The Adjustment Period
I can honestly say that I have made a smooth transition from Texas to Washington D.C. Despite the fact that I felt like a “Sunday Driver” whenever using the metro system or walking on the sidewalks near the Capital for the first week or so, I have felt comfortable. I appreciate the diversity of the city, and, albeit, people may not be as openly friendly or cordial because their schedules are so time oriented (especially with public transportation and work), people are still helpful if you ask. Now that I have shaken off the initial uncertainty of where I am going on a day-to-day basis, I have little anxiety about my “new city.”
I have not shared a room with someone since my freshman year of college, and I had never shared a room before that (I am an only child). I was worried about how that would affect my sleeping habits, especially since I had my apartment to myself since us TCU communications interns moved in early. In a very fluke turn of events, it turns out my roommate went to my high school. I do not know what the percentages were on that happening. Nonetheless, he does not snore—and that was my main concern!
I have figured out the hard way throughout college that good friends do not always translate to good roommates; in most cases it is better to have a good roommate who might not be your best friend rather than rooming with a friend you can’t stand living with. I realize that I may not be going out with my three roommates on the weekends or meeting them after work frequently, but for now it seems that we are very compatible within our living situation.
I have mainly been heavily sports oriented as a reporter in college. I was extremely excited about the opportunity to work at National Geographic Channel, but unsure if I would enjoy the work within their communications/media relations department. After my first week, I can honestly say I truly love my office atmosphere, the people I work with and the work I do. While I do have some busy work to do, such as checking to make sure tapes/DVDs that come back from our editing company are properly branded and titled, it isn’t what I spend the large portion of my day on. As of now, I have been writing bios for season and series premiers for our weekly and monthly media newsletters. I will learn how to use the actual design template (I believe through Dreamweaver) this week. I know that my daily tasks and duties list will grow in time, but it is nice to know that the little things won’t be consuming my entire work day. I also know that I will have larger projects to work on with the other communications intern (she is a senior at George Washington).
It is a young office environment—my supervisor, Julie Frazier, held my intern position just a few years ago. Her supervisors and the other communications employees are quite friendly, funny and helpful, as is my intern counterpart. The communications team had lunch on our first day and I am sure that there will be other times we meet for lunch or after work also. I couldn’t ask for a more colorful and vibrant office environment, in all honestly.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Politico and TBD: Breaking the Mold
It was the organization we were all waiting for, the name in news everybody we talked to or bumped into just had to mention. Simply put, Politico.
We were first introduced, however, to TCU alumnus Steve Buttry. Buttry, the Director of Community Engagement for TBD. TBD (literally standing for To Be Determined) is a website and television partnership that provides local D.C. metro area news as opposed to the national politics within D.C. which is covered by Politico.
Innovation, no surprise here, was the key to TBD’s rising popularity and website traffic. To the best of Buttry’s knowledge, TBD.com and WJLA (news channel 8) are the first TV/Web partners. Buttry believed the model would work better than what has become the more traditional newspaper/Web partnership because the TV/Web news cycle runs in a similar time frame.
TBD.com has also changed the model for aggregating news, including a partnership with bloggers by directing traffic to their websites, sharing ad revenue with these bloggers as well helping these bloggers make their own ad revenue.
We had a chance to meet some of the boots on the ground at TBD, and the level of community engagement, especially with new media, really stuck out to me. The concept that Twitter had a far greater impact when the people following your tweets actually knew you personally made sense. Some of the TBD.com staff literally will go out to coffee shops and happy hours to engage with the community. Dan Victory, a Community Host for TBD, said they already have 3,500 Twitter followers.
Allbritton Communications Company is what puts TBD and Politico under the same umbrella (they share the same tech staff and office space).
Jim VandeHei, Executive Editor of Politico, explained how the journalism business model made no sense. Why does the best talent in the newsroom receive only about 10 percent more in salary than the worst reporter in the newsroom?
I liked the New York Yankees model he used to explain how Politico branded itself as a quick, credible and reliable news source. Because Allbritton is the parent company of Politico, they simply were able to pay premium salaries to the best reporters and correspondents in the business. Politico is in some sense a Washington politics all-star team; if you can’t beat them, buy’em out. VandeHei firmly believed that there wasn’t a price tag you could put on the best, such as Mike Allen, who is now Politico Chief White House Correspondent.
The simple concept of specialization almost makes too much sense, but especially in D.C., it is a perfect way for Politico to stay ahead of the game and focused on just Washington politics. Pay for the best political reporters and correspondents and focus on politics, and it will and has created a buzz in D.C.—which is why the Politico business model is now being copied.
VandeHei knows that organizations like the National Journal could take the momentum from Politico if they simply do a better job at covering Washington politics.
This healthy competition seems to benefit one demographic the most, the audience and the readers who care about politics in Washington.
We were first introduced, however, to TCU alumnus Steve Buttry. Buttry, the Director of Community Engagement for TBD. TBD (literally standing for To Be Determined) is a website and television partnership that provides local D.C. metro area news as opposed to the national politics within D.C. which is covered by Politico.
