Thoughts on AP’s quest to crack down on Internet sharing

July 24th, 2009 Comments

The AP is planning on encasing its content in a DRM-like “wrapper” to ensure that their content and headlines aren’t used without their consent — and without payment.

Being paid for your work sounds like a good idea. But the AP is going further than ever before with its copyright claims over its content, and blatantly ignoring Fair Use:

Tom Curley, The A.P.’s president and chief executive, said the company’s position was that even minimal use of a news article online required a licensing agreement with the news organization that produced it. In an interview, he specifically cited references that include a headline and a link to an article, a standard practice of search engines like Google, Bing and Yahoo, news aggregators and blogs.

Asked if that stance went further than The A.P. had gone before, he said, “That’s right.” The company envisions a campaign that goes far beyond The A.P., a nonprofit corporation. It wants the 1,400 American newspapers that own the company to join the effort and use its software.

The AP either has never heard of the Fair Use Doctrine or openly opposes it. I’m betting on the latter. Now, it’s important to note that Fair Use is a defense, not a right and it doesn’t explicitly spell out anything about word counts, headlines, links, etc.

But from the people I have talked to, headlines and links fall under current definitions of Fair Use. The question then is this: Is the AP gearing up for a court battle? If they implement this policy they will find themselves in court by at least the EFF and probably many more.

Some more thoughts:

  1. I hope the AP didn’t spend too much time or money developing this DRM-like “wrapper” — Hackers will quickly break whatever copy protection AP devises, and I’m not sure how many member newspapers will join in anyway. Beyond that, I’m not convinced this wrapper will survive legal challenges. This could have been a giant waste of time and money.
  2. This wrapper better not harm user experience – DRM always works like this: It never stops people who really want to steal or break the law, but it almost always hinders law abiding, paying customers. Will this extra layer of code eat up CPU cycles and RAM, bring computers to a halt and not even work on some machines? My guess is that this negatively impacts law abiding users. User experiences matter.
  3. People may simply stop using AP content — If AP content is to become inherently un-Web friendly (unsharable, which is how the Web works), wouldn’t it stand to reason that people will simply use other content instead? I like sharing links. If the AP wants to stop me from doing that — and by extension, sending traffic their way — I’ll read and link to other content. There is nothing the AP does that is that unique that I can’t live without the AP.
  4. Not everyone at the AP thinks this is a good strategy — From what I can gather from people I know at the AP, not everyone is on board with this strategy of fighting how the Web works. The AP feels like a disjointed company. Some clearly don’t get the Web and dislike it, while others at the company are developing kick-ass Web and mobile apps. The AP has one of the premiere news apps on the iPhone, and yet other people at the AP dislike the Web. I can only imagine the division decisions like these are creating.
  5. Maybe the AP wants a court challenge — Fair Use remains a murky concept on the Internet, and a lot has changed with the fortunes of traditional news publishers. Even though I don’t think a court challenge would go the AP’s way, if they received a more favorable view of Fair Use handed down by the courts, it might be a game changer.

Not offending people is not an option for newspapers

July 9th, 2009 Comments

“Not offending people is not a business model. You have to have something to say” – Dan Froomkin, PDF 2009.

Inoffensive, “objective” journalism isn’t good journalism, it’s good business. At least it was before the Web. In a world where printing presses — and by extension, competition — are scarce, it’s good business to try to appeal to the largest audience possible. A good way to appeal to the largest mass possible is to try not offending anyone.

This naturally leads to journalism that tries to triangulate both sides and sit somewhere in between. Not every story or issue has two correct sides. Good journalism is about trying to find the truth, but the truth can be offensive to people who don’t want to hear it.

Writing a story about climate change? Get a scientist on the record talking about how it is happening, then go find someone to say that it is not happening or that man isn’t causing it. Then make no determination of which side has more evidence or what the preponderance of science supports.

Instead, take the inoffensive — often ineffectual — middle ground. Let readers “decide” based on the “evidence” presented. This will usually lead to many stories and issues appearing as if there is consensus. Offense minimized.

