You are viewing bradhicks

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So, About That News Diet

Brad @ Burning Man
I swear: I have watched friends give up smoking more easily and thoroughly than I give up the news. So let me talk about the news for a second. Since I'm as cranky from fighting myself over wanting to read the New York Times and Yahoo! Most Read News (and watch Rachel Maddow) as your average nicotine addict is on day two of their latest attempt to quit, let me channel some of this crankiness into saying something impolite that I haven't had the guts to say lately:

Screw the newspapers.

No, really. Every single one of you except the New York Times, the UK Guardian, and maybe one or two other "newspapers of record." What are you good for?

I'm as serious as the grave here.

First, let me get out of the way the stuff that people other than me have normally read the newspaper for. Almost none of it is of any use to me, but this is the bulk of your traditional subscriber base. For as long as I've been alive, the vast majority of the working class, middle class, and professional class people I've known who took a daily paper only looked at the following: the TV listings, the movie listings, the funnies, the sports scores, and maybe their horoscope. A few who were bored enough also looked at Dear Abby Landers, whichever. All of those things are online now, and they are online in easier formats. Cartoonists are moving to the web, where they get to keep a higher percentage of their royalties than the newspaper cartoon syndicates ever paid them, and where they can put a link to the collected edition books and souvenir t-shirts next to every cartoon, and where -- to the readers' famous delight -- the cartoon appears big enough that the readers can actually read it. Oh, and with an archive that goes back as far as the reader wants. You're not going to out-compete the web on cartoons. Nor are you going to out-compete the web on TV listings, since websites customize them for the user's channel layout and offer nearly instant searches for programs they're looking for. Nor are you going to out-compete websites on movie listings, which people bring up on their phones when they want them. Nor are you going to out-compete MLB.com and the rest of the league sports sites, plus Sports Illustrated. I don't care what you do to the paper itself, I don't care what civic appeals you make, I don't care what ads you run: you contribute no value to that information stream, you actually subtract value from information streams that are more complete and useful without you in the middle; you are never getting those customers back. Period.

Now let me talk about what I use newspapers for, namely, the actual news. When was the last time you came up with any?

Because if all you're going to do is collect both sides' quotes and put them into standard newspaper article "reverse pyramid" style, I don't need you, either. If all I want to know about a national news story is what the White House says and what the Republicans are saying, I can get it in more complete form than you're running it and, on average, an hour or more faster than I can get it from you, just by looking at the White House blog and one or more Republican blogs. If all I want is what the police said about an arrest and what the accused and their family said, I can look at the police department's website myself. (Odds on I already know what the accused says. If not, some blog will show me. Everybody's got a blog or a Twitter feed or something these days.) Nor is collating these into stories and deciding what stories are hot adding any value to those collections of quotes: Google and Yahoo both do a better job than you do, and in real time, just by throwing new stories in at random seeded by semantic search terms and then tracking the click-through rates.

There is only one thing that you could do that would be worth my paying you, and that's if you find the facts that other people aren't trying to beat down my door to tell me. And the New York Times knows this, which is why I pay them, not my hometown newspaper. And even then, I don't pay much; I subscribe to the Latest Stories blog via my Kindle 2 for $1.99 a month. Apparently so do a lot of people; it's the single best-selling blog in the Kindle store, not counting Amazon's own free ad-ware blog. Because the NYT doesn't just wait for sources to come to them and tell them stories and then pass them along; they actually pay people to go out and find stories. How good are they? A while back, a Congressional staffer on one of the intelligence committees ran a cross-check, counting the times when the NYT said one thing and the CIA said another: every single time, the NYT was right. They don't do this by collating press releases; they pay reporters to travel around the country and the world and ask questions, they pay reporters to dig through piles of records. It's called investigative journalism. You know: that stuff you used to do -- because virtually every newspaper in the world cut their investigative journalists and their foreign bureaus and all the rest of their actual news gathering people first, the second they were acquired by cost-cutting conglomerates.