Innovation, no surprise here, was the key to TBD’s rising popularity and website traffic. To the best of Buttry’s knowledge, TBD.com and WJLA (news channel 8) are the first TV/Web partners. Buttry believed the model would work better than what has become the more traditional newspaper/Web partnership because the TV/Web news cycle runs in a similar time frame.
TBD.com has also changed the model for aggregating news, including a partnership with bloggers by directing traffic to their websites, sharing ad revenue with these bloggers as well helping these bloggers make their own ad revenue.
We had a chance to meet some of the boots on the ground at TBD, and the level of community engagement, especially with new media, really stuck out to me. The concept that Twitter had a far greater impact when the people following your tweets actually knew you personally made sense. Some of the TBD.com staff literally will go out to coffee shops and happy hours to engage with the community. Dan Victory, a Community Host for TBD, said they already have 3,500 Twitter followers.
Allbritton Communications Company is what puts TBD and Politico under the same umbrella (they share the same tech staff and office space).
Jim VandeHei, Executive Editor of Politico, explained how the journalism business model made no sense. Why does the best talent in the newsroom receive only about 10 percent more in salary than the worst reporter in the newsroom?
I liked the New York Yankees model he used to explain how Politico branded itself as a quick, credible and reliable news source. Because Allbritton is the parent company of Politico, they simply were able to pay premium salaries to the best reporters and correspondents in the business. Politico is in some sense a Washington politics all-star team; if you can’t beat them, buy’em out. VandeHei firmly believed that there wasn’t a price tag you could put on the best, such as Mike Allen, who is now Politico Chief White House Correspondent.
The simple concept of specialization almost makes too much sense, but especially in D.C., it is a perfect way for Politico to stay ahead of the game and focused on just Washington politics. Pay for the best political reporters and correspondents and focus on politics, and it will and has created a buzz in D.C.—which is why the Politico business model is now being copied.
VandeHei knows that organizations like the National Journal could take the momentum from Politico if they simply do a better job at covering Washington politics.
This healthy competition seems to benefit one demographic the most, the audience and the readers who care about politics in Washington.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
AP: Expanding into a Multifaceted News Source
The Associated Press can do what no other news organization is capable of doing—the ability to cover news virtually at any place at any time. In today’s rapidly evolving media atmosphere, that is no longer good enough.
Steven Komarow, Deputy Chief of Bureau, Carole Feldman, Director of News Operations and Budgets, and another AP director discussed what has become an inherent change in mindset from top to bottom at the AP. Whereas the AP has generally been successful as a print and photography organization by selling wholesale news (a concept which Director Lumpkin explained in detail), the advent of Internet news and new media have altered the AP’s direction in providing news.
Not only must the AP give partial credence and attention to notoriously unreliable news sources such as the National Inquirer and TMZ, it must compete with news organizations such as Politico that have become the forerunners of the new breed of “in your face” and instant news which utilizes new media and multifaceted journalism.
The AP, in my opinion, is following a fairly consistent pattern of falling behind the curve in multimedia and cross-format ways of providing news to consumers or their audience base/clientele within the working pieces inside the Beltway. Just like many of the organizations we have visited, they are playing catch up rather than taking the risk of being innovators and trend setters. The AP is now trying to break from the exact mindset that Tom Rosenstiel claimed had contributed to the hole print and broadcast journalism finds itself stuck in.
While the AP may be the only organization that can provide in depth news across the world in an in depth and investigative manner (CNN has tried, but apparently failed), they have had to cut staff and resources just as standard newspapers have.
The general concept Carole and Steve tried to push was the transformation of their print journalists and photographers into multiplatform “AP Reporters.” The ability for their journalists to be able to shoot video, write a print story, conduct a radio interview, and eventually edit packages, seemed to echo a basic idea that has permeated the Schieffer School in the revamping of curriculum. I was shocked, however, that this shift in thinking has only taken place in the last two years for the Associated Press.
Carole said the AP had trained 110 AP writers/photographers to become multiplatform journalists that would be capable of shooting video and writing a story or taking photographs. I assumed those 110 AP journalists might be within the AP D.C. Bureau or within a certain region in the nation; that, in fact, was for the entire domestic AP news service. Why did it take the AP so long to jump onto this concept?
How far will the concept of citizen journalism, be it mobile pictures and videos or tweets, impact legitimate news sources such as the AP? I feel it is a topic that we only brushed the surface on.
Steven Komarow, Deputy Chief of Bureau, Carole Feldman, Director of News Operations and Budgets, and another AP director discussed what has become an inherent change in mindset from top to bottom at the AP. Whereas the AP has generally been successful as a print and photography organization by selling wholesale news (a concept which Director Lumpkin explained in detail), the advent of Internet news and new media have altered the AP’s direction in providing news.
Not only must the AP give partial credence and attention to notoriously unreliable news sources such as the National Inquirer and TMZ, it must compete with news organizations such as Politico that have become the forerunners of the new breed of “in your face” and instant news which utilizes new media and multifaceted journalism.