Then came the Internet, and smart people didn’t want this limp reporting anymore. They wanted experienced and knowledgeable journalists to help them make sense of it all. People want journalists to help them find the truth, no matter how offensive that truth may be to some.

This has become a problem for newspapers. The notion of modern objectivity doesn’t serve journalism, it serves making money. At least it did.

After the Web took off, niche publications, blogs, social media, etc began to flourish. Suddenly it was OK to offend people. Suddenly it was OK to tell people what they didn’t want to hear.

Why? The barriers to entry for starting a Web site or blog are incredibly low. Building a printing press took a large investment. A good way to pay if off — and rack in monster profits — was to try to appeal to as large of an audience as possible. But starting a blog is free and building a professional Web site is a fraction of the cost of a printing press (let alone operating and running said press).

Now appealing to everyone doesn’t make business sense. At least, it’s not a requirement. Suddenly it makes sense to appeal to niches. The nicheification of content is at the core of the Web. People have diverse interests, and the Web allows those interests to flourish.

Want to write about just science stories? Start a blog for free, and you’ll probably find more success by not trying to be in the middle ground all the time. If you’re knowledgeable about a topic, people want to hear what you know and think.

I don’t envision a future where we see giant 1,000 person newsrooms anytime soon. But if newspapers want to survive, they’ll have to consider creating passionate journalism again. They’ll have to consider offending people.

They key to offending people is to be right. I can respect someone who challenges my beliefs when they are right. After all, that’s a main way my beliefs change over time.

To bring this back to the lede, newspapers need more Dan Froomkins, not less. Dan was not afraid to offend people, and at one point, he probably challenged everyone’s views. He was willing to tell the truth and be fair and honest.

His brand of objectivity wasn’t to give both sides to every story, but for him to try his best to find the truth. And that can often be “offensive.” But that’s also what made Dan so popular and respected.

People are turning to blogs and new media outlets precisely because they find much of traditional media too afraid to tell the truth. But if newspapers accept that objectivity isn’t about telling all sides to every story, but rather about finding the truth, I believe they’ll find better success moving forward on the Web.

Transparency comes before objectivity

July 9th, 2009 Comments

This is a comment I left on today’s Poynter Chat on teaching social media:

The notion of “objectivity” has been a big part of the downfall of traditional journalism. It turned into passionless, he said-she said nonsense. And people are smart enough to know that no one is truly objective. That’s why transparency trumps all.

The ideal would be to be transparent about who you are, what you do and what you believe and then try to go about objectively reporting. That’s what I strive to do.

The altar of objectivity has led traditional journalism down an unfortunate road of giving both sides of every issue equal time. That’s not objective. That’s just perverse.

Being objective should be the quest for finding truth, not for equivocating on every issue.

But no matter how we define objectivity, transparency should be the key to what modern journalism is about. It’s at the heart of the social Web.

All good things must come to end

June 22nd, 2009 Comments

I’m sad to report that funding for BeatBlogging.Org will run out on Sept. 1 of this year.

Being the editor of BeatBlogging.Org has been a great ride. I’ve learned a lot about how beat reporters are adapting to the Web, how social media is changing journalism and where journalism is heading.

Working with NYU’s Jay Rosen has been a great learning experience. It’s very invigorating to work with someone who is interested in answering, “what’s next?” And in journalism, that’s the No. 1 question we all must answer.

What’s next for me? I don’t know yet. I hope to be able to contribute to the search for journalism next.

I’m interested in pushing journalism forward, in finding new ways to deliver content to people, in making journalism work on the Internet. We need journalism now more than ever, but journalism must adapt to fit new mediums, new paradigms and new ways of consumption.

I’m interested in working with people who want to move forward, not fixate on the past. I’m interested in working with people who believe that the Internet can offer incredible possibilities for journalism. I’m interested in working with people who want to fight to make journalism better, even in this dark hour.

I believe in journalism. I believe in the power of the Internet. And I believe that the Internet and journalism can work together to make incredible content and products for the world.