You want an example? Fine. I find it flat-out inconceivable that my hometown newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, won a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the terrorist attack on Kirkwood City Hall last year. I read the Post's coverage. There wasn't any news in it. They had official statements from the usual people, and they had lots of weepy stories about how people felt about it. But it was the St. Louis Riverfront Times that actually dug up what little news was actually found about Cookie Thornton's motive. An ad-supported "free" newspaper. In their blog. I had to do most of the rest of the research myself. You know, if I had thought the Post-Dispatch actually had people digging up the dirt in Kirkwood, if it was going to be the Post-Dispatch that found out about the dirty deal between Thornton and certain white developers and their white political allies, the deal that Thornton felt they renegged on that drove him to homicide? I'd have paid for that. Entirely predictable "oh it was awful you can't imagine" weepers that all ended in "he was a crazy person, we'll never know why he did it"? What was I going to pay for that, for? I could have written that stuff myself and nobody could have told the difference.

I don't know how any local newspaper is supposed to get the funding for investigative reporting, or what those people are supposed to work on when they don't have any warm leads to chase, or how many people you could sell it to. You sure as heck aren't going to do it by selling advertisements; direct mail and Craigslist have eaten that revenue right out from under you, and it's not coming back, either. So if it can be done at all, it's going to have to be done by do something so radical it's never really been done before: selling actual newspapers for the cost to research them. All the way back to the dawn of the industry, ad revenue has matched or-outpaced subscription revenue, unless the newspaper was in some way externally subsidized. Maybe Fox News really is showing you the way, or more specifically, the way back: maybe every town is going to have to go back to being a two-newspaper town, where the local Democrats and the local Republicans each fund a newspaper out of their party funds, to investigate each other.

All I know for sure is this: unless you're finding news that somebody isn't beating down my spam filter to tell me themselves, I surely won't miss you when you're gone.

Tags:

Comments

( 36 comments — Leave a comment )
hazmat
Apr. 28th, 2009 07:43 am (UTC)
The Magic Christian
Terry Southern described a ludicrous variant on one of your proposed end-games in his novel, The Magic Christian:

...At this point a major policy change was announced. Henceforth the newspaper would not carry comics, editorials, feature stories, reviews, or advertising, and would present only the factual news in a straightforward manner. It was called The Facts, and Grand spent the ransom of a dozen queens in getting at the facts of the news, or at least a great many of them, which he had printed then in simple sentences. The issues of the first two days or so enjoyed a fair sale, but the contents on the whole appeared to be so incredible or so irrelevant that by the end of the week demand was lower than at any previous phase of the paper's existence. During the third week, the paper had no sale at all to speak of, and was simply given away; or, refused by the distributors, it was left in stacks on the street corners each morning, about two million copies a day. In the beginning people were amused by the sight of so many newspapers lying around unread; but when it continued, they became annoyed. Something funny was going on—Communist? Atheist? Homosexual? Catholic? Monopoly? Corruption? Protestant? Insane? Negro? Jewish? Puerto Rican? POETRY? The city was filthy. It was easy for people to talk about The Facts in terms of litter and debris. Speeches were made, letters written, yet the issue was vague. The editor of The Facts received insulting letters by the bagful. Grand sat tight for a week, then he gave the paper over exclusively to printing these letters; and its name was changed again—Opinions.

These printed letters reflected such angry divergence of thought and belief that what resulted was sharp dissension throughout the city. Group antagonism ran high. The paper was widely read and there were incidents of violence. Movements began.

Of course, that's when it really goes pear-shaped.
gleef
Apr. 28th, 2009 08:22 am (UTC)
Investigative Journalism
I agree we need investigative journalism, and few papers are doing it at all. But part of the problem is the few papers that are still doing it appear to be doing it less. The NY Times is having trouble remaining profitable, and one of the things they keep doing in response is cutting bureaus and journalists.

So, we need investigative journalism, newspapers are pretty much the only people paying for it right now, and fewer papers are hiring fewer investigative journalists each year. So how do we make sure investigative journalists get paid? Just by propping up the Times? Leaching off of foreign press? Or are there other ideas out there that could eventually increase the number of professional journalists out there looking for what others try to sweep under the rug?

