Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    <scribbled by af Tue 6 Feb 24 11:44>
  

    
>headlines online are written quickly and change throughout the
day.The problem has a lot to do with having too few people to
carefully do
that work, in an environment in which many readers are
hypersensitive to
nuance in heds.

John, my experience in reading, and also in seeing stories shared by
others in social media, is that often the hed is the WHOLE STORY for
a huge audience, and these evanescent headlines become permanent by
being quoted and shared.
  

    
It's especially true with paywalls - the headline and *maybe* the
lede are all the non-subscriber gets.
  

    
I have subscribed to the New York Times for most of my adult life.
Watching newspapers in crisis, and watching the Times save itself by
figuring out how to go digital, has been interesting. Sometimes I
think they go too far, as when they dangle a recipe in front of me
and then refuse to show it to me unless I pony up more bucks. I
stopped subscribing a few years ago and told them it was to protest
the way they were becoming more like People Magazine than the paper
of record. But I couldn't stand it for more than a couple of weeks,
and began sending them my little bit of money again. I agree that
the news sometimes feels biased, and I mostly don't read the opinion
page because it feels like a mine field. I want my newspaper to help
me understand what's going on, and too often the Times seems to be
pushing an agenda. But it's still the first thing I read every day 

When I want straight news, I go to the Washington Post, which I also
subscribe to, and Vox is helpful in my struggle to understand what
the hell is going on. I guess I will always subscribe to The New
Yorker, but I find less and less to read there these days. My other
subscription is to The Guardian for a kind of razzmatazz review at
the end of the day plus I love their Datelab.
  

    
I subscribe to the NYTimes, The Washington Post, The Guardian, my
former hometown newspaper (Columbus Dispatch), the East Bay paper
(which is terrible), the New Orleans papers, The New Yorker… I wish
smaller local papers could band together and create a subscriber
syndicate. I won’t subscribe to read a one-off article. 
  

    
This column from Margaret Sullivan about the demise of The Messenger
is worth reading..

"I see three takeaways.

First, facile ideas that sound too good to be true – especially in
this gloomy media environment – probably are simply bad. Even some
of the highest quality news organizations are struggling to survive;
many are finding it impossible. There’s no such thing as a quick
fix.

Second, the notion of “centrism” – often a thinly disguised
conservative slant – as a surefire way to attract a mass audience
and vast revenue is a well-worn joke. Let us recall Chris Licht’s
failed experiment at CNN to do something like that, which featured
an apology tour of Republican election denialists. Another flameout.

And finally, I can understand why some job seekers grasped at the
Messenger’s straws. It’s tough out there. But if you’re an employed
journalist recruited by a rich guy with lofty notions about saving
the industry, you should run. Fast.

Do it before he does."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/02/the-messenger-startup-co
llapse-journalism-takeaways
  

    
Regarding bias, I do think that NPR tends to run a little scared. 
It started back when Gingrich was House Speaker and specifically
targeted them to be de-funded. (Even though the government via CPB
doesn't actually fund NPR except for certain grants for specific
projects.)  
  

    

> I wish smaller local papers could band together and create a subscriber
> syndicate. I won?t subscribe to read a one-off article.

Some sort of micropayments thing would be good, too.
  

    
I'm not seeing anyone here address the question of what kind of
business model could reasonably (or just plausibly) support quality
journalism. That scares me. There are several people here who have worked
for decades inside businesses that are based on journalism, and none of
them seem to have ideas about how to actually fund good journalism now
and in the near future.
  

    
Isn't the Times, love it or hate it, answering that question with
its digital subscription set up?
  

    
I've supported the nonprofit Texas Tribune for years, and it seemed
to do very well for a long while. However the Tribune had a tough
year in 2023. In August, there were layoffs and other cost cutting
measures. Here's the CEO's note from back then:
<https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/24/a-tough-day-at-the-tribune/> Last month Tribune staff announced that they were unionizing: <https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2024/texas-tribune-nonprofit-news-union/
>

It appears from where I sit that nonprofit new orgs were taking some
of the same hits as the entire industry, but my impression is that
they're holding together. 
  