The AP, in my opinion, is following a fairly consistent pattern of falling behind the curve in multimedia and cross-format ways of providing news to consumers or their audience base/clientele within the working pieces inside the Beltway. Just like many of the organizations we have visited, they are playing catch up rather than taking the risk of being innovators and trend setters. The AP is now trying to break from the exact mindset that Tom Rosenstiel claimed had contributed to the hole print and broadcast journalism finds itself stuck in.
While the AP may be the only organization that can provide in depth news across the world in an in depth and investigative manner (CNN has tried, but apparently failed), they have had to cut staff and resources just as standard newspapers have.
The general concept Carole and Steve tried to push was the transformation of their print journalists and photographers into multiplatform “AP Reporters.” The ability for their journalists to be able to shoot video, write a print story, conduct a radio interview, and eventually edit packages, seemed to echo a basic idea that has permeated the Schieffer School in the revamping of curriculum. I was shocked, however, that this shift in thinking has only taken place in the last two years for the Associated Press.
Carole said the AP had trained 110 AP writers/photographers to become multiplatform journalists that would be capable of shooting video and writing a story or taking photographs. I assumed those 110 AP journalists might be within the AP D.C. Bureau or within a certain region in the nation; that, in fact, was for the entire domestic AP news service. Why did it take the AP so long to jump onto this concept?
How far will the concept of citizen journalism, be it mobile pictures and videos or tweets, impact legitimate news sources such as the AP? I feel it is a topic that we only brushed the surface on.
Monday, August 23, 2010
CSIS: A Bipartisan Think Tank in a Hyper-Partisan Town
Walking into the Center for Strategic and International Studies on 1800 K Street NW, there seemed to be nothing spectacular or out of the ordinary about the board room, auditorium or several floors of cubicles and offices.
Andrew Schwartz, Vice President for External Relations, made it clear, however, that a new building was next on the agenda (see the plans for CSIS’s new home here.
What CSIS lacked in architectural flashiness and grandeur it surly made up for wit substance. Larry Lauer, TCU Vice Chancellor of Government Affairs, said what Schwartz would only confirm: CSIS is the premier bipartisan foreign policy think tank which provides respected policy recommendations and a forum for dialogue for some of the most highly respected and established scholars within academia, government and foreign affairs. CSIS focuses on three key issues: foreign policy, national security and global issues.
Although the CSIS International Councillors and Advisory Board have different political interests and backgrounds, altogether they are bipartisan. The simple question to how CSIS stays a bipartisan, centrist think tank lies in the fact that everyone benefits from an objective policy recommendation from some of the most intelligent and creative experts in foreign policy, national security and global issues today. Schwartz noted that if CSIS Counselors, Councillors and Advisory Board wanted partisan insight into certain issues, then they could go to one of the numerous partisan think tanks and lobbying organizations.
CSIS is also an attractive avenue for the truly passionate individuals in their fields of expertise in foreign policy making. Schwartz and Louis Lauter, CSIS Director of Congressional Relations, noted the elected policy makers on Capitol Hill no longer have the time devote themselves to the premier issues within foreign policy initiatives; the term Schwartz used was “treading water.” The scholars within CSIS devote their time to these certain policy issues.
CSIS has also been used as an intermediary for government and military officials across the globe to make constructive dialogue. CSIS holds a number of “signature events” such as the Statesman’s Forum, The Congressional Dialogue Series as well as the CSIS-Schieffer School Series in Public Policy and the Media.
Max Entman, CSIS Multimedia Manager for External Relations, helped tie together what John Lumpkin helped to describe as a triangular relationship between think tanks, policy makers and the media. Schwartz also touched on the fact that five years ago CSIS was a reactive organization, but that it has now taken a proactive approach to media outreach. CSIS experts now appear on television and radio between 75 to 120 times per month, while CSIS experts and studies are cited between 80 and 100 times per month, according to CSIS.
Entman’s work with iTunes U, reports, short analysis and newsletters have all given those within D.C. and across the nation more direct access to CSIS policy recommendations as well as the forums they host for dialogue on the issues CSIS provides insight towards.
CSIS operates as a non-profit with a $28.7 million budget in 2009. A number of other specific global initiatives CSIS currently pursues include Smart Global Health, Cybersecurity and a number of committee-driven initiatives related to defense issues.
Andrew Schwartz, Vice President for External Relations, made it clear, however, that a new building was next on the agenda (see the plans for CSIS’s new home here.
What CSIS lacked in architectural flashiness and grandeur it surly made up for wit substance. Larry Lauer, TCU Vice Chancellor of Government Affairs, said what Schwartz would only confirm: CSIS is the premier bipartisan foreign policy think tank which provides respected policy recommendations and a forum for dialogue for some of the most highly respected and established scholars within academia, government and foreign affairs. CSIS focuses on three key issues: foreign policy, national security and global issues.
Although the CSIS International Councillors and Advisory Board have different political interests and backgrounds, altogether they are bipartisan. The simple question to how CSIS stays a bipartisan, centrist think tank lies in the fact that everyone benefits from an objective policy recommendation from some of the most intelligent and creative experts in foreign policy, national security and global issues today. Schwartz noted that if CSIS Counselors, Councillors and Advisory Board wanted partisan insight into certain issues, then they could go to one of the numerous partisan think tanks and lobbying organizations.
