Vanity Fair reporting:
When a crusading but conflict-averse billionaire bankrolls several of
journalism’s most prominent mavericks to create a hard-nosed
investigative news organization, it’s a recipe for turmoil. eBay founder
Pierre Omidyar’s differences with First Look Media staff have been all
over the press. Two top hires are out the door. Sarah Ellison asks
whether First Look Media can make headlines that aren’t about itself.
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2015/01/first-look-media-pierre-omidyar
Showing posts with label newsroom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newsroom. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Can Silicon Valley disrupt journalism if journalists hate being disrupted?
theguardian reporting:
Over the weekend, an open letter by some of the outgoing writers and editors of the New Republic appeared on the Facebook page of Robert Reich, the former labor secretary turned professional pundit, following a mass resignation of staff and unpaid “contributing editors” from the magazine. The letter, which lamented that “The promise of American life has been dealt a lamentable blow” with the resignation of editor Franklin Foer and literary critic Leon Wieseltier over plans to replace the former, also railed against what the authors described as “liberalism’s central journal” being “scuttled with flagrant and frivolous abandon” – a reference to internal changes being introduced by the 100-year old title’s owner Chris Hughes, a 31-year-old co-founder of Facebook.
The irony of the New Republic’s retreating elite posting their displeasure on Facebook was heightened by Hughes publishing a defense of his plans for the magazine – plans which recently-appointed chief executive Guy Vidra described as changing the publication into a “vertically integrated digital product”, whatever that means – through that most traditional of outlets: the Washington Post. To see the changes at TNR as part of the ongoing battle between Silicon Valley and traditional journalism, Hughes wrote, “dangerously oversimplifies a debate many journalistic institutions are having today”.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/09/silicon-valley-journalism-chris-hughes-new-republic-buzzfeed
Over the weekend, an open letter by some of the outgoing writers and editors of the New Republic appeared on the Facebook page of Robert Reich, the former labor secretary turned professional pundit, following a mass resignation of staff and unpaid “contributing editors” from the magazine. The letter, which lamented that “The promise of American life has been dealt a lamentable blow” with the resignation of editor Franklin Foer and literary critic Leon Wieseltier over plans to replace the former, also railed against what the authors described as “liberalism’s central journal” being “scuttled with flagrant and frivolous abandon” – a reference to internal changes being introduced by the 100-year old title’s owner Chris Hughes, a 31-year-old co-founder of Facebook.
The irony of the New Republic’s retreating elite posting their displeasure on Facebook was heightened by Hughes publishing a defense of his plans for the magazine – plans which recently-appointed chief executive Guy Vidra described as changing the publication into a “vertically integrated digital product”, whatever that means – through that most traditional of outlets: the Washington Post. To see the changes at TNR as part of the ongoing battle between Silicon Valley and traditional journalism, Hughes wrote, “dangerously oversimplifies a debate many journalistic institutions are having today”.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/09/silicon-valley-journalism-chris-hughes-new-republic-buzzfeed
Sunday, October 6, 2013
The Quartz Way (1)
Monday Note reporting:
I used to think the breadth and depth of older large newsrooms could guarantee their survival in a digital world plagued by mediocrity and loose ethics. But considering great pure players like Quartz — which is just the latest offspring of a larger league — I now come to think we are witnessing the emergence of a new breed of smaller, digital-only outlets that are closing the gap, quality-wise, with legacy media. In the context of an increasingly segmented and short-on-time readership, I can only wonder how long the legacy newsroom’s strategic advantage of size and scope will last.
Quartz editorial staff has nothing to do with the low-paid, poultry farm newsrooms of many digital outlets. Most of the 25 journalists and editors (out a staff of 50) were drawn from well established brands such as Bloomberg, The Economist, Reuters, New York Magazine or The Wall Street Journal (Kevin Delaney, 41, is himself a former WSJ.com managing editor). “Our staff is slightly younger than the average newsroom, and it is steeped in the notion of entrepreneurial journalism”, says the Quartz editor-in-chief. “With Quartz, we had many opportunity to rethink the assumptions of traditional media”.
