So I took a break. Well, maybe 'break' is the wrong word.
In the past couple of months I enlisted in the Army, was accepted into Officer Candidate School, worked my way to a perfect PT score and finished my first marathon. What I haven't done is blogged, micro-blogged or contributed much of anything to the collective conscious. Sorry.
But I don't plan to stay silent for long. If you read this blog (and Blogger told me there were relatively few of you), please, stay with me. This hiatus is merely my first water stop and I plan to continue the race. More importantly, I plan to finish it as a journalist.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Most Americans get news from multiple platforms
It's not a surprising or particularly insightful report, but a study out of the Pew Internet and American Life Project shows that Americans no longer get their news from a single source. Rather, 92 percent get their news from multiple platforms – internet, newspapers, TV and cell phones.
The study conducted jointly with the Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that nearly six in 10 consumers get their news from a combination of online and offline sources. And while the internet is only the third most popular news platform (behind local and national television news), it is just ahead of national print newspapers, local print newspapers and radio. Still, of the 2,259 people surveyed by Pew, 61 percent get news online on a daily basis and 71 percent do so "at least occasionally."
News organizations have been cued into this for several years now and have been diversifying their delivery methods, something that is evident whenever CNN takes comments from their blogs or a local newspaper promotes online multimedia in daily print. If anything, this report seems to reassure producers, editors and publishers that such steps are important to maintain.
But among the more surprising numbers to come out of the study are the ones that point to how online news is dispersed. Among those who get news online, 75 percent get news through forwarded emails or posts from social networking sites and 52 percent share links to news with others by those means.
News aggregation sites also fared well in the study. Sites like Google News, AOL, and Topix are the mostly commonly used online news sources, with 56 percent of people using them on an average day.
What may be harder to discern, is whether or not people are finding it easier to keep up with the news today. While 55 percent say that it is, 70 percent feel the amount of news and information available from different sources is overwhelming.
The study conducted jointly with the Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that nearly six in 10 consumers get their news from a combination of online and offline sources. And while the internet is only the third most popular news platform (behind local and national television news), it is just ahead of national print newspapers, local print newspapers and radio. Still, of the 2,259 people surveyed by Pew, 61 percent get news online on a daily basis and 71 percent do so "at least occasionally."
News organizations have been cued into this for several years now and have been diversifying their delivery methods, something that is evident whenever CNN takes comments from their blogs or a local newspaper promotes online multimedia in daily print. If anything, this report seems to reassure producers, editors and publishers that such steps are important to maintain.
But among the more surprising numbers to come out of the study are the ones that point to how online news is dispersed. Among those who get news online, 75 percent get news through forwarded emails or posts from social networking sites and 52 percent share links to news with others by those means.
News aggregation sites also fared well in the study. Sites like Google News, AOL, and Topix are the mostly commonly used online news sources, with 56 percent of people using them on an average day.
What may be harder to discern, is whether or not people are finding it easier to keep up with the news today. While 55 percent say that it is, 70 percent feel the amount of news and information available from different sources is overwhelming.
Friday, February 5, 2010
O'Reilly interviews Stewart, the unedited version
Jon Stewart has turned himself into America's favorite media critic, taking aim, more often than not at Fox news. Yesterday, Stewart went head to head with the fiercest defender of the network, Bill O'Reilly, on the O'Reilly Factor.
Throughout the interview O'Reilly took a condescending tone, at one point telling Stewart that most people don't think he is that smart. He even asked Stewart, "Do you realize the implications of you being important in any context?"
But between the quips, and the convenient cuts that marred the aired version, interesting points arose. Well here it is, the full interview, courtesy of Fox News.
Throughout the interview O'Reilly took a condescending tone, at one point telling Stewart that most people don't think he is that smart. He even asked Stewart, "Do you realize the implications of you being important in any context?"
But between the quips, and the convenient cuts that marred the aired version, interesting points arose. Well here it is, the full interview, courtesy of Fox News.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Is the New York Times onto something?
When the New York Times announced just over a week ago that it would charge for its online content in 2011, they seemed to have something up their sleeve.
That something was probably the iPad. Weeks before Apple debuted its much anticipated Tablet, a team from the Times was in Silicon Valley developing an app for the new device.
The hope of the New York Times, and much of the media industry, is that the iPad will jump-start a business model that so far has proven to be a dud. The Time's attempts at the pay-to-play model have failed in the past, although not quite as starkly as publications such as Newsday, which in three months of having a pay wall up was only able to bring in a measly 35 subscriptions.
But an application on the iPad may be the perfect supplement to the metered model. At least Martin Nisenholtz, the senior vice-president overseeing the paper's digital operations believes so. "We're incredibly psyched to pioneer the next generation of digital journalism. We want to create the best of print and best of digital, all rolled up into one," he said when presented the New York Time's app at the Tablet's debut.
So is he right? Maybe. What the iPad offers that online and other mobile devices don't is the collective and crisp feel that we get from holding a newspaper. Multiple stories are shown on one page, positioned strategically to show their importance. But this "integration" that Nisenholtz was talking about is seen with the inclusion of inline video and perhaps interactive features via the the multitouch interface.
