Andrew Lark

BW On The Best Of The New Web

BW has a great wrap-up of the best of the web, including one of my faves, Digg.com. And another, Basecamp.

Media Companies...

It's bothered me for ages that media keep reporting that Google and Yahoo are media companies. Afterall, Yahoo is a slef declared lifestyle engine. The reason is bugs me is that determining a company is a media company on the basis that they make revenue from advertising seems pretty narrow. What about content creation? Reporting? All that other good stuff. Aren't they merely content repackagers with little IP in content creation?

Anyway, enough of the rant... Seems Yahoo is about to head - albeit in a very small way - down the road to being a media company. The NYT reports that they are appointing a Journo to start covering, of all things wars:

The Web site, called "Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone" will focus entirely on Mr. Sites's travels as a war correspondent and will use nearly every kind of format the Internet allows. His reports will begin Sept. 26.

Mr. Sites, who is 42, has long been comfortable using new technology and the Internet as part of his reporting, from shooting his own video to writing blogs from places like Kosovo and Afghanistan. The use of technology, he said, allows him "to report in ways that haven't been done routinely in the network news business."

They point out that this isn't a Blog, V/Blog or any such thing. No, no, no...

Mr. Sites said he hoped that Yahoo users understood that what he was doing was different from the mass of opinion blogs and other Web sites.

"We are a journalistic entity," he said, "trying to do things in a responsible way you don't always see on the Internet.

So there you go. The Internet company doesn't want to be like Web 2.0. It wants to be like, well, The New York Times...

From over at ZDNet...

Steve Gillmore says:

What's new is the insistent voice of the blogosphere beginning to dominate the conversation between vendors and customers. It's more of a zero sum game than many are willing to accept. Analysts are consolidating (read: contracting) and tech news has been commoditized to something approaching loss leader. Folks like Stephen Shankland and Ephraim Schwartz are increasingly providing analysis in their beat areas, and of course the Redmonk boys are open-sourcing their methodology if not their recommendations.

Yes!

The SNAFUs Continue...

Newsweek reported false, unsubstantiated rumors as fact. They falsely reported that U.S. interragators in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran by flushing it down the toilet, sparking riots across the globe. They took their time in correcting this massive error and buried it when it was time to face the rioters. This pretty much says it all...

Newsweek may have admitted Sunday that its sloppy reporting, about how a U.S. soldier at Guantanamo Bay flushed a Koran down a toilet, led to riots in Afghanistan which killed at least 15 people, but they hardly made their concession prominent in the May 23 edition of the magazine, especially online where, on the magazine's home page, you'd have to guess that this headline, "The Islamic World: How a Fire Broke Out," had something to do with a retraction. And to read Editor Mark Whitaker's message, you'd have to know to click on "Letters and Live Talk" in a left side column, then, under "More," choose "The Editors' Desk." And even then, whether online or in the hard copy, Whitaker didn't approach an apology until the last sentence of his last paragraph: "We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst."

Here's the story on "How A Fire Broke Out". And here's Newsweek's somewhat pathetic response. Shame on you!

Stand Alone Journalists...

It's great to see a dialogue on new definitions emerge. We need them to seperate bloggers from the journalists that aren't necessarily part of the big media machine.

Stand alone jounralist is a a term coined by Chris Nolan. Here's his definition:

is someone who works to get the stories they find interesting told in an honest and forthright manner without the benefit of working for a larger news outlet. That doesn't mean they're objective or impartial; it means they're honest about their points of view or assumptions. A stand alone journalist understands that the main job is to inform readers; and the ethics that salaried journalists have when it comes to fairness, accuracy and honesty aren't just phrases. They're a discipline for doing the work that needs to be done: getting your facts right, your assumptions validated, your arguments well grounded.

She goes on to say:

Stand alone journalists are the next iteration of on-line news professionals. They stand alone because they aren't salaried by existing news outlets. They aren't part of an institution but seek to become one. They may be freelancers--many are--but the work they do on the web isn't under contract for a larger entity.

For more, Jay has the definitive guide over at PressThink.

Monkchips On..

James hits on a key point that I keep debating with others (but mainly with myself). Starting with the premise that radio will die (it might not but bear with me) you ask what killed it... What killed it was the device with 20,000 tunes on it in my pocket - and soon - my jukebox pf tunes and podcasts streaming to my phone. And the dozens and dozens of podcasts on that iPod that are as rich in diversity as they are shallow in content. But they are mine. I don't have to listen to the same XM tracks over and over again. I don't have to put up with lousy reception. I don't have to listen to another predictable news story giving me the news I don't want and that was generally printed yesterday. I simply subscribe to the Long Tail.

Here's what James had to say...