CSIS is also an attractive avenue for the truly passionate individuals in their fields of expertise in foreign policy making. Schwartz and Louis Lauter, CSIS Director of Congressional Relations, noted the elected policy makers on Capitol Hill no longer have the time devote themselves to the premier issues within foreign policy initiatives; the term Schwartz used was “treading water.” The scholars within CSIS devote their time to these certain policy issues.
CSIS has also been used as an intermediary for government and military officials across the globe to make constructive dialogue. CSIS holds a number of “signature events” such as the Statesman’s Forum, The Congressional Dialogue Series as well as the CSIS-Schieffer School Series in Public Policy and the Media.
Max Entman, CSIS Multimedia Manager for External Relations, helped tie together what John Lumpkin helped to describe as a triangular relationship between think tanks, policy makers and the media. Schwartz also touched on the fact that five years ago CSIS was a reactive organization, but that it has now taken a proactive approach to media outreach. CSIS experts now appear on television and radio between 75 to 120 times per month, while CSIS experts and studies are cited between 80 and 100 times per month, according to CSIS.
Entman’s work with iTunes U, reports, short analysis and newsletters have all given those within D.C. and across the nation more direct access to CSIS policy recommendations as well as the forums they host for dialogue on the issues CSIS provides insight towards.
CSIS operates as a non-profit with a $28.7 million budget in 2009. A number of other specific global initiatives CSIS currently pursues include Smart Global Health, Cybersecurity and a number of committee-driven initiatives related to defense issues.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Face The Nation: Real World CBS
Earlier in the week we had a chance to see a live web cast (Washington Unplugged) in the control room of the CBS Washington Bureau. Today we had a chance to see the real deal—Face the Nation. The most compelling aspects of the morning were not the live broadcast, interviews and discussion, but what occurred behind the scenes and preceding live air time.
I was impressed by Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) quick back-and-forth discussion before the show with author Greg Mortenson (Three Cups of Tea, Stones Into Schools) about the concepts of Islamic and regional justice systems within Afghanistan, tribalism and the basic needs of regional governance and structure within Afghanistan. Although these men had never met, there was instant connection, further initiated by Sen. Graham’s offer to have coffee or lunch with Mortenson to further discuss very specific aspects of Afghan issues.
As Mr. Schieffer noted that his wife felt nervous in control rooms, it became obvious that there was a certain aspect of addiction to the impromptu and chaotic nature of this business. Mr. Schieffer said he secretly wished things would go wrong on the set, even if it was just a way to prepare him for when things did go awry— but why? Because, as Mr. Schieffer put it, he and his colleagues are paid to fly the plane when the wing falls off, and he likes to demonstrate that. Things did go wrong on the set of Face the Nation, behind the scenes obscenities were heard, certain pieces were adjusted timing wise and everything ended up just find; it was clear that the calm after the storm was more rewarding as opposed to there being no storm at all.
Mortenson proved to be a fascinating individual, especially in meeting with him on the set after the show. He truly understands the complexity of tribal and Islamic cultural relativism, the importance of how tribalism has been infused within every aspect of Afghan life and how he can use this delicate system to capitalize on the building of relationships and hospitality once he has gained credibility and trust within certain villages and communities. It sounds similar to having a beat well covered in my eyes…
It is not small feat to pacify the Taliban, especially when it comes to education, but Mortenson figured out the generational discrepancies between the founders of the Taliban and their more gang-like grandchildren. He is more an expert on what needs to be done to truly defeat extremist ideology, which would seem to include the empowerment and improvement of the lives of Afghans at the most basic levels of education, health care and infrastructure.
If there was regret to the day, it would be not following Mr. Schieffer’s advice when speaking with Mortenson: “Is there any question that I should have asked that I have not?”
I was impressed by Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) quick back-and-forth discussion before the show with author Greg Mortenson (Three Cups of Tea, Stones Into Schools) about the concepts of Islamic and regional justice systems within Afghanistan, tribalism and the basic needs of regional governance and structure within Afghanistan. Although these men had never met, there was instant connection, further initiated by Sen. Graham’s offer to have coffee or lunch with Mortenson to further discuss very specific aspects of Afghan issues.
As Mr. Schieffer noted that his wife felt nervous in control rooms, it became obvious that there was a certain aspect of addiction to the impromptu and chaotic nature of this business. Mr. Schieffer said he secretly wished things would go wrong on the set, even if it was just a way to prepare him for when things did go awry— but why? Because, as Mr. Schieffer put it, he and his colleagues are paid to fly the plane when the wing falls off, and he likes to demonstrate that. Things did go wrong on the set of Face the Nation, behind the scenes obscenities were heard, certain pieces were adjusted timing wise and everything ended up just find; it was clear that the calm after the storm was more rewarding as opposed to there being no storm at all.