The fate of BeatBlogging.Org is undecided for now. I can at least assure you that the site will not be going away, as it is too strong of a new media brand to let die or even languish.

BeatBlogging.Org has certainly made me a better journalist and more prepared to fight the battles that lie ahead. I know that we travel a perilous road in journalism, but it’s a journey worth taking. The world needs good journalism.

On reinvesting profits

June 18th, 2009 Comments

Microsoft gets a lot of grief for many of the things that it does, but we should at least give Microsoft credit for being willing to reinvest profits into research and development.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said he is willing to invest up to $11 billion in search over the next five years. I have a much better idea for Ballmer. Instead of investing in the future, why doesn’t Microsoft consider buying yesterday’s companies — with yesterday’s business models — instead?

That model has been a rousing success for the newspaper industry. The supposed high-minded, civic-minded Fourth Estate has been mostly about profits the last few decades (with some exceptions), while supposed money-grubbing companies like Microsoft take nothing for granted.

Imagine that, a company with robust profits using those profits to invest in the future? Get out. Unheard of.

Beware of that crazy Internet (and bad advice from professors)

June 15th, 2009 Comments Off

“When I was in college, a professor said, ‘Beware of the Internet.’ Everyone and anyone is a ‘journalist’ or ‘writer’ because of it. Six years later, I owe the Internet a big hug, because before my memoir Rattled! there was Storked! on glamour.com. But I do consider myself a real writer, and my stories are genuine.”

That quote comes from well-known blogger Christine Coppa. She has been making a living off of her blog and now has a book out based on her blog. She’s very fortunate that she didn’t listen to her professor.

I can’t help but wonder how many aspiring journalists received sage advice like that only a few years ago. Imagine how much that has impacted the journalism industry? Worse still, many journalism professors still don’t get the power of the Internet and openly believe it will be (or has been) the downfall of journalism.

That’s a shame. So what if everyone is a journalist because of the Internet? As we are seeing right now in Iran, the revolution will be tweeted.

Bloggers like Andrew Sullivan are helping to make sense of it all. In fact, the mainstream media has been woefully inadequate when it comes to covering Iran and the recent election. Thank God for Twitter, blogging and social media.

When everyone becomes a journalist, we’ll be a more active, engaged and informed citizenry. When everyone is a journalist, corruption will find it tough to incubate; tyranny will have no place to hide.

There is still a place for professional journalists. Citizens can help report what they experience in their lives, but journalists can still put together the trend and analysis pieces. Professionals can also curate citizen content.

The Internet is a win-win for everyone. Well, accept the corrupt, the despotic, the tyrannically, the unethical.

It’s clear, however, that students should avoid the Internet at their own peril.

What would you like to see in a new journalism podcast?

June 10th, 2009 Comments

I have been discussing the idea of starting a new journalism podcast with some people and would appreciate your feedback.

This podcast would be different from диваниthe existing podcast series on BeatBlogging.Org. It would involve multiple hosts and would attempt to be newsy, lively and fun. We would also have guests on and interview interesting people in the news business.

What kinds of topics would you like to see us cover? What kind of focus would you like to see this show have? Would you even be interested in a new journalism podcast?

My model for this podcast would be Buzz Out Loud — something that people can learn from, while also finding it entertaining.

Everything is in very early stages right now, but it’s never too early to get feedback and suggestions from our potential audience and community.

Thoughts on charging for news (and succeeding)

May 29th, 2009 Comments

A group of newspaper execs met this week to discuss the best ways to collude; I mean “support and preserve the traditions of newsgathering that will serve the American public.”

