Newspaper To Local Blogs: Drop Dead
Links are the currency of the internet, good or bad, and some members of the main stream media are better at understanding that than others. Lisa Williams over at Placeblogger covered an interesting story that I’ve been meaning to write about. The Muncie Free Press is an independent placeblog focused on citizen journalism, and despite the efforts of creator kpaul mallasch to form a cooperative relationship with the local main stream paper owned by Gannett (like the Reno Gazette-Journal), they have taken an adversarial approach to his website. Like the RGJ.com, The Star Press began a “Your Neighborhood” feature but will not allow him to use it as a citizen to publicize his efforts to offer an alternative media source, even though the feature’s blurb state its there for local citizens to “announce your business.”
In the case of the Muncie Free Press, I can see why the Star Press has shown a tiny bit of reluctant to promote a possible competitor. Unlike some placeblogs or community sites, the Muncie Free Press offers free classified ads which could conceivably cut into the Star Press’ revenue. However, as Lisa Williams points out, when local newspapers refuse to link to other local media, they cease to become the “website of record for their community.” But beyond that, links bring you more readers, not less:
One of the fundamental things to understand about the net is that it’s possible to grow the pie — linking to people doesn’t mean you have fewer readers; in the long run it may mean that you have more. As blogging pioneer Dave Winer says, “the fundamental law of the Internet seems to be the more you send them away the more they come back. It’s why link-filled blogs do better than introverts. It may seem counter-intuitive — it’s the new intuition, the new way of thinking. The Internet kicks your ass until you get it. It’s called linking and it works.” By the way, the title of that post isn’t “Web Altruism 101 — it’s How To Make Money on the Internet, Version 3.”
In Reno, local bloggers have been extremely lucky because, at least so far, the Gannett-owned Reno Gazette-Journal has taken the opposite approach–incorporating local blogs into an almost daily feature called the “Local Blog Round-up,” which features items of interest published by local bloggers. In turn, local bloggers have helped RGJ.com blogs grow, particularly Inside Nevada Politics, which benefits greatly from several links a year from Nevada political bloggers. Its undoubtedly true that local bloggers also make up a good portion of the RGJ.com blog readers.
This mutually beneficial relationship between local bloggers and the RGJ is probably thanks to blog-friendly RGJ online editor James Ball, who has not only encouraged his staff to set up blogs in their areas of interest (dogs, books, film, TV, cross-country skiiing, etc.), and not necessarily just in the area defined by their job description at the paper, but is an avid blog reader as are many members of his staff. Would the RGJ approach a new website along the lines of the Muncie Free Press, a more direct competitor, differently? Who knows, but we may soon find out as community blogs are springing up all over the world thanks to the open source software movement that has provided more and more sophisticated online publishing tools for people of all skill levels. Not only can almost anyone start a blog these days, but in a few more years, it may be just as easy technically for citizens to start websites like the Muncie Free Press.
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
“…the Muncie Free Press offers free classified ads which could conceivably cut into the Star Press’ revenue.”
Actually, Myrna, while we do offer ‘free credits’ when people sign-up for an account (enough for one basic ad for 30 days), there is a charge for further use of the classifieds. It is a lot lower than The Star Press’, though, at $8/month for a basic ad with photo.
Granted, it hasn’t brought in a lot of revenue yet. Our traffic is getting there, though. It’s starting to grow exponentially via word of mouth mostly.
I see what you’re saying, though, in that we’re not your typical ‘blog.’ (Thank you!)
It would be interesting, I think, to compile a list of which big media companies are working with their independent counterparts in various areas of the county.
In any case, the offer is still open to work with them and / or discuss it publicly somewhere on the web. As a journalist, I’m in the community to help the people. And to do that, I think it’s part of my job to point out things like this.
Thanks for the mention and congrats on Gannett working with you in that region.
K. Paul Mallasch - Publisher
http://www.kpaulmedia.com
p.s. - James Ball, if you’re listening, please give your fellow Gannetteer (Phil Beebe) a call or email.
Thanks.
The Muncie Free Press is a tough example to use, simply because they are eating directly into the newspaper’s revenue (however antiquated that stream is). I wouldn’t expect them to get any love, just like alternative weeklies don’t get any love.
