Newspapers doing radio (and TV)

I just listened an interview that Mark Ramsey did with a couple of guys from the San Diego Union-Tribune (runs 17 min). Twenty minutes ago I’d have described Ron James and Marc Balanky as newspapers guys. Now, I’ll call them media guys.

And they’re gearing up to do what we used to call radio (and, eventually, TV). A couple of things they said jumped out at me:

"We have a newsroom that works 24 hours a day" and "…we have more than 300 reporters."

I flashed on all the empty or near-empty radio newsrooms out there. These guys are serious as a heart attack and I’d be damned worried if I were "just" a radio station in that market. On the other hand, if you aren’t already well down the road to being more than just a radio station, don’t sweat it. Squeeze what you can from old Bossie and remember the good times.

“Things we were told about online that were wrong.”

Steve Safran at Lost Remote takes a look back at some of the responses to his suggestions regarding the web. These bring back a lot of memories:

  • Nobody will break news on their site before the story airs
  • Newspapers won’t put much news online because it will cannibalize sales
  • Nobody will buy web advertising
  • Only young people use the web, and they don’t want news
  • The bubble has burst – there’s no future in the web now
  • There is no need to hire a web-only salesperson
  • News websites will never “blog” or have anything to do with blogging
  • Social networking tools don’t belong on news sites
  • The networks will never send programming directly to the audience and ignore the locals
  • People won’t watch video online because the quality is not high enough
  • People won’t watch video on an iPod because the picture is not big enough
  • Viewers won’t upload video and pictures because it’s too hard to do

AP news on Google

“After a couple years of spirited negotiations, Google has signed agreements with the Associated Press and AFP that will reduce the amount of traffic Google News refers to news sites. First, Google News will start hosting full versions of AP stories instead of linking off to them. And second, Google will begin to filter out duplicates of the same AP story. So you won’t see multiple versions of an AP story from various newspapers, listed with the most recent at the top. Google said the end result is less duplication and a better variety of stories.” — Lost Remote

Do radio stations still subscribe to the AP? It’s been years since I was in radio stations, talking with managers about news and where/how they get it. But even back then, a lot of stations really only relied on AP for state news and high school football scores. Our company offers a “poor man’s wire service” that still has an amazing number of subscribers. [Yo, David. Can you give us an update on this?]

Perhaps the bigger question is… how much do listeners rely on their local radio station for news. I would think a lot. But what’s the order of importance? Local…state…national…world? What can/do I get from my local radio station (on air or online)… and what do I get from a Google search (perhaps on my mobile phone)?

These are interesting times.

Newspapers beat TV at local video

Lost Remote points us to the latest blog entry from Bill Adee, the associate managing editor for innovation at the Chicago Tribune who wants the paper to be “the main online source of video for Chicagoland users.” And to get there, he says the Tribune has 31 staff photographers with video cameras, and the multimedia team has video cameras.

Again from Lost Remote’s Michael Gay: "Let’s be conservative and say that’s 40 video cameras shooting video around Chicago. After working in Chicago, I can tell you with certainty that there is no TV station with that many cameras out on the streets."

Why would any reporter (TV, print, radio) hit the street without a digital camera (and the knowledge to use it)?

What happened to the news?

A scary little story in today’s USA Today about the findings of a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. According to Project Director Tom Rosenstiel,

“The dirty little secret of the information revolution is it has been more about repurposing or repackaging news than gathering it.”

In recent years, because of their own cutbacks, radio and television have increasingly been relying on newspapers and wire services to do their newsgathering for them.

If you think the news is thin on local radio and TV stations now, imagine what it would be if they didn’t have newspapers to rewrite. If,however, your local radio station long ago abandoned any pretense of news, you’ll be okay.

“Do what you do best. And you link to the rest.”

That’s what Jeff Jarvis calls “the new architecture of news” in an excellent post at Buzz Machine. He’s writing about newspapers but it applies to any news organization:

“They try to cover everything because they used to have to be all things to all people in their markets. So they had their own reporters replicate the work of other reporters elsewhere so they could say that they did it under their own bylines as a matter of pride and propriety. It’s the way things were done. They also took wire-service copy and reedited it so they could give their audiences the world. But in the age of the link, this is clearly inefficient and unnecessary. You can link to the stories that someone else did and to the rest of the world. And if you do that, it allows you to reallocate your dwindling resources to what matters, which in most cases should be local coverage.”