Mortenson proved to be a fascinating individual, especially in meeting with him on the set after the show. He truly understands the complexity of tribal and Islamic cultural relativism, the importance of how tribalism has been infused within every aspect of Afghan life and how he can use this delicate system to capitalize on the building of relationships and hospitality once he has gained credibility and trust within certain villages and communities. It sounds similar to having a beat well covered in my eyes…
It is not small feat to pacify the Taliban, especially when it comes to education, but Mortenson figured out the generational discrepancies between the founders of the Taliban and their more gang-like grandchildren. He is more an expert on what needs to be done to truly defeat extremist ideology, which would seem to include the empowerment and improvement of the lives of Afghans at the most basic levels of education, health care and infrastructure.
If there was regret to the day, it would be not following Mr. Schieffer’s advice when speaking with Mortenson: “Is there any question that I should have asked that I have not?”
Thursday, August 19, 2010
D.C. Day 4: The True Future of Print Journalism
Possibly the most informative and fascinating day so far this week, we were able to have a candid discussion with Project for Excellence in Journalism founder Tom Rosenstiel, who provided more insight into the future of the journalism field in a two hour time-frame than I have been able to figure out in the last two years as a journalism major. PEJ is now a branch of the Pew Research Center. Rosenstiel knows the true gatekeepers and innovators of media information and technology.
While Rosenstiel had separate answers for why print and broadcast journalism have seen a decline in their business models, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss the print journalism model.
Rosenstiel said that contrary to a common public perception, newspapers are not failing because of readership; in fact, the advent of the Internet has led to audience growth for papers. The problem lies in advertising—websites such as Craigslist.com and eBay have made lucrative revenue sources such as classified ads far less lucrative. While readers have shifted to online versions of newspapers, advertisers have not followed. Rosenstiel described the “lean back media experience,” which readers experience while reading a newspaper for leisure. A reader reads a page, turns the next page to find an ad, and then goes on to the next page. The” lean back media experience” has proved an effective advertising model. However, online advertising has been considered a “lean forward media experience” because an individual is typically searching for specific information while browsing the Web. Advertisements are more likely to be a nuisance rather than just something else to look at while turning the page of a newspaper. Internet advertising has proven largely ineffective, so while print news readership has made a successful transition to online, revenue has not followed. Rosenstiel contended that 80 percent of individuals who get news online have never clicked on an advertisement. While advertising allowed for the growth of newspapers in the 20th century, advertising is now causing print journalism to fall apart in the 21st century.
Rosenstiel argued that there may be hope for print journalism to make a comeback in the 21st century. Another common misconception is that the Internet is free. Most Americans pay for Internet services much like for cable television; ease of access to reach the Internet is also profitable, such as Internet access on cell phones.
Rosenstiel believes that print journalism’s failure has been a lack of forward thinking in combining different mindsets such as design and engineering—a concept that has propelled Apple into the forefront of innovation and technology. Rosenstiel said that roughly 10 percent of readers of major newspapers such as The New York Times would shift to a monthly subscription Internet fee, the cable television model could work for online versions of newspapers. Bundle a group of newspapers together for a flat monthly fee that could be tailored to the preference of an individual. I think it would also be feasible to group newspapers together with other forms of print, such as magazines and books. Have an individual choose an array of newspapers, magazines and books—which could be changed on a monthly basis, for a monthly fee that would be similar to a cable television subscription. The competitive aspect would lie in which print organizations had holding power on month-to-month subscriptions.
Subscriptions are only roughly 20 percent of a revenue basis for papers, according to Rosenstiel. The difference would be in the ability to cut down on the variable costs of traditional print media—printing and shipping of the physical paper, which Rosenstiel said can be as high as 75 percent of a paper’s variable costs. In my opinion, cutting fixed costs such as staff positions-- which seems to be a quick fix to help the bottom line of many papers, hinders quality and in-depth reporting which readers eventually hone in on. Rosenstiel said that some papers have already implemented a weekly model which incorporates a “half week” of sorts. Print and deliver a full print version of a newspaper on the most profitable days—Thursday, Friday and Sunday. Sell considerably condensed versions of the online paper on the other days of the week for profit.
But how does this solve the advertising conundrum? The answer lies in changing a fundamental problem of thinking within the journalism field. Writers providing stories, paid for by advertising. The problem is that the advertising is no long there to support the first half of the equation. Innovation and design must be incorporated by the upcoming generation, according to Rosenstiel. He believes the I-Pad may be the newspaper industry’s savior. The model is designed to be an interactive tablet, so that the only difference between reading a paper on the I-pad and a real newspaper is turning the page on the screen. The hope is that the “lean back media experience” will re-emerge with this type of news consumption, which would bring back advertisers to the newspaper industry.
Rosenstiel contended that once the basic mindset in print journalism has changed to that of more design and innovation, then multiple solutions will arise to fix print journalism’s revenue slide. One example of how print media failed to use innovation and a dual-mindset was in the emergence of real estate and property information online and out of the court houses. An attorney came up with the idea to put deeds and property information online and sell this ease-of-access product to real estate agencies. What other business would constantly dispatch employees to the court houses to access this same basic property information?
