Showing posts with label mobile. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mobile. Show all posts

Thursday, August 15, 2013

SORRY, MARSHALL McLUHAN, BUT MOBILE IS NOW THE MESSAGE

One of my earliest posts on this blog was headlined: "MOBILE: THE NEW PROPHECY NEWSPAPERS CAN'T AFFORD TO IGNORE."

And -- the possibility of brainwashing by my friend Steve Buttry, Digital Transformation Editor for Digital First Media and Journal Register Co., notwithstanding -- I am beginning to see what I consider to be proof positive (albeit on a microcosmic scale) of that on my blog dashboard.

Since starting The Ancient Newspaper Editor in April, I have been seeing steady growth in the percentage of page views I get from the various mobile platforms such as iPhone, iPad, Android, Linux and even Blackberry.

At the outset, about 12 percent of my page views were from mobile. When I checked today, I noticed that of the thousand of page views I've had since the blog began, a cumulative 28 percent have come via mobile. That is second only to the page views I have gotten over all from the Windows platform and it appears that the percentage of mobile views is growing almost daily.

Over the past month, the percent of mobile page view reached just over 30 percent. Last week it climbed to just over 32 percent. And in the last 24 hours it climbed to nearly 44 percent, eclipsing even Windows, which accounted for 38 percent of The Ancient Newspaper Editor's page views during the period.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this is growing affirmation of the validity and urgency of message that newspaper industry's mobile gurus like Buttry are trying to get across.

I continue to worry, however, that newspapers are still moving far too slowly to devise and implement their mobile strategies while they become more deeply mired in the continuing pay wall/no pay wall debate.

Wake up newspaper owners, publishers and editors this is a boat you can ill afford to miss and it's just about to leave port.

Of course, since I am now retired, I have no further personal stake in this, other than the fact that I spent nearly 44 years in the newspaper industry and still love it and see it as vitally important the public good.

-30- 
 
If  you enjoy reading this blog, please share it and it's link with your friends and colleagues. Thank you.
 
Your thoughts and comments are welcomed 

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

NEWSPAPER REPORTER: AMERICA'S WORST JOB?

 
  This just in from CNN.com:
             
Careercast.com lists best and worst jobs in America
 
Careercast.com asks this question every year: What are the worst jobs in America? What are the best?
Well the list is out, and it looks like newspaper reporters officially have the worst job in America, with a median income of about $36,000 a year.
The study takes into account things like income, industry outlook, stress and physical demands in its rankings.
The top 5 list of worst jobs include:
1- Newspaper reporter
2- Lumberjack
3- Enlisted military
4- Actor
5- Oil rig worker

Now that we know about the worst, what about the best? Being an actuary tops the list, with an income around $87,000 a year.
The top 5 list of the best jobs include:
1- Actuary
2- Biochemical engineer
3- Software engineers
4- Augiologist
5- Financial planner.


Please note that in this latest poll, "newspaper reporter" has managed to claw its way to the pinnacle of the "Worst Jobs" list, replacing "lumberjack," which formerly was the top worst job. At the top of the "Best Jobs" list is "actuary," you know, those wonderful folks who massage statistics for insurance companies to determine when you are likely to have a major car wreck or a fatal heart attack early enough to cancel your policy before having a major payout. As I see it, this is still further proof that when the world, as we know it, ends, the only things left will be cockroaches and insurance companies.

Of course, it's easy to make jokes about this sort of survey which takes into account only, as noted in the CNN story, things like income, industry outlook, stress and physical demands. Glaringly missing as being among the considered factors are things like the importance of the occupation to society and the satisfaction derived from doing the job.

For those of us who've been in the newspaper business for any length of time, low rankings of the reporter's craft are nothing new. When I came into the business 43 years ago, it was widely known that on the "who-do-you-trust" scale, reporters ranked just above used car salesmen near the bottom of the list. That was even before the advent of "best-and-worst-job" lists.

As you might expect, I disagree that being a newspaper reporter is the worst job in America. But, when you take into account the factors used by careercast.com to come up with that ranking you can understand how it might have been arrived at.

In terms of income, let's face it, when we came into this business we did so with the understanding  that we would never get rich if we chose to stick with it. And in recent years, considering the condition of the business, that is getting even less likely what with layoffs, furloughs, actual pay reductions and no raises in years, unless you are working in a Newspaper Guild shop where there are contractual increases in scale up to, usually, five or six years of experience.