I think a few things need to be remembered about the RGJ, too. I wrote something a while back about the takeover of the local blogging community by the RGJ. When Inside Nevada Politics began, there were links to other sites in the sidebar. When Anjeanette Damon posts, she often links to other sites, but for a long time now that blogroll has been absent. That sounds exactly like the type of lining “policy” the editor in Indiana spoke of. Anjeanette told me directly that she was trying to get it put back on but that hasn’t happened. Why not? I think there is just as much resistance to linking in Reno as there is in Indiana. The only thing we get additionally is the “almost daily” Blog Round-up. It’s fantastic to have it. And I also think James Ball does a great job. But there still is a huge separation between local blogs and newspaper content.
A few months ago I wrote an “ op ed that the paper didn’t run. It called on them using local bloggers to help provide content for the Neighborhoods section. Not only did they not publish it, they didn’t even return emails asking them to either acknowledge its receipt. Are they that busy, or are they that against the idea?
The newspaper business is trying to keep the news a business. They should be concerned with just making sure the news is good and right. The business will come if it is. That’s why blogs are increasingly popular and lucrative. If they weren’t, the newspapers wouldn’t be climbing all over themselves to have as many as they can. So yes, linking is necessary. Instead of increasing the workload on already busy reporters and editors, the newspapers should be looking to the already willing and able bloggers who just want things to be better. Instead, they are trying to compete with them. And too many people think the news still sucks.
Because RGJ (Gannett)is a business, its nature is to consume what it needs to in order to grow. So while the RGJ is perhaps a bit more open than other local papers right now, I suspect that would change as soon as they deemed a site competition for revenue.
I think the way this will end up working in a lot of cities is for newspapers to buy blogs or sites like McClatchy bought FresnoFamous.com and continue to run them as separate sites with different audiences. I wonder if McClatchy is way ahead of the curve, and perhaps Gannett?
Thanks very much for fixing my stupid link.
I’m not sure they’ll start buying stuff up. One problem of the news business is dropping revenue. They are cutting back in some places, doing well in others. So some cities will have a better blog presence than others if what you say is correct. In Reno, the RGJ is one of the most profitable papers in the chain. So we may see some acquisition here. But so far they’re just extending their current resources. Trying to compete or fill voids, if you will.
I guess I’m only trying to caution people to their intentions. The further we get from the “Crowdsourcing” announcement and the Twelve Horses podcast with Steven Fine the more skeptical I get. I’ve seen no differences. Maybe they’re still on the way, but it’s not exactly in their nature to announce their plans. That’s an issue for another day, though.
Thanks for this post. This issue is going to only get bigger in the coming months.
I am probably the last one who you would think that would come to the defense of newspapers, but don’t you think that “professional” journalists might take some exception even to the term “citizen journalist”? Are any of the bloggers even pretending to follow the Code of Ethics found on the Society of Professional Journalists’ Website (here: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp“.
While I think there is funny and insightful stuff on the local blogs they don’t approach anything that comes close to fct checking BEFORE publishing. Why bother? Someone else can try to un-ring the bell later.
I mean are there people out there upset that Professional Mechanics don’t advetertise for the guy down the street who has a hobby of working on cars and calling himself a “Citizen Mechanic”?
Explain to me, Councilman, what constitutes a “professional” journalist. I’d love to know before I finish my graduate studies in journalism, because the question keeps coming up. Perhaps you advocate some government oversight on who can report or comment on news, people, issues, and events? If people who work for newspapers as reporters want to take exception to citizen journalists, let them. They have every right to do so. Just as I have every right to question what they do. Good journalists can come from anywhere. Even Reno.
Explain what you mean when you discuss fact-checking. Are bloggers doing hard-core investigative stuff? Not around here. Not yet, anyway. Should someone who interviews a politician check every single thing that politician says before putting it out there for everybody? or should they put the politicians own words — all of them — out there instead? I happen to think that people listening and reading such things are smart enough to figure out who’s nuts and who isn’t. Journalism traditionally hasn’t really felt that way. Reporters pull specific quotes from longer interviews and allow us to see what they think is the most important. Who are they to decide that? For far too long it’s been accepted, though.