The original idea was to devise how The Economist would look like if it had been born in 2012 rather than in 1843, explains Delaney. It would be digital native, mostly for mobile reading, and focus on contemporary economic engines such as digital, globalization, e-commerce, the future of energy, debt, China, etc. Instead of abiding by the usual classification of business news that looks like a nomenclature from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Industry, Services, Markets, Trade, etc.), Quartz opted for a sexier taxonomy; its coverage is based on an evolving list of “Obsessions“, a much more cognitive-friendly way to consider the news cycle than the usual “beat” (read this on the matter). As an avid magazine reader, Delaney said he derived the idea from publications like New York
Magazine...
http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/10/06/the-quartz-way-1/?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Monday+Note+%23292+-+The+Quartz+Way+-+Apple+Under+Siege&utm_campaign=20131006_m117465766_Monday+Note+%23292+-+The+Quartz+Way+-+Apple+Under+Siege&utm_term=The+Quartz+Way+_281_29
I used to think the breadth and depth of older large newsrooms could guarantee their survival in a digital world plagued by mediocrity and loose ethics. But considering great pure players like Quartz — which is just the latest offspring of a larger league — I now come to think we are witnessing the emergence of a new breed of smaller, digital-only outlets that are closing the gap, quality-wise, with legacy media. In the context of an increasingly segmented and short-on-time readership, I can only wonder how long the legacy newsroom’s strategic advantage of size and scope will last.
Quartz editorial staff has nothing to do with the low-paid, poultry farm newsrooms of many digital outlets. Most of the 25 journalists and editors (out a staff of 50) were drawn from well established brands such as Bloomberg, The Economist, Reuters, New York Magazine or The Wall Street Journal (Kevin Delaney, 41, is himself a former WSJ.com managing editor). “Our staff is slightly younger than the average newsroom, and it is steeped in the notion of entrepreneurial journalism”, says the Quartz editor-in-chief. “With Quartz, we had many opportunity to rethink the assumptions of traditional media”.
The original idea was to devise how The Economist would look like if it had been born in 2012 rather than in 1843, explains Delaney. It would be digital native, mostly for mobile reading, and focus on contemporary economic engines such as digital, globalization, e-commerce, the future of energy, debt, China, etc. Instead of abiding by the usual classification of business news that looks like a nomenclature from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Industry, Services, Markets, Trade, etc.), Quartz opted for a sexier taxonomy; its coverage is based on an evolving list of “Obsessions“, a much more cognitive-friendly way to consider the news cycle than the usual “beat” (read this on the matter). As an avid magazine reader, Delaney said he derived the idea from publications like New York
Magazine...
http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/10/06/the-quartz-way-1/?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Monday+Note+%23292+-+The+Quartz+Way+-+Apple+Under+Siege&utm_campaign=20131006_m117465766_Monday+Note+%23292+-+The+Quartz+Way+-+Apple+Under+Siege&utm_term=The+Quartz+Way+_281_29
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/dear-newsroom-curmudgeon/
Buttry diary reporting:
Dear Newsroom Curmudgeon,
I sometimes share your anxiety and occasionally share your concerns about some of the changes in journalism. I learned journalism in the old school, same as you. I am steeped in the same values of accuracy, fairness, dogged reporting and good writing that you cherish. But I’m having as much fun as I’ve ever had in more than 40 years in journalism, I have as high regard for my colleagues’ work as ever and I’m as optimistic as I’ve ever been about the future of journalism and the news business. If you would like work to be fun again, if you’d like to be optimistic again (or, if you never were, to finally be optimistic), I’m writing to tell you about the fun and optimism that I find in journalism.
I wrote about you last fall, but you probably didn’t read that blog post. You’re probably not a regular reader of my blog or a regular user of Twitter, where a lot of journalists learned about that post. Maybe you’re reading this because a colleague emailed you a link or printed it out for you. That’s OK. I’m writing this because an editor asked me recently how to deal with curmudgeons who resist learning the skills, tools, techniques and principles of digital journalism. I gave him an answer off the cuff and sent him a link to that earlier blog post. But upon reflection, I think the best way to deal with a curmudgeon is to talk candidly and directly with him or her. So I’m doing that.
I’m going to speculate on some possible reasons for your resistance and address them (it’s informed speculation, because I’ve heard from lots of curmudgeons as I’ve evangelized for digital journalism, and some of your peers don’t hold much back):
Reason #1: Quality. You may be resisting digital journalism because you think journalism was so great back in the day and today’s journalism just doesn’t measure up...
http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/dear-newsroom-curmudgeon/
Dear Newsroom Curmudgeon …
April 6, 2012 by Steve Buttry
I sometimes share your anxiety and occasionally share your concerns about some of the changes in journalism. I learned journalism in the old school, same as you. I am steeped in the same values of accuracy, fairness, dogged reporting and good writing that you cherish. But I’m having as much fun as I’ve ever had in more than 40 years in journalism, I have as high regard for my colleagues’ work as ever and I’m as optimistic as I’ve ever been about the future of journalism and the news business. If you would like work to be fun again, if you’d like to be optimistic again (or, if you never were, to finally be optimistic), I’m writing to tell you about the fun and optimism that I find in journalism.