The real question, however, is whether or not apps like this can finally bring in revenue for media outlets. The most hopeful expectation is that this is a change in consumer direction - the end of the free digital era. The most widely distributed hypothetical parallel is that the iPad will change the media landscape the way iTunes changed the music landscape.
There are, of course, other media companies looking at the Tablet. Sports illustrated released this intriguing demonstration in December on YouTube.
This kind of production is something that consumers will largely see from the magazine sector before it truly takes off with newspapers. So far other news organizations are nibbling but not biting the way the Times has. Although that will certainly change if the iPad momentum gains and if interest in this app piques.
That something was probably the iPad. Weeks before Apple debuted its much anticipated Tablet, a team from the Times was in Silicon Valley developing an app for the new device.
The hope of the New York Times, and much of the media industry, is that the iPad will jump-start a business model that so far has proven to be a dud. The Time's attempts at the pay-to-play model have failed in the past, although not quite as starkly as publications such as Newsday, which in three months of having a pay wall up was only able to bring in a measly 35 subscriptions.
But an application on the iPad may be the perfect supplement to the metered model. At least Martin Nisenholtz, the senior vice-president overseeing the paper's digital operations believes so. "We're incredibly psyched to pioneer the next generation of digital journalism. We want to create the best of print and best of digital, all rolled up into one," he said when presented the New York Time's app at the Tablet's debut.
So is he right? Maybe. What the iPad offers that online and other mobile devices don't is the collective and crisp feel that we get from holding a newspaper. Multiple stories are shown on one page, positioned strategically to show their importance. But this "integration" that Nisenholtz was talking about is seen with the inclusion of inline video and perhaps interactive features via the the multitouch interface.
The real question, however, is whether or not apps like this can finally bring in revenue for media outlets. The most hopeful expectation is that this is a change in consumer direction - the end of the free digital era. The most widely distributed hypothetical parallel is that the iPad will change the media landscape the way iTunes changed the music landscape.
There are, of course, other media companies looking at the Tablet. Sports illustrated released this intriguing demonstration in December on YouTube.
This kind of production is something that consumers will largely see from the magazine sector before it truly takes off with newspapers. So far other news organizations are nibbling but not biting the way the Times has. Although that will certainly change if the iPad momentum gains and if interest in this app piques.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
A hopeful message from young journalists
The future of journalism is a hot topic that is talked about in many circles. But often, when this important conversation is struck, the mentality and fortitude of America's young journalists is neglected. Why, when they possess so much optimism and foresight?
In May last year 40 of the brightest and able college journalist traveled to the Poynter Institute for an intensive multimedia fellowship program. Here is some of their thoughts on the future of journalism and why their sticking with it.
The video was produced during Poynter Institute's summer fellowship program. For more information on Poynter college fellowships, visit PoynterOnline.
In May last year 40 of the brightest and able college journalist traveled to the Poynter Institute for an intensive multimedia fellowship program. Here is some of their thoughts on the future of journalism and why their sticking with it.
The video was produced during Poynter Institute's summer fellowship program. For more information on Poynter college fellowships, visit PoynterOnline.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Will the third time be a charm for the Times?
The New York Times will try it again. Charging, that is, for online news content. The Times announced last Wednesday that sometime in 2011 it will begin charging for online content through a "metered system," which gives visitors a certain number of free views before charging.
This kind of business model hasn't been successful for what is the largest local newspaper in North America. The Times tried a similar approach in 1996, but attracted on 4,000 subscribers before giving up. A few years later the newspaper charged $50 a year to read columns. But the idea was ultimately abandoned because it lowered site traffic and add revenue.
So what changed? Why is it a good idea to charge in 2011? Well according to Janet Robinson, chief executive of New York Times Co., new mobile devices and online services are creating a new economic reality for this model. But the Times has also seen high traffic on their website in the last few years. According to Nielsen Research, the Time's site gets about 20 million unique visitors a month. Perhaps, the executives think there is another way to tap their visitors' wallets.
Whatever the reason, experts agree this is a risky move. The New York Times operates in a highly competitive market, where their feet can be cut out from under them. If this is to work, the financially troubled newspaper must make sure their online content is worth it.
This kind of business model hasn't been successful for what is the largest local newspaper in North America. The Times tried a similar approach in 1996, but attracted on 4,000 subscribers before giving up. A few years later the newspaper charged $50 a year to read columns. But the idea was ultimately abandoned because it lowered site traffic and add revenue.
So what changed? Why is it a good idea to charge in 2011? Well according to Janet Robinson, chief executive of New York Times Co., new mobile devices and online services are creating a new economic reality for this model. But the Times has also seen high traffic on their website in the last few years. According to Nielsen Research, the Time's site gets about 20 million unique visitors a month. Perhaps, the executives think there is another way to tap their visitors' wallets.
Whatever the reason, experts agree this is a risky move. The New York Times operates in a highly competitive market, where their feet can be cut out from under them. If this is to work, the financially troubled newspaper must make sure their online content is worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
