08
Sep 10

Arthur Sulzberger on the New York Times and “wantedness”

Arthur Sulzberger Jr, chairman of the New York Times, popped up in London today at a WAN-IFRA seminar and told us what we mostly already know about how the paper plans to charge its digital readers in the New Year. But he was more interesting about how the Grey Lady wants to be hugged by its readers.

Having been burned on one earlier paywall experiment, Sulzberger is now an evangelist for “test and learn”. If one scheme doesn’t work he told his audience more than once, we’ll drop it and try another one. The plan which has so far been eight months in development and will launch in January or February will allow users of nyt.com a set number of items for free, after which they will be charged.

They’re still working on what content exactly counts for moving a user towards triggering a charge. Thye haven’t decided the pricing. They’re still working on how the search engines will reach them. A user arriving at an NYT story from a third party will be allowed the “first click” free. The paper wants, Sulzberger said, to be part of the “free eco-system.”

Sulzberger painted these decisions as part of a larger reconsideration of what kind of relationship the paper wanted with its digital readers. We are rethinking, he said, “the very nature of engagement.” The language of marriage is not inappropriate here, for Sulzberger wants the NYT to bond, truly, madly, deeply with its readers. The relationship is glued by emotion. With the possible exception of the Neue Zurcher Zeitung, the New York Times is one of the most formal papers on earth. Yet respect isn’t enough. It officially wants to be loved.

Continue reading →

Share

15
Jun 10

Love letter to a web platform (Twitter, of course)

There’s been the odd dampening remark here and there about Twitter in this blog along the lines that tweeting (this blog does not follow New York Times style rules) may not be the answer to every single one of the world’s problems. And 140 characters is a bit tight for some communications.

But for sheer bubblingly eloquent enthusiasm, try this essay by one of America’s top movie critics, Roger Ebert, which is a love letter to a web platform. He kindly helps us with his favourites, introducing some compellingly vivid Indian bloggers competing to develop a literary form last tried in Japan with the haiku. He illustrates very well what a powerful tool Twitter is for simply swopping information with links which make the 140-character limitation less important.

Share

12
Jun 10

Weekend miscellany: Assange, Kenyan corruption, why is sport so huge, the missed banking story and Iran

I’m increasingly finding, as this blog finds its feet, that I reach the end of the working week with a bunch of links which I’d like to pass on but which don’t require much comment or elaboration. I’m going to try bundling them into a single post. From time to time these pieces will have already appeared in “What I’m Reading” (just to the right of here) but that feed often osbcures the real subject of something I’ve clipped into Delicious. What follows is an eclectic selection, so there’s no point in trying to pretend that there’s any common thread.

  • Fascinating drama now going on around Wikileaks as the US government goes after its founder Julian Assange. Some background here. A more recent summary from The Economist, containing an intriguing little hint from Pentagon Papers man Daniel Ellsberg.
  • I’ve been reading properly for the first time It’s Our Turn to Eat by Michela Wrong, the story of John Githongo, the man who exposed deep-seated, systemic corruption in the Kenyan political elite. The book is a superbly-written tragi-comedy: Githongo “exposed” a lot of appalling evidence but failed to dent the practice by which Kenyan ministers plunder the country’s treasury. But thanks to the depth of Wrong’s knowledge of her subject, the book is also a history of modern Kenya – and a very dispiriting chronicle at that. When Kenya’s tribal rivalries explode again, as Wrong predicts they surely will, reading this book will explain what is happening and why. Among her many qualities as a writer, Wrong is unafraid to take aim at conventional pieties. As they say in Texas, sacred cows make the best burgers.
  • Especially at World Cup you may occasionally wonder how sport, all sport, got so big. Because once upon a time, sport just wasn’t that huge a thing. When you don’t read much a subject – and I don’t read much about sport – you like an issue fully dealt with in a single place. This piece by Tim de Lisle from Intelligent Life is it.
  • Sometimes it takes a non-journalist to spot that journalists are asleep at the wheel. Not every document that emerges from the Bank of England is newsworthy or even comprehensible but the one spotted in this post was. As the perenially interesting MP Frank Field remarks here, this was not a story which either the Financial Times sor The Times ought to have missed.
  • A cluster of excellent stories from The Guardian on Iran at the first anniversary of last year’s stalled “green” revolution-that-wasn’t.

Continue reading →

Share

24
May 10

Unplugged offcuts

I posted two days ago from the Al-Jazeera Forum Unplugged new media day but confined that one to the new initiative AJ is launching in this area. Here are a few bits and pieces from the other speakers which caught my ear.

Josh Benton of NiemanLabs. Demand Media (which matches freelance writers with commissions and/or payment) is now handling 5000 pieces of news a day; lifestyle journalism is very cheap to produce. Anyone thinking about paywalls has to reckon that there will always be free quality alternatives. The BBC, NPR, PBS & Co aren’t going away.