As for industry outlook, well, see the above. It's no secret that the newspaper industry is in trouble and is making nowhere near the border line obscene profits it previously made -- once about double the profits of most other U.S. industries. It was that level of profits that attracted the "outside investors," who today are putting on the squeeze that has shrunk every department in nearly every newspaper across the country in an effort to maintain those returns. The fact, however, is that, in general, newspapers are still at least as profitable as the average American industry while continuing to be the only industry that not only still sells its product for less than it costs to produce it, but has also resorted to giving its product away for free via the Internet.

The stress of the job is also something I think most of us understood coming in. Any job where you are constantly on deadline and racing with the clock from the moment you arrive in the morning until you leave in the evening is by definition stressful and that's on an ordinary news day. Then, when you add things like a terrorist bombing, a plant explosion, a tornado, a hurricane, a jetliner crash or any of the myriad of other breaking news stories that require extraordinary effort to cover --  and do so quickly and accurately -- the stress level can reach a near breaking point. Sometimes I think that the only job more stressful than being a newspaper reporter might be brain surgeon, minus the exorbitant fees, huge house and garage full of classic cars.

Of course, when it gets to the physical demand of the job...well, not so much. For sure, it is significantly more physically demanding to be lumberjack, the supposed second worse job. Let's face it, newspaper reporters don't to a lot of heavy lifting, except maybe to every now and then move a large stack of accumulated newspapers from on tops of their desks to the recycling barrel way across the newsroom.

What surveys like careercast.com's best and worst jobs ranking don't take into account is the satisfaction of doing the job and doing it well. That's what still keeps so many of us in the newspaper business despite the low pay, the jakey industry outlook and the enormous stress. We do it because we firmly believe it to be a job that is important to society and this is especially true in today's era of so much opinionated and tainted misinformation that clogs the web and social media. We do it because, at the end of the day, there is still no feeling like seeing your name at the top of that column of type that is a story you had to struggle mightily, despite sources dodging you or obfuscating at every turn, to gather and write -- and write well -- against the pressure of time, with an editor screaming in your ear, "gotta have it and gotta have it NOW."

Yep, I suppose that by the way careercast.com measures it, being a newspaper reporter might just be the worst job in America. However, by the way most of us who are in or have been in the business measure it, it remains among the most noble, meaningful and selfless of occupations -- not to mention being just a whole hell of a lot more fun than being an actuary.

                                                       -30-

Your comments are welcome.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

NEWSROOMS: WHERE LEGENDS ARE BORN (PART 1)

Note: This is the first of what will be a probably intermittent series of posts on newsroom legends. I hope that whoever reads them will find  them interesting, fun and not too overly self indulgent.
                                                          *********

After nearly 43 years in the business, I have learned many things, among them is the fact that that there are two absolutely immutable truths of newspapering. First, when you spend a career in newspapers and look back, you will realize that no two days were ever exactly the same. I am not sure that anyone in any other business can honestly say that. Second, there is no other workplace on the face of the planet like a newsroom for longer variety or reasons than I can't even begin to list here, but all of you who are, or have been, news people know what I mean.

One of the things that makes -- or at least before the spread of corporate ownership and the introduction of domineering HR departments used to make --  newsrooms incredibly interesting environments to work in are the legends that are born there, many of which would give today's HR directors a severe case of the willies.

Like most legends, those growing out of newsrooms are a mixture of facts and hearsay that alter with each retelling until the kernel of truth that lies beneath them becomes hard to identify. Many of the tales growing out of the nation's newsrooms have their genesis in the fact that once upon a time they were home to little in the way of political correctness, or, for that matter, correctness of any sort. That began to change, I think, with the introduction of computers, carpet and corporate HR, but has not and will not ever disappear completely. That may be due, in large part, to the fact that every newsroom seems to be an island of misfit toys. I've never worked in any newsroom that didn't have more binders full of legends than Mitt Romney had binders full of women. Sometimes the legends involve people who have worked in the newsroom. Sometimes they are about stories the newspaper has covered.

Shortly after joining the staff of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram as business editor in 1982, I began to notice that every now and then I would see other staffers who'd been there longer wearing t-shirts that on the front had a cartoon of a little dog and the inscription: "When frozen dogs are outlawed." On the back was another cartoon of the dog lying on its back, stiff with its legs pointed skyward, "X"s for eyes and the inscription: "Only outlaws will have frozen dogs."