Rather than comment on these legally-challenged meetings, I’m here to offer some suggestions for charging for news. Let’s assume that newspaper leaders have committed to charging for news. Here are my suggestions for what to do and what to avoid:

  1. You can’t charge for something that has been free for years without drastically improving it — The idea of putting existing journalism content that has been free for years behind a pay wall is laughable at best. More realistically, it’s suicidal. People simply will not find value in it. After all, it was free for years. What’s changed now? Your balance sheets? People don’t care about that. Unless you are suddenly going to hire all those reporters that you laid off back, don’t even dream about charging for existing content. In fact, most newspapers offer an inferior product today than they did five years ago.
  2. People won’t pay for the police blotter – Just because you spend time “reporting” on a subject, doesn’t mean people will pay for it. Consider carefully what you want to charge for and not charge for. I’m not saying to give up the police blotter, I’m just saying to not even dream about charging for it.
  3. It’s much easier to charge for a new product or feature that was never freely available — It’s much easier to convince someone of the value of a product or feature that was never available before. It’s new. It can be “premium.” If the feature rocks and adds value to people’s lives, it might just work. This is where news orgs need to concentrate their efforts on. “What can be create new that people will find valuable?” That’s what newspaper execs should have really been discussing.
  4. Even if a news org develops products & content worth paying for, it still needs plenty of good, free content – A uniform pay wall with all content behind it is suicide. How will a news org find new users? It won’t. Any news org hoping to survive and thrive long term needs a strategy that caters to current users while also cultivating new users. Even though most people coming from search engines, Twitter, aggregators, etc aren’t loyal users, they all offer the ability to convert random users into loyal users. Even pay wall-hero The Wall Street Journal has a mix of free and premium content. Same with ESPN.com. There must be a free-premium model at work. And the free content should satisfy 90 percent of users.
  5. Premium products for premium users — You want to develop premium products for premium users. Premium users are dedicated and loyal. They check a Web site several times a day, not a month. Not all users are created equal. Steve Yelvington points out that news orgs offer a tale of two audiences — one casual, one dedicated. We want free products for the casual, while also developing premium features, products, access and even user interfaces for the dedicated.
  6. A pay wall won’t protect print — People who left aren’t coming back to print. This is the worst possible reason for a pay wall, and yet some news orgs are hoping that a pay wall will save print. MediaNews president Jody Lodovic said, ”The whole idea is to stop the erosion from print to online and encourage people to become print subscribers.” Many people simply don’t want to be print subscribers anymore, especially to a daily newspaper. Everyday that goes by another person from a previous generation dies, while several more who will live their whole lives with the Internet are born. I’m 24; I’ve spent most of my life with the Internet. I’m not going back.
  7. Think outside the box — I’m not a fan of charging for content. Most newspapers have never done this. We charged for a product — a printed newspaper. People also paid for delivery of said product. I already pay for Internet access and a computer (printing and distribution in the digital world). I’m not also paying for basic content. Instead, newspapers should concentrate on charging for what they always have — platforms and products. That’s really what a newspaper is. Ideas like the Times Reader are a step in the right direction (premium user interfaces and experiences for premium users). Mobile apps present another avenue to charge with. Why not charge for access and community? That’s one thing newspapers should do well.

Getting people to pay for a product isn’t rocket science. It usually starts with understanding what people are willing to pay for.

    Job application for CEO of Tribune

    May 13th, 2009 Comments

    Dear Sam Zell,

    I recently noticed that your company has filled for bankruptcy protection. I think I can help.

    Can I turn things around? No, but I think I can run things less poorly. You and your management team managed to sink Tribune into bankruptcy in less than two years.

    Those are skills far beyond what I offer. But I offer my skills for less. If you’re going to fail, why not fail cheaply?

    I’m confident that I can run any number of businesses into the ground — whether they be newspapers or financial institutions like AIG. Unlike, however, business executives who claim that they deserve their high salaries and bonuses even when they perform poorly, because “it’s the only way to keep ‘top talent,’” I can deliver the same caliber of results, without having a drastically overinflated view of my self worth.

    I know I’m not worth millions a year in salary and bonuses, especially when my company is filing for bankruptcy or asking for a federal bailout. I understand that in a real capitalistic society, you get paid based on your performance, not based on what you the little elf in your heads tells you you’re worth.

    Would I have foreseen the wisdom of an over-leveraged $8.2 billion buyout for a newspaper company in 2007? No, that level of incompetence is usually reserved for the most incompetent incompetents. I cannot go toe-to-toe with you or the new Tribune executive team.