“Instead of saying, “we should have that” (and replicating what is already out there) you say, “what do we do best?” That is, “what is our unique value?” It means that when you sit down to see a story that others have worked on, you should ask, “can we do it better?” If not, then link. And devote your time to what you can do better.”

What do our news networks do “best?” Easy. We cover the legislature and state government in our respective states. Big newspapers do a great job on this beat but not much with audio. Yet. Some TV stations jump on a story if it has local appeal (and time allows). I still think we do the audio thing best. For now.

By chance or design, our websites have had this same focus. We’ve stayed close to what we do best.

I won’t get into pros and cons of our current network/affiliate business model. That’s too big an issue for this little blog. But it begs the question: Do enough people care about the legislature and state government to give us an audience that will be attractive to advertisers?

I should add that we still attempt to cover news from throughout the state. But it’s getting harder. At the same time, it’s getting easier to find out what’s going 500 miles away. But we are dependent on our affiliate radio stations to cover local stories of statewide significance. And many local radio stations have cut their news departments. As a statewide network, we are the sum of our affiliate parts.

I posted last month about one of our reporters killing a link (that I had added) to a “competing” news organization. Jarvis’ post is for him. If a news outlet was at a press conference that we couldn’t attend and posted a story, we can’t be afraid to link to them. Not if we’re serious about serving our listeners/readers. The fiction that “if they don’t know about it, it didn’t happen (yet)” doesn’t fly anymore. They know about it. And we should help them know about it. Whoever does that best wins. [Thanks, David]

Newspapers better at web video than TV (and radio?)

That’s the conclusion of Kurt Anderson in an article on the New York Magazine website. My first-read take-aways:

“The lessons seem obvious: Don’t do Web video if you don’t have anything interesting to show, and don’t compete with TV unless you can do something they can’t or won’t. In other words, use the medium.

The passionate, improvised, innovative reinventings, as opposed to the final, fully professionalized reinventions, are often the coolest moments in cultural history. Think of movies in 1920, TV in 1955, or public radio in 1980.”

A few years ago I was concerned that newspapers could so easily incorporate audio on their websites. It didn’t occur to me that they’d jump straight to video.

“NPR is not radio”

Jeff Jarvis, David Weinberger, Doc Searls, Jay Rosen and some other New Media thought leaders have been invited to Washington to talk/think about the future of National Public Radio. Mr. Jarvis shares some of his notes going in and I found myself substituting the names of our radio networks for NPR.

“NPR is not radio. If I tell newspapers they have to stop thinking on paper, so I’ll argue that NPR must throw off the limits of its medium. And I don’t just mean that the can go multimedia, adding photos or videos to their sound. I mean changing the culture, not thinking like a radio network anymore so they can see the options the internet opens up to work in every appropriate medium with entirely new kinds of content, from TV to data bases. So change the name: It’s National Public Media, except that Doc will scold me that this is more than media. It’s National Public Whatsis.”

Some of his other ideas: NPR should be a network of networks and a training ground for great media. They should add to their mission finding and nurturing new talent and help local affiliates become hyperlocal.

I surely would love to sit in a corner and listen to these guys. But it appears they will be blogging all or parts of the conversations so I’ll follow it there.

Home delivery

NewspaperOn the drive home this evening, I got behind the guy that delivers newspapers. He was weaving a bit as he frantically stuffed The Daily Bugle into those pink newspaper condoms before throwing them into the bushes. As I watched, I had to wonder about the future of this job, not to mention the economics. I can’t believe the job pays much and by the time you buy gas, how can the math work out?

I also wondered if the guy is a web-head like me. Does he keep up with the challenges facing newspapers (or maybe they’re doing better than we think). Is he thinking –with every paper he flings: “Man, I gotta find another gig. This ain’t gonna last.”

He probably has more important things to worry about and is happy to have the job. And this Internet thing could just be a fad.

Time, Inc. developing video for web

Time Inc. is announcing today that it’s launching an in-house studio to help its 130 magazines develop videos for the Web. Along with that plan, it will unveil a deal to work with Brightcove, a leading provider of Internet video production, distribution and ad sales services.

We have some damned fine radio reporters working for our company. And most of them are just getting the hang of moving photos from their digital cameras to their computers.

Sounds like Time is making a significant investment. And a smart one. Not just handing out Canon Sure-Shots to their reporters as they head out the door.