Finally, I asked someone what that was all about. I was told it involved a much covered murder that occurred several years earlier in a small Texas town a few dozen miles south of the Dallas-Fort Worth area involving a man who had been paroled after may years imprisonment at the Texas State Penitentiary in Huntsville. Upon his release, he moved back to the small town and into the house that had been left to him by his deceased parents. He landed a menial job, acquired a small dog and had every intention of living there peaceably for the rest of his life. The dog pretty much became his constant companion and only friend. Unfortunately, it also took to relieving itself on the beautiful flower beds of the two elderly sisters who lived next door. The sisters, upset with the little dog's urination habits spoke to the aging ex-con who promised to make the dog stop, but was unable to reason with the pooch.

One evening, he came home and was horrified to find his little dog dead on the front porch. Distraught and unable to immediately part with his friend, he put the dog in the freezer and began to drown his sorrows with booze. After several days of drinking, he started asking question around the neighborhood, trying to find out what had happened to his little dog. Finally, some kids told him that the elderly women next door had been suspected of poisoning other animals who had opted to use their flower beds as a latrine. The thought that his little dog had been poisoned so upset the ex-con that he took to several more days of drinking while he screwed up his courage enough to confront his neighbor ladies.

Finally, days after the dogs demise, he was ready. He went to the freezer to retrieve the dog, which by that time had become frozen stiffer than a supermarket turkey. He tucked the frozen pooch under his arm and headed next door. He knocked on the front door which one of the sisters partially open and then slammed in his face when she saw the rigid hound. The ex-con knocked again. This time the door was opened just a crack and he was told by one of the sisters to go away before she called the police. She tried to slam the door shut again, but he forced it open, barged in, got into and argument with the ladies and, in his drunken stupor, ended up beating them both to death with the frozen dog.

Just how true all of this is, I must admit, I have no idea. A further investigation by me into all of the facts never materialized while I worked at the Startlegram. I have tried in the intervening years to research the incident online, but to no avail since it occurred before the era of computerized court records or newspaper archives. All I know is that there must have been some basis in truth or the paper's staffers involved in the coverage would never have had the "When Frozen Dogs Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Frozen Dog" t-shirts printed.

In newsrooms, stories often grow into legends and so do people. One news person who became a legend in his own time and about whom many stories were and, I suspect, still are told was Norman E. Isaacs, who was the executive editor of the Courier-Journal and Louisville Times when I started working there in January 1970 -- my first job out of college. Isaacs is widely regarded as the preeminent newspaper editor of the middle third of the 20th Century, in large part because he is the man considered responsible for instituting the code of ethics that most American journalists live by today and because he had an absolutely brilliant news sense that led to him and his papers to win three Pulitzer Prizes during his career. Under his guidance, the Courier-Journal and Times came to be regarded as among the five best papers in the United States. He also had a legendary temper which earned him the nickname "Stormin' Norman." He may have been one of the last of the newsroom absolute dictators and would have given today's newspaper HR directors both a heart attack and a stroke.

I met Isaacs just once before he left the paper a few month after I started working in the Indiana Bureau, headquartered on the third floor of the American Bank building in downtown New Albany, Ind., right across the Ohio River from Louisville. That meeting was on the day I was being interviewed for the job and found myself being taken from one senior editor's office to another for a brief introduction. After meeting Louisville Times Managing Editor Bob Clark and then Courier-Journal Managing Editor George Gill -- who, like me, was a product of the journalism school at Indiana University -- and carrying on 10 or 15 minute conversations with each, I was ushered into Isaacs' office. He spent a minute or two looking over my resume, stopping for a second to say, "Indiana University, good school." Then he went on reading and stopped again, looked up and said, "So you were in the Navy? Good. That means you at least can probably at least follow orders." With that, the brief meeting was over. When we left the office, I was sure that I had not gotten the job. So, I was surprise when Gil Neal, the Indiana bureau editor, who had been squiring me around said, "That went well. I think he likes you."

I got the job and several month later found myself in the middle of what was to become one of the Stormin' Norman legends.

During my first several months in the bureau, there were lots of good stories and things were going extremely well until the news seemed to just dry up as summer approached. Bit but bit, much of the bureau staff of eight reporters sank into a barely productive doldrums. Everybody, that is but Brenda Tyree and Bob Scully, two of our three old pros in the bureau. Somehow, the two of them just kept chugging along with the same high level of production of great quality copy they had always been their hallmark. Despite that, the overall production by the bureau had slipped to abysmal.

The bureau's production -- or, maybe I should say, lack of production -- level did not go unnoticed by Isaacs, who summoned Bureau Chief Gil Neal to his office across the river to "God damned explain what the hell is going on over there."

