• Lab
  • AndroidForMobile Foundation at
    HOME
              
    LATEST STORY
    O, a meaning!
    ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
    Oct. 29, 2010, 11:30 a.m.

    This Week in Review: WikiLeaks’ latest doc drop, the NPR backlash, and disappointing iPad magazines

    [Every Friday, Mark Coddington sums up the week’s top stories about the future of news and the debates that grew up around them. —Josh]

    WikiLeaks coverage gets personal: There were two big stories everyone spent the whole week talking about, and both actually happened late last week. We’ll start with what’s easily the bigger one in the long term: WikiLeaks’ last Friday of regarding the Iraq War. The Iraq War Logs were released in partnership with several news organizations around the world, including , , and . (The Columbia Journalism Review wrote a of the initial coverage.)

    and in particular used the documents to put together some fascinating pieces of data journalism, and The Columbia Journalism Review’s Lauren Kirchner . The folks at Journalism.co.uk wrote a of detailing WikiLeaks’ collaborative efforts on the release, particularly their work with the new British nonprofit Bureau of Investigative Journalism. A French nonprofit that also worked with WikiLeaks, OWNI, of the project.

    Despite all that collaborative work, the news coverage of the documents fizzled over the weekend and into this week, leading two reporting vets to write to the media blog Romenesko to posit reasons why the traditional media on the story. John Parker — “Too many military reporters in the online/broadcast field have simply given up their watchdog role for the illusion of being a part of power” — and David Cay Johnston to check out the documents, rather than trusting official sources.

    There was another WikiLeaks-related story that got almost as much press as the documents themselves: The internal tension at the organization and the ongoing mystery surrounding its frontman, Julian Assange. and the British paper both dug into those issues, and Assange of a CNN interview after repeated questions about sexual abuse allegations he’s faced in Sweden. That coverage was met with plenty of criticism — and ripped CNN, and Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald joined in The Times.

    After being chastised by the U.S. Defense Department this summer for not redacting names of informants in its Afghanistan leak this summer, WikiLeaks faced some criticism this time around from Forbes’ and Gawker’s for going too far with the redaction. A few other WikiLeaks-related strains of thought: Mark Feldstein at the American Journalism Review WikiLeaks with old-school investigative journalism, Barry Schuler whether the governmental animosity toward WikiLeaks will lead to regulations of the Internet, and CUNY j-prof Jeff Jarvis the way WikiLeaks is bringing us toward the dawn of the age of transparency. “Only when and if government realizes that its best defense is openness will we see transparency as a good in itself and not just a weapon to expose the bad,” he said.

    NPR, Fox News and objectivity: The other story that dominated the future-of-news discussion (and the news discussion in general) was NPR’s last week of news analyst Juan Williams for comments about Muslims he made on Fox News. Conversation about the firing took off late last week and didn’t slow down until about Wednesday this week. NPR kept finding it tougher to defend the firing as the , and by the weekend, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller had for how she handled the firing (but not for the firing itself). NPR got a over the incident, and even PBS, which has had nothing whatsoever to do with Williams, was with angry emailers.

    Conversation centered on two issues: First, and more immediately, why Williams was fired and whether he should have been. Longtime reporter and The Awl’s thought Williams should have been fired years ago because he appeared on Fox, where he’s only used as a prop in Fox’s efforts to incite faux-news propaganda. NYU professor Jay Rosen , saying that given NPR’s ironclad commitment to the objective view from nowhere, “there was no way he could abide by NPR’s rules — which insist on viewlessness as a guarantor of trust — and appear on Fox, where the clash of views is basic to what the network does to generate audience” — not to mention that that viewlessness renders the entire position of “news analyst” problematic.

    Along with Rosen, Time media critic and Lehigh j-prof advocated for greater transparency as a way to prevent needless scandals like these. Former NPR host Farai Chideya , asserting that Williams was kept on for years as his relationship with NPR eroded because he’s a black man. Said Chideya, who’s African-American herself: “Williams’ presence on air was a fig-leaf for much broader and deeper diversity problems at the network.”

    The other issue was both broader and more politically driven: Should NPR lose its public funding? Republican Sen. Jim DeMint said to that effect, and conservatives (though NPR from direct public funding — and even that’s from competitive federal grants). Politico how difficult it would be to actually take NPR’s public funding, and a indicated that Americans are split on the issue straight down party lines.