I really want to know, because I don't want to be left with only the foreign press (I already listen to the BBC more than to American news), and those few intrepid souls who remain working for the Grey Lady.
the_ungoth
Apr. 28th, 2009 12:55 pm (UTC)
I use the Post Dispatch, once I've culled the funnies, to line under my cat's litter box. Newsprint is thoroughly absorbent. Beyond that, I now get most of my information online. Occasionally I find a headline I want to read, but as Brad points out, mostly in the specialty sections (cars, sports, etc.) I only point out the litter box thing to express that I have, in fact, found something practical and useful for the local St. Louis newspaper to do.

Competition encourages quality. The Post Dispatch does not consider the RFT valid competition. They should, because the RFT actually writes in-depth articles and makes and attempt therein to find hidden facts and profound revelations. The RFT is a good format, too. Its only once a week, saving us from the constant stream of useless drivel that makes up the daily Post Dispatch.
kimchalister
Apr. 29th, 2009 12:18 am (UTC)
I'm actually a bit concerned about what we are gong to do for all the things that newspaper -- the paper-- is perfect for. What am I going to use to light the BBQ? I have used the Sunday comics as gift wrapping paper for years... And, of course lining the birdcage or paper training the puppy.... Etc.
(Deleted comment)
nancylebov
Apr. 28th, 2009 01:08 pm (UTC)
I think of the Washington Post as a newspaper that's doing its own research. No?
bradhicks
Apr. 28th, 2009 03:02 pm (UTC)
The traditional "newspapers of record" are the NYT, the WSJ, and the WaPo, yes, for just this reason. The LA Times made a heroic try to get onto that list, but seems to have given up and "cost cut" their way back out of the competition. Many people now count USA Today in that list. There is some question as to whether the WSJ will continue to investigate and report facts now that it's a Murdoch paper.
hal_obrien
Apr. 28th, 2009 03:45 pm (UTC)
"The LA Times made a heroic try to get onto that list, but seems to have given up and "cost cut" their way back out of the competition."

Not entirely. The LA Times was more-or-less successful at getting on the list as long as it was family-owned by the Chandlers. Some of the heirs got greedy, though, leading to the paper being sold to the Tribune Company, the corporate arm of the Chicago Tribune. Even this might have worked out, if it wasn't that the Tribune Company was bought by a real estate guy, Sam Zell, who's been proving that his own answers to Taleb's Questions ("Are you good or are you lucky? How do you know?") are that as long as he was in real estate, he was lucky. Now, not so much.

Re the larger issue -- I think you get to it in your next-to-last paragraph. The real problem is, advertising is dying. It's just pulling down newspapers along the way. Next up: TV, radio, and Google.

This is why I was warning anyone who would listen that traditional media's schadenfreude when the internet bubble popped in 2001 was probably misplaced. Because the reason it popped was one finally had the metrics to show Advertising Doesn't Work. Google has forestalled the inevitable by doing the Net equivalent of the "tiny little ads" schtick of a decade or two back, but I think they see the writing on the wall, which is why they keep trying so desperately to find something, anything, other than search that'll make money.

I mean... the problem with what you write is that it was never you paying the newspapers in the first place. Not really. Honor box revenues have always been small. It was the advertisers who were footing the bill. And now they're wising up. So whether you (or the readers generally) want to pay for newspapers isn't relevant.


krinndnz
Apr. 28th, 2009 03:54 pm (UTC)
Is that the Black Swan Taleb?

Can you point me to a longer piece or two about advertising Not Working? It's a thesis that I'm sympathetic to, but I want to see more writing about it, and especially more data about it.
hal_obrien
Apr. 28th, 2009 04:33 pm (UTC)
Yes, that Taleb. It helped that I'm a hard-core empiricist to start, but highly influential to me.