Nothing, but nothing, in world made Gil more nervous than having to explain anything to Stormin' Norman. With a great deal of trepidation, Gil showed up at Isaacs' office the next morning and was immediately brought before the boss who launched into a long tirade peppered with language that might have made even the crustiest sailor blush.

When the quaking Gil was finally given a chance to  "explain," it was his intention to let Isaacs know that not everyone had lapsed in to minimal productivity and that Brenda and Bob were still doing great work. He at first hemmed and hawed until Stormin' Norman again demanded to know "what the hell is the problem."

That's when Gil blurted out, "well, Brenda and Bob..." But, before he could get in another word, Isaacs slammed his fist down on the desk, saying, "Well, fire them!"

"But, but," Gil responded.

"No buts, you go back there and fire them right now," Isaacs ordered.

With his tail between his legs, Gil drove back the New Albany and dutifully fired the only two people in the bureau who didn't deserve to find themselves out the door.

Although is was in no way the right thing to do, it turned out to be another brilliant move on the part of Norman Isaacs, because it scared the hell out of the rest of us and bureau productivity immediately began setting new records.

                                                          -30-




Thursday, April 11, 2013

MOBILE: THE NEW PROPHECY NEWSPAPERS CAN'T AFFORD TO IGNORE

Thirty-seven years ago, the dons of the newspaper industry ignored and even ridiculed Courier Journal and Louisville Times Publisher Barry Bingham Jr. when he delivered a prophecy in which he predicted that within 10 years newspapers would be delivered electronically.

I guess you might say that as it turned out Bingham was wrong, at least about the timing, since the electronic delivery that we are all very familiar with today did not come in any serious form until nearly two decades after he was among the first to recognize where the industry was -- or should have been -- headed.

But, was he in fact wrong? I say no. He just did not, at first, anticipate several factors that slowed the process. First, the Internet, as we know it today, took a little longer to grow and develop than he anticipated. Second, it took a little longer than he expected for the means of receiving the electronic newspaper -- the home computer -- to catch on and its price to modify sufficiently to a point where it was affordable for the average American family. In full fairness to Bingham, within two years of his original prediction, he altered the time stamp, saying that the electronic newspaper was, instead, 15 year in the future. However, even with that newspapers continued in their fat, sassy and almost obscenely profitable way to ignore what a growing number of business executives in other industries were beginning to see as the inevitable Internet revolution that really built up a head of steam with the establishment in 1985 of AOL and its rapid growth in popularity as a home service provider.

There were some early Internet experiments by newspapers -- like StarText, a paid content model that was in operation at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram when I joined the staff there as business editor in 1982 -- but most languished and died before the home computer boom began in earnest in the 1990s.

Finally, in the mid-1990s, newspapers figured they'd better get on board with what was happening and most began establishing websites as stepchildren of their news operations, with little thought being given to the revenue generation possibilities of the Internet or the idea that just maybe the information explosion it was generating might jeopardize the position of newspapers as a primary source of news. Despite trends that were steadily growing more obvious, the primary focus of newspapers remained on their print product, with little serious strategic planning being done to take advantage of the possibilities the Internet provided.

Then -- and it seemed as if it happened almost overnight -- the panic set in. Suddenly, after years of complacency, we found ourselves playing catch up and some how most papers came to the conclusion that the best thing they could do to rapidly gain ground was to start giving away for free the content they were still trying to sell with their print product.

That was then, but this is now. A new opportunity is at hand and its name is MOBILE and the newspaper industry can't afford to be behind the curve when it comes to moving rapidly to take advantage of the possibilities it presents.

We already know that more and more people every day are turning to the growing variety of smart phones and tablet computers to get their news and information on the go. But is the newspaper industry, stigmatized by plummeting print circulation, dropping advertising revenue and declining profits really ready to make the investment it will take to move into the world of mobile in a big way or will it ignore mobile's prophets like Steve Buttry of Digital First Media and Cory Bergman, general manage of NBC News Digital's Breaking News?

Bergman on Wednesday had an extremely interesting post on the Poynter Institutes website headlined: "5 reasons mobile will disrupt journalism like the Internet did a decade ago." If you haven't read it, you should and here is the link: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/media-lab/mobile-media/204107/5-reasons-mobile-will-disrupt-journalism-like-the-internet-did-a-decade-ago/.

Frankly, I believe that Bergman's article should be a call to action for every newspaper in the United States. If what he says is true, and I firmly believe it is, our industry cannot afford to ignore the new prophets of mobile the way it did Barry Bingham Jr. in 1976.

                                                          -30-

Your comments are welcome.