For more information on the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Research Center go to: www.journalism.org
Also, here is a related article from the American Journalism Review that I found interesting: http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4427
While Rosenstiel had separate answers for why print and broadcast journalism have seen a decline in their business models, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss the print journalism model.
Rosenstiel said that contrary to a common public perception, newspapers are not failing because of readership; in fact, the advent of the Internet has led to audience growth for papers. The problem lies in advertising—websites such as Craigslist.com and eBay have made lucrative revenue sources such as classified ads far less lucrative. While readers have shifted to online versions of newspapers, advertisers have not followed. Rosenstiel described the “lean back media experience,” which readers experience while reading a newspaper for leisure. A reader reads a page, turns the next page to find an ad, and then goes on to the next page. The” lean back media experience” has proved an effective advertising model. However, online advertising has been considered a “lean forward media experience” because an individual is typically searching for specific information while browsing the Web. Advertisements are more likely to be a nuisance rather than just something else to look at while turning the page of a newspaper. Internet advertising has proven largely ineffective, so while print news readership has made a successful transition to online, revenue has not followed. Rosenstiel contended that 80 percent of individuals who get news online have never clicked on an advertisement. While advertising allowed for the growth of newspapers in the 20th century, advertising is now causing print journalism to fall apart in the 21st century.
Rosenstiel argued that there may be hope for print journalism to make a comeback in the 21st century. Another common misconception is that the Internet is free. Most Americans pay for Internet services much like for cable television; ease of access to reach the Internet is also profitable, such as Internet access on cell phones.
Rosenstiel believes that print journalism’s failure has been a lack of forward thinking in combining different mindsets such as design and engineering—a concept that has propelled Apple into the forefront of innovation and technology. Rosenstiel said that roughly 10 percent of readers of major newspapers such as The New York Times would shift to a monthly subscription Internet fee, the cable television model could work for online versions of newspapers. Bundle a group of newspapers together for a flat monthly fee that could be tailored to the preference of an individual. I think it would also be feasible to group newspapers together with other forms of print, such as magazines and books. Have an individual choose an array of newspapers, magazines and books—which could be changed on a monthly basis, for a monthly fee that would be similar to a cable television subscription. The competitive aspect would lie in which print organizations had holding power on month-to-month subscriptions.
Subscriptions are only roughly 20 percent of a revenue basis for papers, according to Rosenstiel. The difference would be in the ability to cut down on the variable costs of traditional print media—printing and shipping of the physical paper, which Rosenstiel said can be as high as 75 percent of a paper’s variable costs. In my opinion, cutting fixed costs such as staff positions-- which seems to be a quick fix to help the bottom line of many papers, hinders quality and in-depth reporting which readers eventually hone in on. Rosenstiel said that some papers have already implemented a weekly model which incorporates a “half week” of sorts. Print and deliver a full print version of a newspaper on the most profitable days—Thursday, Friday and Sunday. Sell considerably condensed versions of the online paper on the other days of the week for profit.
But how does this solve the advertising conundrum? The answer lies in changing a fundamental problem of thinking within the journalism field. Writers providing stories, paid for by advertising. The problem is that the advertising is no long there to support the first half of the equation. Innovation and design must be incorporated by the upcoming generation, according to Rosenstiel. He believes the I-Pad may be the newspaper industry’s savior. The model is designed to be an interactive tablet, so that the only difference between reading a paper on the I-pad and a real newspaper is turning the page on the screen. The hope is that the “lean back media experience” will re-emerge with this type of news consumption, which would bring back advertisers to the newspaper industry.
Rosenstiel contended that once the basic mindset in print journalism has changed to that of more design and innovation, then multiple solutions will arise to fix print journalism’s revenue slide. One example of how print media failed to use innovation and a dual-mindset was in the emergence of real estate and property information online and out of the court houses. An attorney came up with the idea to put deeds and property information online and sell this ease-of-access product to real estate agencies. What other business would constantly dispatch employees to the court houses to access this same basic property information?
For more information on the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Research Center go to: www.journalism.org
Also, here is a related article from the American Journalism Review that I found interesting: http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4427
D.C. Day 3: Lobbying and Advocacy
Today we ventured to two separate advocate/lobbying groups, both with diverging interests in the public and private sectors. We had a chance to listen to a presentation at TechAmerica, a trade organization that fights for the interests of the entire technology industry on a more “horizontal” level. Representing 1,200 companies, TechAmerica is the industry's largest advocacy organization and is dedicated to helping members' top and bottom lines, according to their website. TechAmerica, although limited in staff, stood by the position that they would only advocate and lobby for the better interest of the technology industry as a whole, which mainly focused on fighting against the “demonization” of technology in certain states that were attempting to pass legislation blocking the growth of certain technological products and fields. A prime example TechAmerica gave was a successful attempt to block a bill in Maine which based legislation off of the claim that cell phones caused cancerous tumors. There was only anecdotal evidence to support that claim, and TechAmerica worked on developing a case against the legislation, which was eventually blocked.