Perhaps the most widely read piece on the possible death of advertising is Bob Garfield's "Chaos Scenario" piece in Advertising Age. He's also done things from time to time on the radio show he co-hosts, On the Media. The stats are buried, but there. One of the things he points out is how high the number is of people who use TiVo to skip the ads. Think of the Net equivalent -- Adblock Plus (and I've seen sites that won't let ABP users browse, which implies both a) a high ABP use rate, and b) that ABP is substantially cutting their revenues).

Here's a fun question: How long was it before Starbucks ran a TV ad? (answer here)

Direct mail response rate: Typically, 1%. Which is to say, within the margin of error.

Spam: "50 in every million people". And a massive whack at brand equity.

I could tell you of my personal experience at a company, but that would, definitionally, be anecdotal. :)

No, as far as I can figure out, American businesses still use advertising because "that's what our fathers did." Sooner or later, that won't be enough.

Edited at 2009-04-28 04:34 pm (UTC)
krinndnz
Apr. 28th, 2009 09:31 pm (UTC)
Oh wow, those are some really nifty, content-dense links. Thank you very much!

I keep meaning to read "Black Swan," but haven't gotten around to it.
kimchalister
Apr. 29th, 2009 12:30 am (UTC)
When I was a kid, San Francisco had a newspaper strike. There were no ads. Businesses found it didn't make any difference, so when the newspapers came back, the ads didn't. And it made no difference. Until one of them started advertising again anyway. Then it made a difference -- that one store that was advertising got the business. So the rest of them had to start again. I remember my father describing it to me.
reannon
Apr. 28th, 2009 04:34 pm (UTC)
I can't link, because I heard it with my ears from the editor of the Post-Dispatch, the national head of the Newspapers Guild and... rats, I forget which group the third guy was from on that panel, but he was from advertising. They said it's fundamentally a problem with screen space - in a broadsheet newspaper, you traditionally had about 2/3 ads to 1/3 news on inside pages (never ads on section fronts). You can't do that on a computer screen - it's too crowded. Plus the size of the ad is counterproductive - an advertiser can get the same click-through on a 200x200 pixel ad as a banner at the top of the page, and everybody hates pop-ups.

Web advertising is also a hard sell to the core of newspaper advertisers, the mom-and-pop small businesses that really SHOULD be advertising online, but try to convince Joe's Flower Shop that he should buy a web banner. Finally - and this is me, not the honchos above - the ad salesmen deserve some blame. Web advertising is cheaper than print, which also means a lower commission, and as before mentioned, it's a harder sell. So they didn't push it, and they still don't because they have families to feed, and so we undersell web ads.

If you find some links, I'd love to read them. I wish I'd recorded that panel - it was fascinating.
krinndnz
Apr. 28th, 2009 09:32 pm (UTC)
These are also things that I see that I needed to know. Thank you.
tangurena
Apr. 28th, 2009 01:10 pm (UTC)
I ran for election last year. A small seat, but one that I thought was importantant enough to get over my distaste for politics and actually get on the ballot to run for (ok, so I came in dead last). What annoyed me was that the local papers, who were the only folks who cared enough about this race to print a few articles, well, they'd ask me pages and pages of questions, I'd reply with pages and pages of answers, and all they'd print from each of the candidates for the office was a single sentence. Did the editors cut everything down? Did they decide that since one candidate wrote a single sentence/slogan, that they'd cut everyone else down to the same bandwidth? I have no clue.
reannon
Apr. 28th, 2009 01:15 pm (UTC)
For our part, we send a multi-page questionnaire that gets printed in a special election insert, candidates in their own words. The stories must be much shorter, so sometimes we do end up picking just a sentence or two. I can't say for certain what your paper was doing - did they run an election tab? Was the story compiling many candidates together? But I do know I get much, much more information from the various candidates than I could possibly use.

But note: the local papers were the only ones even interested.
reannon
Apr. 28th, 2009 01:10 pm (UTC)
all due respect...
You mean like the Las Vegas Sun exposing the deaths of construction workers on the Strip due to look-the-other-way safety regulators?

The New York Times exposing how retired generals were bought and paid for by military contractors to support the war on TV?