A great example is the debate over Winnemucca Ranch. I interviewed Erik Holland and let him speak. He mentioned Winnemucca Ranch in the interview. You took exception to what he said and conversed with him over the issue on my website. Had he said what he did on television or in the newspaper you would have had to write a letter to an editor or station manager and hoped that it would get printed or spoken of on the air. And don’t tell me that what he said wouldn’t have gotten by, either. It would have. Instead, you had that conversation, and now my site gets hits from Google searches (several a day on that issue) and the entire conversation is there for people to see. Not just the initial interview, but your response to him, then his to you, and so on. It’s a better medium for a debated issue. That conversation could tell citizens of this area more than any fact sheet the city sends out or sound bite on the news or paragraph in the paper. You got to say your piece, and he got his. What’s wrong with that?
Bloggers, like mechanics, have to ear trust. If a blogger continually does bad work, people will know. If they do good work, people will know. Or do you think that newspapers should have some authority over everyone because you think they do the best work? That’s perfectly fine if you feel that way, but bloggers who do good work are increasingly becoming more relevant, and newspapers across the country are worrying about readership. Hmm. Nobody is telling you that you have to embrace it or like it, but it’s happening. As a politician, you’d be a step ahead if you understood that.
First of all, . I didn’t send an e-mail as a Councilman, I just signed it Dave. I enjoy the debate as much as you. I have been calling talk radio before the internet. (and Al Gore) came along. I’m not sure why I am being chastised for asking a question. But, to your point, I’ll answer the question myself that I posed to you, what constitutes a “professional”. Here is Wikipedia’s answer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional and here it is from Miriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/professional
They seem to have a few things in common, ethics and getting paid.
You seem to jump to the conclusion that because I am a politician I would “advocate some government oversight on who can report or comment on news, people, issues, and events”? The difference I suppose, is not that you are asking me the question, but you are asking it publically. I merely asked the question to the Blogosphere. Why should people treat you (as a group, not individually) as equal to the RGJ, the NY Times, etc. Just as we shouldn’t have blind faith in government we shouldn’t have blind faith in blogs.
While that is a perfectly legitimate follow-up question, there is no context or “fact-checking” before the public sees it.. It sort of proves my point. While it may be dialogue perhaps you can tell me if it’s “reporting”. Hasn’t Ann Landers run a version of the blog you’re talking about? Is she a “reporter”? You’re the journalist, I’m just asking you the question not because I’m trying to needle you, I truly don’t know.
Then you read into my post somehow that good journalists can’t come from Reno. How could you possibly see that in what I wrote? Rather than answering the question you’re diverting the discussion.
After reading your response, I do realize that my mistake may be that I assumed that the original writer was equating ”citizen journalist” with “professional journalist”. .I now see that they DO have different meanings. I am not convinced, however, that some bloggers don’t see the difference. Of course anyone can be a “citizen journalist” but are they equal to “professionals”? That was the first part of my question.
What do I mean by fact-checking……hmmm. I would suppose it mean making sure something is correct before it goes “to press”. Should someone check everything a politician says before putting it out there. No. I have always assumed that if it is in quotes it IS a fact even if it’s merely the fact that it was said, NOT that what was said is “true”.
I do believe that professional reporters follow up on interesting stories to see if what the person said was actually true. Ahhh, would the world be changed today if we all just left it alone after the President said, “I did not have sex with that woman.”.
“I happen to think that people listening and reading such things are smart enough to figure out who’s nuts and who isn’t.” I couldn’t disagree with this point enough. I could easily introduce you to people who would make a great interview using sound bites and charisma. If that were all that was reported the impression would be that they are great people. But with a little follow up…..
I don’t know why you felt threatened enough by my question to bring up the conversation with Mr. Holland (see above). Don’t get me wrong, I think Blogs are a useful way to get information out and to have that discourse. I like to believe that a reporter would do that “follow-up” I talked about earlier and see if what was said is indeed factual. That’s all.
I never said that newspaper do the best work. What I am implying is that they have a Code of Ethics that I hope they try to live up to. And this code is for journalists, not just newspaper reporters. Yes, of course, blogging is becoming relevant. In these formative years the choice is ultimately up to the blogger, do I want to emulate People, Us, National Enquirer or the NY Times, The Post, the SF Chronicle?
Please don’t assume that I don’t understand the relevance of the internet. I’m here, aren’t I?
Well, to be fair, you did come here and belittle bloggers. You asked if any bloggers even pretend to follow the code of ethics. That’s belittling them. We have a couple right here (I used “even Reno” because you also specifically belittled Reno blogs as sometimes funny but hardly factual) who do exactly that. I’d like to think that anything I post that’s not my opinion (and I run a personal site with news mixed in, not the other way around) falls under the code. Another blogger and I have held a position against a specific blog that was perpetuating made-up BS. We went after him and corrected errors. I hold the position that all bloggers who want to discuss issues need to be held to a standard of truth. Believe me, it has caused problems. Also, I get paid for my blogging. It’s not much, but it’s payment. That makes me a professional, I guess. My point on that is that the lines are so blurred it’s almost impossible to say someone is NOT a professional. What’s important is the reputation the blogger earns, not some pre-determined qualification into some sort of club. I asked about government oversight as a joke. It would have been hilarious to have you say yes to that.
A huge difference that I tried to point out between newspapers, television, and the internet is that the internet offers correction and discussion right at the source. If an error gets printed in the newspaper, you get a correction a week later, a day later, even decades later in a recent example. Anyone who read that piece may or may not ever see that correction (newspapers also have the tendency to bury them for whatever reason — I think it’s because they wouldn’t want us to know they screw up in bold letters, even though that would make them more credible). The nature of blogs is that when a conversation begins, people return to check it out. They see all the discussion that goes along with it. I know this because the traffic to my site, and I’d bet money this site, is returning traffic. People want to see the discussion. So unlike newspapers and television, you actually can “unring the bell.”
You said you disagree with me about people being smart enough to figure things out themselves. You missed what I said entirely. I said that if an editor or reporter picks the soundbites, they are determining for you and I what is important. I also am against soundbites. I think entire interviews should be put out there and that’s how the people should decide. I do not in any way advocate the sound bite news culture we live in. Precisely for what you said, but additionally because I’m against anyone deciding what parts of an interview or speech are more important than others. Put the whole thing out there and let me decide. Then the discussion begins. If a guy is lying through his teeth, it’ll come out. And if it doesn’t, it’s most likely because not enough people are seeing the piece to have it emerge. If that’s the case, what harm is done? It’s interesting you cite Wikipedia. The same principle applies. The community (in this case, the readers of the blog) polices itself.
I think it’s great to have you involved in these discussions. I called you Councilman because you are one. You’ll have a hard time convincing me to treat you in a different capacity if you only sign as Dave. The bottom line is that you’re an elected official. I wish you could get the rest of the Council to get as involved in discussions like this as you are. The people on these blogs are smart, interested, and have great ideas.
This is a great discussion, hopefully we can continue having it without people getting defensive. I consider myself an editorialist or columnist, not a “reporter” which should be obvious. Most of the time I point people toward existing articles from the RGJ or other media sources and add my own commentary. I agree with Lisa Williams on not using the term citizen journalist/m, at least for what I am doing…its too restrictive. I’m not trying to be a journalist, I’m trying to fit into the placeblog model. There have been attempts at creating a bloggers code of ethics out there and many discussions about this topic online at journalism sites.
Dave Aiazzi -
Actually, I have had professional journalism training (at one of the top 10 Journo schools in the country.) By not working for a ‘newspaper’ am I not to be considered a ‘journalist.’? I’m not liking the citizen journalist moniker anymore either. I’m beginning to refer to myself as ‘independent media.’
As for ethics, we have them on Muncie Free Press and strive to follow them. I would say, though, that a journalist making a business decision *not* to cover a competitor - well, that’s money over ethics, imho.
Another example is Gannett getting into ‘citizen journalism’ with their ‘Get Published’ feature (not sure what it’s called out there…) Anyway, their TOS (a very, very tiny link on the very bottom of the page) states that any submitted content can be given to undisclosed (?) third parties by Gannett. That’s not right. Sure, all the pieces are there if you look really closely, but it’s not readily apparent that you’re giving Gannett those rights when you give your content to them.
Is that the “professional journalists” you’re talking about? Perhaps a better term is “business journalists” for surely that’s what most of the big chains have become - businesses. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but America (now more than ever) needs a free press willing to look out for the citizens.
That’s why I didn’t rush to get another job at another big chain to further my career. I’m gambling a lot because I believe there needs to be a big change in the way media operates in this country.
Anyway, if you look, you’ll find that there are a lot of “bloggers” (call them what you want) that have *higher* standards than some so called “journalists…”
K. Paul Mallasch - Publisher
http://www.kpaulmedia.com