News is moving from being a manufacturing activity to becoming a service industry. The average US newspaper spends 15% of its budget on journalists. Young people in America spend an average of seven or eight minutes a month on the websites of newspapers; in the same period they spend seven hours on Facebook.

Benton, incidentally, turns out to be the reason why the NiemanLab blogs are so useful and well-written. He edits the material. Shocking, I know.

Joi Ito of Creative Commons. The key element of internet architecture, the heart and soul of the matter, is that the system allows people to connect without permission. Charging model that seems to work best is part-free, part-paid but with larger sums coming from fewer people. But he admitted that his best examples were not journalism: the rock group Nine-Inch Nails and Japanese anime companies.

Continue reading →

Share

06
May 10

Sense and nonsense about newspapers and elections

I’m getting asked a lot of questions about newspapers and their effects on elections. Any kind of close or surprising result usually unleashes a wave of claims that newspapers have manipulated, influenced or dumbed down coverage. If the past is any guide, most of these theories will be wrong.

I took part in a discussion on Radio 4’s Media Show on this subject yesterday. My City University colleague Roy Greenslade wrote a fine debunking Evening Standard column. Hold on to the following facts as you listen to claims that it was newspapers wot won it or lost it.

  • Evidence that formal endorsements of political parties by papers change votes is hard to come by. People mostly don’t choose their paper because of its political allegiance. Twenty per cent of Daily Mail readers regularly vote Labour. If newspapers ever influence how people think politically, they only do so very gradually. Stop Press: the complexity of this is well caught by a neat new experiment from The Times.
  • A majority of newspaper titles advocate a Tory vote and that’s been the case in the 17 elections since 1945. Labour won nine of those outright.
  • In 1945, when newspapers commanded a vastly greater “mindshare” than now and television broadcasting hadn’t begun, most editors and proprietors campaigned for a Conservative victory. Labour won a landslide.
  • Newspapers now compete in a media market filled with hundreds of broadcast channels and proliferating new media platforms. When The Sun switched allegiance from Labour to the Tories last autumn, one major pollster pointed out that they were following, not leading, their readers who had moved in the same direction earlier in the year.
  • The media event of this election wasn’t the much-hyped new media or print but TV. The leaders debates moved Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems 9-11 points up in the polls and they stayed there. Print does not do this and never has.

Continue reading →

Share

03
May 10

Buzz (aka “sentiment”) – how do you measure it?

There is a glimpse – but only a glimpse – of the future in this post by the BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones on new ways of measuring new media political comment on the leaders TV debates during the election. The bar graph below shows an example of Twitter sentiment during the the third debate, on the economy.

Lexalytics on 3rd party leaders debate

Lexalytics on 3rd party leaders debate

Two thoughts occur straight away.

1) The methods for measuring the flows of messages, tweets and posts are going to get much better pretty quickly. Since networks are potentially influential, people trying to track and explain opinion changes will have to analyse what happens in social networks such as Twitter. The early techniques listed just sound a bit primitive.

Continue reading →

Share

30
Mar 10

Politicians, twittering

Three-way pre-election television debate last night between the Chancellor of the Exchequer (i.e. finance minister) and his two rivals from the other main parties. An unusual event in Britain and trailer for the main movie of such debates between party leaders in the imminent election campaign.

Lots of tweets and posts this morning on how the Twitterstream made this the first new media election event of its kind and how excellent all that is. See for example Charlie Beckett of Polis here (and on BBC Radio 4 this morning).

Hate to rain on the tweet parade, but I’m just not buying this as transformative change. We’re at risk of confusing the medium with the message.

Continue reading →

Share

23
Mar 10

Professor in pieces

One of the small changes I’ve made in moving to a university is to adjust to the fact that every time I stand up in front of more than, say, 15 people, I’m being broadcast. Not quite literally, but what I say is being tweeted more or less every time and livestreamed quite often. Nothing to do with me or anybody’s expectations of what I might be going to say. It’s just routine to tweet speeches and talks.

Without intending to, I ran a Twitter experiment last week when I did a formal, inaugural lecture (versions here and here)  lasting about 40 minutes to an audience of about 500 people. Because we were encouraging questions from abroad, one of our students (@heatherchristie) was tweeting energetically throughout.

She wasn’t the only one (see #isnewsover). Analysed as a platform, Twitter seems to have three kinds of use. As conversation: cheap, fast and with opportunities for haiku-like wit. My favourite from that evening: “best lecture foliage EVER”. As link spreading: a quick skim down a lot of short entries can give you the headlines and links to what you need to know. Lastly as work-in-progress summaries of a speech, debate, lecture or discussion. A lot of people retweeted a severe lecturer who said, when a number of students left during the Q&A to go back to their politics class, “don’t that when you’re doing this for a living.”

But the package of advantages comes with a downside. There’s a huge amount of repetition and endless distraction. Whether or not having several digital communications devices on the go at once is going to alter the way our brains work, I can’t know.

Continue reading →

Share