The St. Petersburg Times' PolitiFact, which fact-checked more than 750 claims by politicians during the 2008 election and continues to factcheck bullshit on a daily basis?

The L.A. Times exposing financial malfeasance in California's largest union?

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel exposing the government's failure to enforce regulations on contaminants in drinking water?

The Detroit Free Press brought down Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick in a massive corruption-and-sex scandal.

The itty bitty newspaper for Mesa, Ariz. exposed how a popular sheriff's singleminded focus on immigration left violent crime and other problems rampant in the county.

The Washington Post exposed deadly abuses at the U.S.'s immigration detention centers.

And that's just from the other Pulitzer nominees. And just from this year. Last year my little newspaper won the RFK award for exposing how Illinois DCFS screwed up a number of investigations and got 53 children killed.

It cost the Boston Globe more than $1 million to investigate the Catholic Church abetting and cloaking pedophiles in the priesthood. Bloggers can't do that and TV doesn't care.

You're a very bright guy, Brad, and you know very well that the local level of government is the level that really affects us all. It's the mayor, the school board, the county chairman, the transit chief. Newspapers are the only ones paying attention to them. Trust me, half the schadenfreude over the supposed death of newspapers is coming from the people at middling levels of power, because then they can do whatever the fuck they want and nobody will care. At the CPAC meeting a few months ago, someone mentioned the death of newspapers and they fucking CHEERED. TV is too worried about sweeps and good art and what freelance blogger is going to sit through interminable school board meetings or learn about the structure of a proposed tax increment financing district?

Oh yes. You'd miss us, if we were going anywhere. If you're only reading the stuff that Yahoo News or Google aggregates for you, you're going to miss it.

(Also, the Post didn't win the Pulitzer for Kirkwood. It was a finalist, and likely that was influenced by the fact that one of their own got shot - ironic, since they laid him off two weeks ago. And at the time, you lauded local reporters on the work they did covering it, including the Post. Yes, the RFT does good stuff. So do the rest of us.)

Edited at 2009-04-28 01:27 pm (UTC)
bradhicks
Apr. 28th, 2009 03:19 pm (UTC)
Re: all due respect...
I count the NYT as a real newspaper. The Kwame Kilpatrick story was broken in Detroit's free paper first. The Boston Globe broke the Catholic story about a decade ago, and has since then laid off almost everybody in the newsroom. For that matter, hasn't your paper done the same, laid off nearly everybody who was doing anything more than transcribing press releases?

Reannon, I don't want to pick on you (or identify which paper you work for in a public post), so let's go back to the Post-Disposal. Today's top story is on the avian swine flu. Actual reporting by the P-D: One one-sentence quote from a professor at SLU, who has nothing to say that couldn't have been cribbed from the same wire service story that the rest of the article was cribbed from. Top story in the Metro section is on cuts to the Parents as Teachers program. Other than a one-sentence reaction quote cribbed from a lawmaker's website, the entire rest of the article is cribbed from a Parents as Teachers press release. Now, you tell me: in either story, what did I need the Post-Dispatch for?

Because in the meantime, one reporter over at KSDK, Mike Owens, breaks about three local news stories a week that didn't come from press releases, they came from cultivating sources, investigating complaints, and digging through public records. Eliot Davis manages roughly as many investigative news stories per week over at the local Fox affiliate, KTVI, just by combing through municipal budgets and school district budgets looking for stuff that doesn't pass "the sniff test."

By comparison, as best as I can tell from reading the St. Louis Post-Dispatch online several times a day for several years, right up until they fired Sylvester Brown, reporters for the Post-Dispatch, like most newspapers, sit around and copy press releases, or call one local person for a reaction quote to an AP wire service story, all day long unless a news story literally falls into their laps. Worthless.