    But I can do it for less. If you’re having financial problems, why not consider somebody just as unlikely to turn around your sinking ship, but who is willing to do it for less? I’ll accept a salary half of what the average top Tribune executive makes and will only accept a bonus if the company does well and isn’t receiving a federal bailout or in bankruptcy.

    I also guarantee that I have better ideas how to turn your company around.

    To illustrate why I believe I’d make a better CEO for Tribune, I’ve put together this handy pros and cons list.

    Pros of Sam Zell:

    Cons of Sam Zell:

    • Doesn’t have the first clue how to run a newspaper company (at least one with $13 billion in debt).
    • Can convince people to help him purchase companies that have little future for a lot of debt.
    • Once told employees that “Everyone likes pussy. It’s un-American not to like pussy.” He’s 67-years old. It was creepy.

    Pros of Patrick Thornton:

    Cons of Patrick Thornton:

    • Doesn’t have the first clue on how to run a newspaper company as poorly as Tribune.
    • Tweets too much.

    Sam, even if you insist on keeping yourself on staff, why not get rid of all those overpaid motherfucker executives at Tribune and hire me to do their collective jobs. What’s the worst that could happen? Tribune goes bankrupt?

    So, you have a blog. Now what? Vol. 3: quantity matters

    May 5th, 2009 Comments

    Quality always matters, but with blogging so does quantity.

    The more often you blog, the more traffic you’ll get. It’s that simple.

    Someone who blogs a few times a month will get a lot less traffic than someone who blogs a few times a week. Both of them will get less traffic than someone who blogs daily. All of them will get less traffic than someone who blogs multiple times a day.

    Why?

    As the LA Times’s Tony Pierce explained, if you blog too infrequently, people will just occasionally check in on your blog to catch up. If you have good daily content, people will come daily. There is a big difference between a user coming daily to your site, instead of weekly or a few times a month.

    A really good blog will have content several times a day. Now, many of your users will come to your site multiple times a day. All the sudden the amount of visitors your blog is getting has exponentially increased.

    Now many of you may be saying, “Wait a second, you don’t post daily, let alone multiple times a day.” And that’s because traffic isn’t my main concern on this blog. This is just my personal blog, but if I were blogging professionally (like say BeatBlogging.Org), I’d try to have at least seven pieces of content a week.

    Now BeatBlogging.Org serves a really niche audience and is a non-profit that isn’t concerned with driving massive amounts of traffic, so it’s not even the greatest example. If I were a beatblogger about an NFL football team, for example, I’d make sure to have content multiple times a day. Trust me, with a mainstream, popular beat like NFL football, people will check in many times a day, searching for new content.

    How to get more quantity without sacrificing quality:

    • Breaking posts up — If you’re used to writing long, “definitive” posts for print, stop it. Many posts are better broken up into digestible chunks. Plus all that background you have to throw into many print stories can be tossed out. Links will suffice, and your blog already provides all the background user’s need. On the Web, people are much more likely to read four 500-word blog posts than they are to read one 2,000-word blog post. By breaking posts up into digestible chunks, you can make it easier for your readers to comprehend what they are reading, while also getting more content without sacrificing quality.
    • Link journalism — Every blogger should engage in link journalism, the practice of curating links to useful content around the Web on a beat. This is an easy way to create quality content that user’s will love. I have link journalism in the side rail of this blog, and it’s updated several times a day. I might break it out into separate blog posts, but the point is link journalism is a good way to get more content on your blog. Sites/tools like Publish2 make link journalism incredibly easy.
    • Don’t be afraid of lists and bullets — A lot of journalists can get overwhelmed by the thought of blogging because they are used to writing inverted pyramid stories that have to flow a certain way, but good blogging doesn’t have to be so formulaic or time consuming. A good blog will sometimes just have posts that are almost entirely a bullet-point list. People love lists because they are so easy to digest. Plus, it’s easier to write a post centered around a bulleted list than it is to write a standard print story. The easier it is to produce content, the more you can produce.

    Here are the previous posts in this series:

    « Older Entries

    Newer Entries »