More information on TechAmerica can be found at www.itaa.org
Our second stop was at mCapitol, a lobbying group with private clients—as opposed to TechAmerica’s “industry advocacy.” I was under the impression that mCapitol served as a more traditional example of the D.C. lobbying role. mCapitol would be hired by a company who needed representation in Washington, and mCapitol’s partners all had specific talents and experience within the Beltway. Possibly because mCapitol did not want to divulge specific information about their clientele, the answers given were generally vague or described as a “case by case” situation. More information could be found on what mCapitol actually did on their website, which divided the company strategy for their clientele into these categories: Administrative/Regulatory Assistance, Business Development/Procurement, Fundraising, Government Relations, Grassroots/Grasstops, International Representation, Lobbying, New Media, PAC Development/Management, Political and Public Policy Strategy, Political Management, Public Affairs, Research/Intelligence.
More information on mCapitol can be found on www.mcapitol.com
Visiting these lobbying groups gave one more perspective on the Insider mentality that exists in D.C. Both organizations made it evident that they wanted to break away from the “lobbyist mercenary” stereotype that they feel mainstream America holds against lobbyists. TechAmerica may have had the better argument against the “mercenary” label in that they advocate for an entire industry as opposed to individual clients. On the other hand, mCapitol made it apparent that lobbying for a client is similar to working a campaign for an aspiring elected official; hence, most of the mCapitol partners have political backgrounds. Both organizations will fight for the interests of their industry or clients, much like an attorney will support his client or a campaign staff will support the individual running for an elected position.
Although the day was not specifically tailored to the communications field in the organizations we visited, it was still an opportunity to gain more firsthand knowledge of how Washington runs as an interconnected network of individuals and organizations on the private and public side of policy and advocacy.
More information on TechAmerica can be found at www.itaa.org
Our second stop was at mCapitol, a lobbying group with private clients—as opposed to TechAmerica’s “industry advocacy.” I was under the impression that mCapitol served as a more traditional example of the D.C. lobbying role. mCapitol would be hired by a company who needed representation in Washington, and mCapitol’s partners all had specific talents and experience within the Beltway. Possibly because mCapitol did not want to divulge specific information about their clientele, the answers given were generally vague or described as a “case by case” situation. More information could be found on what mCapitol actually did on their website, which divided the company strategy for their clientele into these categories: Administrative/Regulatory Assistance, Business Development/Procurement, Fundraising, Government Relations, Grassroots/Grasstops, International Representation, Lobbying, New Media, PAC Development/Management, Political and Public Policy Strategy, Political Management, Public Affairs, Research/Intelligence.
More information on mCapitol can be found on www.mcapitol.com
Visiting these lobbying groups gave one more perspective on the Insider mentality that exists in D.C. Both organizations made it evident that they wanted to break away from the “lobbyist mercenary” stereotype that they feel mainstream America holds against lobbyists. TechAmerica may have had the better argument against the “mercenary” label in that they advocate for an entire industry as opposed to individual clients. On the other hand, mCapitol made it apparent that lobbying for a client is similar to working a campaign for an aspiring elected official; hence, most of the mCapitol partners have political backgrounds. Both organizations will fight for the interests of their industry or clients, much like an attorney will support his client or a campaign staff will support the individual running for an elected position.
Although the day was not specifically tailored to the communications field in the organizations we visited, it was still an opportunity to gain more firsthand knowledge of how Washington runs as an interconnected network of individuals and organizations on the private and public side of policy and advocacy.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Day 2: CBS News and Mr. Schieffer
After morning coffee, our day started at the CBS News headquarters. Mr. Schieffer introduced the interns to Jan Crawford, Chief Legal Correspondent, Christopher Isham, Vice President and Bureau Chief and Bob Orr, Chief Justice and Homeland Security Correspondent (among others). We sat in on a live broadcast of Washington Unplugged, a daily web cast of daily news and issues.
Before Washington Unplugged and at lunch, we were able to discuss in detail what it is like to be a journalist inside the Beltway. Each correspondent, including Mr. Schieffer, emphasized that there are no shortcuts to becoming an established beat journalist. It takes time and patience to build the trust of sources and gain credibility within a respective beat. When Mr. Schieffer started out at CBS News, he was given $200 a week plus $50 or $25 per story. He said he took every assignment he could get his hands on, and he made over $30,000 in a year on $200 weekly pay because of the volume of assignments he was willing to take as a young journalist.
Most conversation revolved around new media—how do the mainstream media combat the blogosphere and the rise of the clutter of unfiltered internet news? It seemed the consensus was that accuracy trumps being the first to break a story. All correspondents present recognized the pressure of deadlines, but said that as a chief servant to the public interest, verification of information, even if other news organizations ran with a story, came first and foremost. A prime example given was a false report after 9/11 that terrorist gun boats were attacking the Coast Guard in the Potomac. Mr. Orr, who is one of the most well sourced and established correspondents in D.C., refused to run with the story even though CNN had. It turned out to be a drill, and the “shots fired” were literally the scripted lines of “BANG BANG” picked up on a radio scanner.