Edited at 2009-04-28 03:24 pm (UTC)
reannon
Apr. 28th, 2009 05:05 pm (UTC)
Re: all due respect...
Let me clarify, I'm not defending the Post-Dispatch - or I didn't intend to. I think what has happened to them since Lee bought them is shameful to the extreme. When I first arrived, it was hard to stay ahead of them - the competition was fierce. Not anymore. I could talk all day about the poor choices of the PD: the redesign, a wildly swinging focus from national to local news and then hamstringing their local people, a slash-and-burn series of layoffs targeting older, experienced people, relying on the Journals to take over the bulk of their ground-level reporting. I know a lot of the P-D folk, and those that remain are doing the best they can under spectacularly awful circumstances, not to mention the loss of morale when the paper laid off the guy who got shot in Kirkwood.

As far as the choice of layoffs, however, I can say while the Post did lay off some of the top writers, we did not. After all, I'm still here, and so is our investigative team and guys with 20-30 years on the job who do good work. Of our layoffs, only one was a reporter. I won't say our layoffs haven't hurt - they certainly do - but we're still here. Mike Owens is a good guy. I'll refrain from veering into Eliot Davis' territory.

And we absolutely, positively, under no circumstances sit around and copy press releases or settle for localizing AP. I have to wonder if you've been reading my blog, when I talk about standing by the side of the road as they pull the little girl's dead body out, or the brain-number work of digging through government records to factcheck the bullshit being fed to us on those press releases or grill the state representative on diverting drugs from his pharmacy for his own use. Stories don't come from press releases; certainly mine don't. It's a hard job, a thankless job with no pay that eats our lives and families and we work our asses off. In fact, I'm not even on duty for another two hours and I've stopped writing this comment twice to work on tomorrow's investigation. Clearly I need to do more day-in-the-life posts.
krinndnz
Apr. 28th, 2009 02:36 pm (UTC)
I'm strongly reminded of Ryan Sholin's "Ten Obvious Things About The Future Of Newspapers." I wonder what you think about a point that's more central to his bit: local relevance.
reannon
Apr. 28th, 2009 02:44 pm (UTC)
You weren't asking me, but thanks for linking, that was an interesting article. I'd agree with almost all of it. I'd add one caveat: it's not Google's fault in that Google is a good thing, helps people find us. However, Google NEWS is a very big problem. Links FTW, but when they pull whole articles and present them as their own content without compensating the newspaper from which they grab, that's a problem financially. But unknown if publishers will figure out a way to solve it.
krinndnz
Apr. 28th, 2009 02:58 pm (UTC)
Then have another from my recent reading, "He Said, She Said Journalism: Lame Formula in the Land of the Active User." This one's from April 2009 instead of mid-2007, too.

Regarding your above comment, I'd just point out that your examples of investigative journalism are great, but they hardly prove that journalism has to be tied to the institution of newspapers. I propose that journalism has to leave newspapers, otherwise it'll die with them, and we'll all be worse off. Newspapers are on their way out: we can deal with that fact wisely or foolishly, and I say that propping them up when we can do the same things better in other forms is foolishness and possibly dangerous. We need journalism. We don't need newspapers. They aren't identical.
reannon
Apr. 28th, 2009 03:12 pm (UTC)
But that IS the point. Journalism may not have to be tied to newspapers, but at the moment we're the ones doing it, particularly at ground level. I put up the examples because the hypothesis is that newspapers weren't doing real journalism, and every one of those investigative pieces was from a newspaper. Will we be entirely print? Oh no, I predict the print edition will continue to dwindle as we shift more to an online format and find a way to make it pay. Will we still be here? Hells yes. With 30-50-percent growth in readership every year, yes indeed.

Thanks for the link. Good stuff - I think I'll forward it to the journalists' list. As I told the mayor last time I annoyed the piss out of him, "I'm sorry, sir, but I'm a reporter, not a stenographer." (He got over it. :))
krinndnz
Apr. 28th, 2009 03:27 pm (UTC)
I like that anecdote. Reminds me of the courthouse bit - judge gets cranky and snaps at one of the lawyers "Am I ever gonna hear the truth out of you guys?" Lawyer grins, grins, grins and shoots back "No, Your Honor, only the evidence."

Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand your point better now.
briathian
Apr. 28th, 2009 03:12 pm (UTC)
I don't believe I've ever seen a full article on Google News - it's always just blurbs with a link to the story.. much less Google presenting it as their own content. Bluntly, Google News has caused me to go to more news websites and see more advertising on them.
reannon
Apr. 28th, 2009 03:18 pm (UTC)
It's easy to miss, when you click on an article and you think you're going to the actual site and up at the top it states, "Hosted by Google." It's an ongoing discussion; personally, I don't know that there's any way to fix it without throwing up paywalls, which the older generation insists we should have and I (and others) know is absolutely a terrible idea.

I got into a lengthy debate this weekend with a J-school professor who insisted we should do what this AJR columnist suggested, and on Independence Day all newspapers should declare their stuff is no longer free. I shook my head, and he asked me why. "Because it won't work," I said. "Charging for content is the beginning of the end." I think in the end, I won the debate. :) Now if only we could figure out what WILL work...
briathian
Apr. 28th, 2009 03:22 pm (UTC)
Hrm. I can't recall ever seeing that - can you provide an example? I just clicked on all the 'main' links on the front page of my google news setup and didn't see any of that..
hal_obrien
Apr. 28th, 2009 03:57 pm (UTC)
Here's an example.

On the other hand, that appears to be an AP wire story. At first I was going to say the problem might be wire service specific, but UPI and Reuters stories go to their respective web sites.

So... It appears Google is hosting the AP wire, but nothing else I can find.
hal_obrien
Apr. 28th, 2009 04:01 pm (UTC)
An AFP story (Agence France-Presse). So that's two wire services. No "named" properties yet, though. (BBC, NYT, newspapers more generally)
anton_p_nym
Apr. 28th, 2009 04:00 pm (UTC)
In my experience, that only happens for news sites that actually *are* hosted by Google, such as their reposted AP and CP feeds. Google News will also link to news sites with Google Ads on them, and some of those ads will show "hosted by Google", but I can't think of a particular news article that displays such a header.

-- Steve'd like to know if he's missing something there, if there's a particular example or two.

*Disclaimer*: I do visit news.google.ca much more often than news.google.com, as a Great White Northian. This may mean my observations don't match those of the USAian persuasion.
discogravy
Apr. 28th, 2009 08:23 pm (UTC)
Have you sent this to editorial staff at newspapers?
jacinthsong
Apr. 29th, 2009 11:22 am (UTC)
Liberal Conspiracy highlighted this post today; I like, thankyou. I wonder if you’ve come across Flat Earth News by Nick Davies? He writes a lot – mostly UK-based - on staff and funding cuts forcing reporters to rely on wire stories and PR statements to fill pages in time. Not sure if it’s easily available in the US (though it has a pretty good website with background articles) but it’s entirely worth buying.
wiseacre
May. 1st, 2009 02:57 am (UTC)
This is a real problem that he reports. Publishers (i.e. the money men) often see the editorial content as filler that keeps the ads from bumping into each other. They can't lower the cost of newsprint or rent or utilities but they can cut staff and hire cheap newbs to replace experienced hands. Obviously, the more pieces you have to write per issue (whether daily, weekly, or monthly), the less time you have to original research and interviews. This really shows up in many smaller publications.

Another good source for the inside-scoop in journalism is at http://www.poynter.org
wiseacre
May. 1st, 2009 02:50 am (UTC)
Wow! The fact that you believe the New York Times is the greatest newspaper in the USA and one of the best three or four in the world really makes me question your judgement. Three glaring examples spring to mind:

Jayson Blair just making shit up

Judith Miller repeatedly acting as mouthpiece for Bush's claims of WMD pre-Iraq, writing articles that reported White House assertions as fact

Rick Bragg passing off the work of others as his own

Journalists are human and, like all jobs, some people will cut corners. Others will do the best work they can. You can't judge them by where they work.
bradhicks
May. 18th, 2009 02:23 am (UTC)
Saw it in the NYT, too. *yawn* We knew George Bush was very religious; that his subordinates pretended to be his flavor of evangelical in order to curry favor is hardly startling.
( 36 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2012
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner