You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2009.

It’s very true that traditional, large media isn’t hiring much. Jobs at the country’s largest properties are disappearing at a faster rate than the poounds on the Biggest Loser.

But that doesn’t mean that journalism jobs are dead. And it does mean a shift in where journalists ply their trade.

The New York Times is widely regarded as having the largest journalistic force in the country, with roughly 1,150 reporters and editors. Only thing is, that may not be right. AOL has more than 3,000 journalists, and it’s not the only new media company trying to get into content game. Yahoo and ESPN are elbowing their way into sports journalism, taking some of the nation’s top talent and turning them into celebrities.

The good news: this means jobs for journalists. The bad news: This puts more pressure on traditional media that continues to struggle in an economic downturn.

The bottom line: When looking for a job in journalism, look beyond tradition.

The views expressed on this blog are mine alone.

 

There’s still lots of talk about whether newspapers can make money by charging for content. There’s a debate on LinkedIn, and Reflections of a Newsosaur recently weighed in, too. The positions are still pretty much the same — newspapers can’t because news isn’t a commodity anymore; or newspapers can only charge for certain, narrow content.

I think something different: I believe newspapers can charge for content if they do so as part of a single subscription strategy. In other words, a newspaper’s valuable subscriber gets all news on all devices free — in print, online access, mobile, e-readers (eventually) and other e-pub applications (like Adobe Air). One price and they can access all the content they want, whenever they want, from a number of different devices easily and conveniently. That’s the marketing strategy — ease and convenience.  Convenience, nowadays, resonates with the public more than the news we provide. We should emphasis that through this ease and convenience, we’re making it easier for our subscribers to live their lives, because we keep them informed, help them save money (through coupons) and keeping them abreast of news at it breaks.

Everyone else has to get a subscription of some kind. If they don’t, they don’t get to access our products.

The problem with this strategy is it would require all publishers to play along. That will be a huge challenge. But for the sake of the industry, publishers need to find a legal way to get together and talk about how to make this happen.

The views expressed on this blog are mine alone.

After a hiatus, it’s time to start blogging again.

I anyone surprised that the public perception of the media continues to decline? Recent polls show an astoundingly low number of people who believe in the accuracy of what they read or hear. No wonder. It’s because those polls don’t differentiate between journalists and entertainers.

The reporters at the New York Times are journalists; Rush Limbaugh is not. Bill Moyers is a journalist; Glenn Beck is not. Katie Couric is a journalist; Keith Olbermann is not.

But that simple fact — who is a journalist and who isn’t — is lost on most Americans. They hear vitriol from talking heads with a microphone and confuse them with reporters. It just happened again, when President Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize. There is a legitimate discussion over whether he deserved it. But that discussion wasn’t driven by journalists; it was driven by talking head with an agenda who used the occasion to vent their spleen.

That’s certainly their right, and they certainly have a niche group of followers who hang on every word. At the same time, it’s incumbent on us to separate journalists from the entertainers. We haven’t done a good job at that, and as a result, our profession suffers.

The views expressed on this blog are mine alone.