The biggest problem for News Corporation may be Long Tail competition. The company's approach is avowedly mainstream, which often means pandering to lowest common denominators, and certainly means building mass markets. In the TivoSkypoGoogleosphere sphere though, views tend to be fractured, diverse, legion. Perhaps i am mistaken but i feel the future will be about diversity. It will be about lots and lots and lots of niches. It will be about the nouveau niche (via Doc, his stuff rocks of course, even if i do have to drive over a bump in the road to get it).

BusinessWeek Gets Blogging...

BusinessWeek's Tech beat ports to a blog format. Take a look at this posting from Justin. This is great. If all tech stories posted over here it would be even better. The posts are also under-hyperlinked. I guess to keep us in the site - which is Ok given they ahve to earn money doing this.

Mainstream Media Meltdown...

Chris has a story worth reading...

And Another...

Journo being paid to do political reporting on the side is busted and fired. Apparently Purcell disclosed his 'night job':

He said he disclosed the environmental state contract to the Herald and got clearance from the state ethics commission. His state contract pays $60 per hour, with a maximum of $10,000.

So what's the problem?

If Purcell was reporting on the people or organizations paying him to also craft op-eds and assist in other writing then there clearly is a massive conflict of interest. A bit like an industry analyst being paid for consulting by a company and then writing independent reports on that company and the industry.

But if Purcell wasn't, what's the harm in taking a 'night job' - I think they call it freelance work. (I'm being facetious). Is the implication of much of the commentary on this that a journo can only do freelance work inside the profession - other reporting?

Where this is different - and Malkin gets at this albeit with an extreme parallel - is that this is in effect a Government subsidy. She says,  "government subsidies for conservative columnists are as odious as government subsidies for crucifix-defiling "artists". She's getting at the perception issue:

Do we really need another paid partisan hack to confirm what the liberal MSM already unfairly assumes of all conservatives in the media--that we're all on the payroll of the Republican Party and incapable of independent journalism?

Dan is pretty clear on his POV:

Two things here. First, the Herald's initial response was shameful. This guy should have been shown the door the second his government payoff became known.

Second, the conservative wing of the blogosphere has been all too silent to the poisoning of journalistic integrity represented by this example and others like it. (There are exceptions, I'm glad to say.)

This needs to stop if the media - the whole media - are to retain credibility. And the same standards need to be extended to the world of analysts. The same rule applies whether it is a corporate or government subsidy.

There is a difference between transparency and opacity. Behavior like this drives opacity, even when disclosing the details in advance with the intent of being transparent and ethical.

Media Wars

Interesting read over at Slate on this week's media wars.

This week two giant companies took extraordinary efforts to gin up more favorable press coverage. GM, the largest automaker, said it would yank its advertising from the Los Angeles Times—the largest paper in the nation's largest car market—because it was unhappy with the Times' coverage. And Wal-Mart, which generally treats the press like a dead fish, invited reporters to its Bentonville, Ark., bunker for a media day. - Daniel Gross

I've been in their shoes before - both with media and analysts. Respect for independent journalism or analysis shouldn't come with a requirement to support that "reporting" with advertising dollars. I'm surprised more companies don't exercise their right to not fund views that don't agree with.

It's interesting that, even in the Slate story, there is an implication that advertising dollars result in a more compliant media - and that is the intent of these companies. Maybe so. But maybe these companies just don't want to fund those views they regard to be as unfair or inaccurate. Or, whose bias they accept but don't agree with and don't want to fund. The implicit assumption in the media's argument is that journalists and their editors are fair, professional and without bias. Which as we have seen in the last year couldn't be further from the truth.

There is also an assumption that companies need newspapers to reach consumers. That they need reporting. Maybe so - but nothing like to the degree they once did. Look at any of the recent readership surveys. And it's not like companies are short of alternate ways to reach their target audiences these days.

Where the Slate story is right is that if companies engage in these kinds of activity with the belief they can influence the analysis or reporting, they are generally wrong. Especially when it comes to Big Media. All they are likely to do is aggravate the situation.

For embattled executives, it's easy and convenient to think that the media—not their business model or management—is the problem. Morgan Stanley CEO Philip Purcell, fighting off an attempted coup, told the Financial Times today that the challenges will go away if the media stop quoting the dissidents. - Daniel Gross, Slate

I think the criticism of Wal-Mart - and the packaging of the two stories together - is pretty unfair. Wal-Mart is doing nothing more than engaging with the media in a fair and reasonable way. They are not saying this is the only way to engage with them. They are not saying don't do your own reporting. And BTW - access in many instances unfortunately does make the journalistic heart grow fonder.

In essence, the moral here for communicators are common ones - pick your battles carefully and get your own house in order before criticizing another. And be clear on what you are trying to achieve - are you trying to punish the media, make a point or simply not fund a point of view? If it's the last of these, you'd better prepared for a long hard road. If it's the first two, there are much better ways of achieving your goal.