating Officer of Facebook Sheryl Sandberg said their site can help boost traffic as well as revenue, in addition to the advantage of real time.

Facebook also recently made pages for journalists who can connect with other journalists so they can take advantage of pages such as Journalists on Facebook and Facebook + Media.  This is meant to help journalists use social media as a tool for their reporting and sources.  Journalists will even be able to take classes to learn how to utilize this tool.

Photo credit: AJ Cann

Bias in the Media

     Bias is always a subject at the forefront of journalist's minds.  One of the number one rules in ethics of journalism is to remain unbiased.  Ethical journalists are always striving to show both sides of the story and use only facts, not assumptions.
     For example, the Society of Professional Journalists have a Code of Ethics.  This code of ethics promotes the idea that "public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.  The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues...Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility."
     For example, some of the responsibilities in the Code of Ethics include, "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error, deliberate distortion is never permissible, support the open exchange of views, even views they found repugnant," and many others.

Below, Saturday Night Live recently poked fun at Fox News.

Fox News has the slogan "fair and balanced."  However, this may not be as true as people think.  According to a study conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, it shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than those who consume their news from other sources.  For example, out of the following statements below, Fox News was in the first percentile of misinformed viewers.

• 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
• 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
• 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
• 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
• 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
• 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
• 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
• 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
• 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

Even though Fox was in the first percentile, the study also stated CNN, MSNBC, and other broadcast networks also have a way to go before they can claim complete unbias.  You can see the full study here.

Photo credit: Mr. T in DC

National Public Radio (NPR) has also been in the news recently concerning bias.  Former CEO Vivian Schiller resigned after videos surfaced of her and NPR's senior vice president Ron Schiller making comments about the Tea Party.  Schiller called the Tea Party "fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental[ly] Christian - I wouldn't even call it Christian...basically they believe in white, middle America, gun-toting - it's pretty scary.  They're seriously racist, racist people."  Both executives resigned.  It turned out the video (which you can check out here) was purposely edited by James O'Keefe, a conservative activist, who set up the meeting and secret video cameras.  Even though the video was edited did leave out other parts of the conversation, the House of Representatives did vote to take away NPR federal funding.  NPR is also seen by many as being liberally bias.

Today, many Americans feel as if it is difficult to find unbiased news.  According to the Boston Phoenix, in a Gallup poll last September, a majority of Americans, 57 percent, have "little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly."  In addition, with the plethora of news sources available, it can also be tough to know reporting from opinion.  This is why Americans look to national news sources for all the facts and information.  These sources need to be able to give this to America, and work on earning back their trust as well as remaining unbiased.

Photo credit: Paul Townsead

New York Times Paywall: Success or Bust?

The New York Times recently installed a subscription system on their website.  After a user exhausts his or her 20 free articles each month, they are asked to buy a subscription (see previous post for more details).  As soon as 24-hours after the paywall was erected, users found ways to get around the it.

Photo Credit: Ciccio Pizzettaro

• A user in Canada named David Hayes created an applications, "NYClean."  It works by dragging the NYClean bookmark to the toolbar of your browser.  Anytime you are on the Times website and are blocked, click it.  You will be able to read the article as you were before the paywall was put into place.
• The paywall does not work on Twitter and other social media sites.  If you click on an link that was posted to an account, it does not count against your 20 free articles. There are feeds such as @timeswiretap and @freeNYTimes that constantly tweet recent articles as they are posted.
• Mashable reported two of their readers Dmitry Beniaminov and Yuri Victor discovered that if readers remove "?gwh=numbers" from the URL, this will let readers continue reading.  They also discovered if readers clear their browser caches or switch browsers once they hit 20 articles, this will also solve the problem.
• According to Newspaper Death Watch, the Times prevents readers from reading more than 20 articles a month with a Javascript overlay.  This means the article is visible in the background with the pop-up asking the reader to subscribe in front of it.  Many browsers block Javascript by default, and the NYTClean also takes care of the HTML which overrides the Javascript.

Photo Credit: zebble

There are many different views about the paywall.  The Times is supporting their plan, confident in their prices and the idea.  Times writer David Carr wrote, "People, real actual people, went and reported that information, some of it at personal peril and certainly at giganitc institutional expense.  So the Times is turning toward its customers to bear some of the cost.  The Times is hardly alone: AFP, Reuters, The Associated Press, Dow Jones, the BBC and NPR are all part of a muscular journalistic ecosystem."  He admits his bias since he does write for the Times, but he writes in support of the cost and his company.

There are also other professionals who agree with the Times.  Larry Kramer wrote why he will pay the subscription fee, "I want my NY Times information frequently and easily and I will do what it takes, including paying for it, to make sure I get full access to everything produced by the 1100 journalists who work there...In the case of the Times, the content has already prove its value to me over the many years I have consumed it, in print and on line.  I know I want it and I know I need it.  I may have loved getting it for free online over the years, but I also know how good it is and that it has value to me."

However, not everyone is as positive as Carr and Kramer.  Steve Outing, a blogger, said he was disappointed in the paywall and he believes it is a bad move.  "I hope someone from the NY Times management will respond to my criticims.  If they do, I expect that the justification for this announced pricing model will be they can't do harm to the newspaper product.  I guess that's the way it is.  But in my view, this over-priced metered-paywall mistaken strategy puts the "Gray Lady" a step closer to the grave rather than getting a chance at a new life."  The Onion, a parody news source, also got their word in on the subject with an article titled, "NYTimes.com's Plan to Charge People Money For Consuming Goods, Services Called Bold Business Move."

I can see the pros and cons of the subscription service.  We will need to wait and see if readers use the methods to get around the fees or if they are willing to pay for a news source they enjoy reading.

Do you think the subscription will work out for the Times, or do you think it will negatively affect their business?

Photo Credit: RambergMediaImages