Mr. Schieffer and the other correspondents emphasized the fact that getting a degree in journalism teaches one to think like a journalist, but learning to BE a journalist only comes with actual work experience and practice. The question was raised to a producer on the steps it takes to go after a story, the plan implemented and how to deal with major catastrophe such as on Sept. 11. The answer was that the plans are thrown out the window—as an experienced journalist you just go with what you know, follow your principles and seek truth and honesty.
On a final note, Mr. Schieffer said that he has never seen Washington so divided on partisan lines in his lifetime. Why? Because of the money it takes to run for office and the fact that campaigns have gone from amateur activism and participation to a professional business and interest. The result has become an increasingly dysfunctional Capitol Hill in the 21st century.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Metro Escapades, DNC and Death Star
Things may seem dauntingly harder than reality dictates when moving to a new home (especially in a city like Washington D.C.), and then things may seem refreshingly easier before the initial assessment shores up to be true.
Moving in is simple, especially when my second floor apartment is claimed by only myself for a few weeks. If life gets lonesome I can always hang a left down my hall and bug four of my other TCU intern counterparts—I have a feeling they’ll keep me out of some trouble at a few points during the next few months. “Orientation” also seems rudimentary—don’t get mugged, furniture should not be placed in the hallways, and last but not least, kegerators are not acceptable in a professional living environment.
Metro passes are expensive and I have no clue how to use public transportation, (see paragraph one initial conclusion), but public transportation seemed the way to go in D.C. on our first outing to the Washington Center headquarters on 16th street this morning (see paragraph one follow-up reassessment).
Gene Albert greets us at the Washington Center, along with donuts from Dr. Kowalewski, and we go over what our semester will entail before preparing to head out to our first destination of the day, the Death Star. Yes, the Death Star, as the Democratic National Committee so affectionately referred to the Republican National Committee.
What is the RNC and what do they do? I can’t answer that because they didn’t really, either. Dodgy beltway lingo and coffee cup fist-clinching when any more poking and prodding by way of “interrogative” journalistic questions filled up the time slot. Walking up to the front of the building there are noticeable “Fire Pelosi” signs, but besides that, it seems that they throw their fundraising might and public relations magic on a national scale for the GOP candidate that wins their primary. Oh, they also play an annual softball game with the DNC and forewarned us that the DNC Headquarters was quite nicer than their “mauve” building.
We take a side tour to the Newsuem (I’ll explain later) before getting lost on our way to the DNC. It is hot and humid, I made the foolish decision to wear a jacket with my slacks, and I looked like I had entered a wet T-shirt contest by the time we actually arrived at the DNC.
The DNC is cutting edge, looking like they are about a century ahead of the Death Star when it comes to new media. Blogging, tweeting, Facebook, etc. is constant, and it is evident they had much to do with a successful 2008 President Campaign for the Democrats. Our timeslot at the DNC was cut short by way of getting lost, and so will this paragraph.
I get left at a Metro station stop by the girls (accidently, I hope), and my initial paragraph one assessment shored up to be true. I still have a smile on my face, and will continue to until Dec. 17.
Moving in is simple, especially when my second floor apartment is claimed by only myself for a few weeks. If life gets lonesome I can always hang a left down my hall and bug four of my other TCU intern counterparts—I have a feeling they’ll keep me out of some trouble at a few points during the next few months. “Orientation” also seems rudimentary—don’t get mugged, furniture should not be placed in the hallways, and last but not least, kegerators are not acceptable in a professional living environment.
Metro passes are expensive and I have no clue how to use public transportation, (see paragraph one initial conclusion), but public transportation seemed the way to go in D.C. on our first outing to the Washington Center headquarters on 16th street this morning (see paragraph one follow-up reassessment).
Gene Albert greets us at the Washington Center, along with donuts from Dr. Kowalewski, and we go over what our semester will entail before preparing to head out to our first destination of the day, the Death Star. Yes, the Death Star, as the Democratic National Committee so affectionately referred to the Republican National Committee.
What is the RNC and what do they do? I can’t answer that because they didn’t really, either. Dodgy beltway lingo and coffee cup fist-clinching when any more poking and prodding by way of “interrogative” journalistic questions filled up the time slot. Walking up to the front of the building there are noticeable “Fire Pelosi” signs, but besides that, it seems that they throw their fundraising might and public relations magic on a national scale for the GOP candidate that wins their primary. Oh, they also play an annual softball game with the DNC and forewarned us that the DNC Headquarters was quite nicer than their “mauve” building.
We take a side tour to the Newsuem (I’ll explain later) before getting lost on our way to the DNC. It is hot and humid, I made the foolish decision to wear a jacket with my slacks, and I looked like I had entered a wet T-shirt contest by the time we actually arrived at the DNC.
The DNC is cutting edge, looking like they are about a century ahead of the Death Star when it comes to new media. Blogging, tweeting, Facebook, etc. is constant, and it is evident they had much to do with a successful 2008 President Campaign for the Democrats. Our timeslot at the DNC was cut short by way of getting lost, and so will this paragraph.
I get left at a Metro station stop by the girls (accidently, I hope), and my initial paragraph one assessment shored up to be true. I still have a smile on my face, and will continue to until Dec. 17.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)