    Those calling for the cut got some support, however indirect, from a couple of people in the media world: Slate’s Jack Shafer said NPR and public radio stations should so they can stop being tossed around as a political pawn, and New York Sun founding editor Seth Lipsky that NPR’s subsidies make it harder for private entrepreneurs to raise money for highbrow journalism. There were counter-arguments, too: The Atlantic’s James Fallows of NPR’s value as a news organization, and LSU grad student Matt Schafer for public media in general.

    Magazines disappoint on the iPad: Advertising Age collected circulation figures for the first six months of magazines’ availability on the iPad and compared it to print circulation, getting decided mixed results. (Science/tech mags did really well; general interest titles, not so much.) The site’s Nat Ives concluded that iPad ad rates might drop as result, and that “Magazines’ iPad editions won’t really get in gear until big publishers and Apple agree on some kind of system for subscription offers.”

    Former New York Times design director Khoi Vinh  of those magazines’ iPad apps, saying they’re at odds with how people actually use the device. “They’re bloated, user-unfriendly and map to a tired pattern of mass media brands trying vainly to establish beachheads on new platforms without really understanding the platforms at all,” he said. In a , he talked a bit about why their current designs are a “stand-in for true experimentation.”

    Meanwhile, news organizations continue to rush to the iPad: The New York Post came out with an iPad app that The Village Voice’s Foster Kamer , The Oklahoman  of the first few newspapers to offer its own iPad subscription outside of Apple’s iTunes payment system, PBS  its own iPad app, and News Corp.  with plans for a new tabloid created just for tablets.

    Two opposite paid-content moves: It was somewhat lost in the WikiLeaks-Williams hoopla, but we got news of three new online paid-content plans for news this week. The biggest change is at the National Journal, a political magazine that’s long charged very high prices and catered to Washington policy wonks but this week as a newsstand-friendly print product and a largely free website that will shoot for 80 updates a day. The Lab’s Laura McGann looked at the National Journal’s new free-pay hybrid web plan, in contrast to its largely paid, niche website previously.

    Meanwhile, Politico to move into exactly the same web territory the Journal has been in, launching a high-price subscription news service on health care, energy and technology for Washington insiders in addition to its free site and print edition. And the Associated Press gave more details on its proposed rights clearinghouse for publishers, which will allow them to tag online content and monitor and regulate how it’s being used and how they’re being paid for it. We also have some more data on an ongoing paid-content experiment — Rupert Murdoch’s paywall at The Times of London. Yup, the audience is , just like everyone suspected.

    Reading roundup: Outside of those two huge stories, it was a relatively quiet week. Here are a few interesting bits and pieces that emerged:

    — The awful last few weeks for the Tribune Co. came to a head last Friday when CEO Randy Michaels , leaving a four-member council to guide the company through bankruptcy. The same day, the company that turns it over to its leading creditors. The Chicago Reader’s Michael Miner for the Michaels era, pointing a finger primarily at the man who hired him, Sam Zell.

    — Wired’s Fred Vogelstein Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon our new (media) overlords. (No indication of whether he, for one, welcomes them.) MediaPost’s Joe Marchese about where each of those four companies fits in the new media landscape.

    — The Atlantic’s Michael Hirschorn wrote a of a popular recent argument: If the Internet gives all of us our own facts, how are we supposed to find any common ground for discussion?

    — And since I know you’re in the mood for scientific-looking formulas, check out Lois Beckett’s examination here at the Lab of Philly.com’s calculation of online engagement, then take a look at her follow-up post on where revenue fits in.

    POSTED     Oct. 29, 2010, 11:30 a.m.
    SHARE THIS STORY
       
     
    Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
    O, a meaning!
    Fifty years ago, with humanity about to reach the moon, The New York Times gave a poet a corner of the front page.
    Who wants to share government content? In recent European elections, not many people
    Plus: How college students evaluate fake vs. real news, and an algorithm that doesn’t just identify fake news but explains why.
    Newsonomics: It’s looking like Gannett will be acquired by GateHouse — creating a newspaper megachain like the U.S. has never seen
    A combined GannHouse (Gatenett?) would own 1 out of every 6 daily newspapers in America. The goal? Buy two or three more years to figure out how to make money in digital.
    MaryBets mmgp

    www.agroxy.com