    
I subscribe to the Times, the WaPo, the Guardian, the New Yorker,
and the Atlantic. I also depend on the aggregator "Current Status"
which creates a "home page" collecting daily stories that are
reputable, have "news value" and are highly cited.  (and then my
Canadian sources)

Like many here, I don't and can't depend on one news organization to
give me what I seek in news.  I think that probably is a factor
militating against financial stability.
  

    
One thing the Chronicle does that could suggest other revenue paths
is how they sell obituaries and memorials from readers.  At 3-400 to
start, going up to double that amount, it isn't huge revenue but it
adds up.  It shows some creative thinking.  

I know I look through the names every day because, being native to
this area, I occasionally spot someone I know.  It's a useful
service.

I think the point is that it is a territory the public associates
with newspapers and news orgs.  Maybe there are others.
  

    
There's also legal notices, if the regulations can be eased.
  

    
I read the Chronicle (on paper) every day, too.
  

    
I  don't know how to answer Matisse's question, and I'm not  sure anyone
truly knows.


The Times is  doing well (knock wood, spit three times) in part because of
spinoffs like the food/recipe app and all those puzzles. But it's not a
model a lot of organizations can really follow.

The nonprofit newsrooms are a good alternative but perhaps too reliant on
philanthropy, which is fickle. Ditto billionaire rescuers, who apparently
can't stand to own anything that's not profitable, even when they could
afford the losses for the next three decades and not even have to sell off a
single private jet.

If I could answer this question I would be a rich lady.
  

    
The Colorado Sun is a good example of solid journalism being done by
a nonprofit. They do excellent work but the financial future is
still scary.
  

    <scribbled by af Tue 6 Feb 24 11:42>
  

    
Cool, what about?
I have probably interviewed half the WELL for one column or another.
  

    

  I've gotten plenty of stories from the Well.

I don't think there's a grand business model, but a good one is a variant on
Obama's "Don't do stupid shit." Hedge funds, big debt, inflated salaries,
fickle billionaires don't seen to be the answer, and bring on a rapid
decline. But the industry itself is in decline. The Texa Tribune appears to
be climbing back from that bad year. I love what's happening at The 19th and
other nonprofits.

   Recommendation: Adam Nagourne's new book, The Times. Covers he digital
transition, among other things, and it's really well done.
  

    <scribbled by af Tue 6 Feb 24 11:42>
  

    <scribbled by af Tue 6 Feb 24 11:42>
  

    
This survey by the Reuters Institute points out a big problem..maybe
the problem going forward.  Younger people increasingly use TikTok
as their primary news source and they tend to not want to see too
much disturbing news.  And many of them prefer to hear from
"influencers" rather than real journalists, who they may or may not
trust.  Given the scale of humanity's and the earth's problems, I
can understand why.  What to do about it...not so sure.

This quote from the Lead Report Author really stood out, "It is
clear that many websites and apps are optimised for those that are
super-engaged with every twist and turn of today's news (and
politics) agenda.

"But these approaches also seem to be turning large sections of the
public away - with potential long-term implications for civic and
democratic engagement."

https://news.sky.com/story/more-young-people-are-using-tiktok-to-access-news-r
esearch-finds-12902070
  

    
I mentioned the SF Gate headlines awhile back.  A big motivation for
it was to entice younger people to read the news by making it kind
of fun, or at least clever. In the 90s readership among people under
40 was slipping a lot.  That was mostly Gen X back then.  

I think their motivations for avoiding the news was perhaps
different from today when young people know the climate is cooking
us all, wars go on and on, the wealth gets more concentrated and the
fascists are on the rise.  They know the status quo is not working,
and who is really going to fix it?  Maybe because I came  age as
someone quite "anti establishment" I can grasp to a point how they
feel, although I was never that fatalistic.  Today, I would be.
  

    


To pick up on the business model discussion, I agree that leaving
aside the big machers like the NYT, the Washington Post and a few
other “print” news outlets, the answer to how to keep a publication
going is not yet solved. 

It is a long journey for a local or regional publication to get from
“we need multiple revenue sources” to sustaining multiple revenue
sources. It may be like climate change: No one solution will apply
to every situation. There need to be a thousand different solutions
for 10,000 different situations.