I wrote about you last fall, but you probably didn’t read that blog post. You’re probably not a regular reader of my blog or a regular user of Twitter, where a lot of journalists learned about that post. Maybe you’re reading this because a colleague emailed you a link or printed it out for you. That’s OK. I’m writing this because an editor asked me recently how to deal with curmudgeons who resist learning the skills, tools, techniques and principles of digital journalism. I gave him an answer off the cuff and sent him a link to that earlier blog post. But upon reflection, I think the best way to deal with a curmudgeon is to talk candidly and directly with him or her. So I’m doing that.
I’m going to speculate on some possible reasons for your resistance and address them (it’s informed speculation, because I’ve heard from lots of curmudgeons as I’ve evangelized for digital journalism, and some of your peers don’t hold much back):
Reason #1: Quality. You may be resisting digital journalism because you think journalism was so great back in the day and today’s journalism just doesn’t measure up...
http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/dear-newsroom-curmudgeon/
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Washington Post conversations about social media and digital publishing
The Buttry Diary reporting:
Update: I’m going to re-use (and expand) on a line I used today in a private email exchange about the Washington Post Digital Publishing Guidelines: The Post’s 2009 social media policy was like a red light to Post journalists using social media. The new guidelines are more like a flashing yellow light. I would prefer a green light with a “drive safely” sign. But I welcome the improvement from red to yellow. Now here’s the original post, published earlier today.
Two years ago, I blogged that the Washington Post needed thoughtful conversations about smart use of social media, rather than a restrictive policy.
So I applaud that the Post is now having those conversations and sharing them with the public. I applaud without for a minute suggesting that my criticism was any part of the reason.
I don’t have the time or inclination to go point by point through the Post’s Digital Publishing Guidelines, detailing what I agree or disagree with. I did react at length in 2009: responding initially (linked above) to an ombudsman column explaining but not linking to the guidelines, then publishing the guidelines themselves after Staci Kramer published them at paidContent, then following up twice, once on the topic of trust and once on objectivity. That was probably an excessive response at the time...
I generally don’t favor rules as extensive as these new guidelines, broken into separate sections on sourcing, attribution, self-publishing, taste and tone, social media, third-party content and corrections and clarifications. But the guidelines are presented as advice, rather than rules, and explicitly encourage further discussion and continued evolution. I offer a lot of lengthy advice myself, and, as already noted, I specifically called for more and better discussion of these issues by the Post. So I will praise the guidelines generally as an important development.
By and large, the guidelines offer Post journalists (and the industry at large) a lot of good advice for digital publishing (not limited just to social media), along with specific examples of how to follow the advice. The guidelines at times sound more fearful and rigid than I would like and less trusting of journalists’ good judgment, but they are moving notably and substantially in a less fearful and rigid, more trusting direction, so I welcome the direction rather than quibbling about details.
A few points I will make:
Update: I’m going to re-use (and expand) on a line I used today in a private email exchange about the Washington Post Digital Publishing Guidelines: The Post’s 2009 social media policy was like a red light to Post journalists using social media. The new guidelines are more like a flashing yellow light. I would prefer a green light with a “drive safely” sign. But I welcome the improvement from red to yellow. Now here’s the original post, published earlier today.
Two years ago, I blogged that the Washington Post needed thoughtful conversations about smart use of social media, rather than a restrictive policy.
So I applaud that the Post is now having those conversations and sharing them with the public. I applaud without for a minute suggesting that my criticism was any part of the reason.
I don’t have the time or inclination to go point by point through the Post’s Digital Publishing Guidelines, detailing what I agree or disagree with. I did react at length in 2009: responding initially (linked above) to an ombudsman column explaining but not linking to the guidelines, then publishing the guidelines themselves after Staci Kramer published them at paidContent, then following up twice, once on the topic of trust and once on objectivity. That was probably an excessive response at the time...
I generally don’t favor rules as extensive as these new guidelines, broken into separate sections on sourcing, attribution, self-publishing, taste and tone, social media, third-party content and corrections and clarifications. But the guidelines are presented as advice, rather than rules, and explicitly encourage further discussion and continued evolution. I offer a lot of lengthy advice myself, and, as already noted, I specifically called for more and better discussion of these issues by the Post. So I will praise the guidelines generally as an important development.
By and large, the guidelines offer Post journalists (and the industry at large) a lot of good advice for digital publishing (not limited just to social media), along with specific examples of how to follow the advice. The guidelines at times sound more fearful and rigid than I would like and less trusting of journalists’ good judgment, but they are moving notably and substantially in a less fearful and rigid, more trusting direction, so I welcome the direction rather than quibbling about details.
A few points I will make:
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Forbes New Newsroom for the Digital Era Is Now Up and Running
Forbes reporting:
So, what exactly is The New Newsroom? Well, it all started a few years ago with a diagram first scrawled across a white board (you can see it here, in my initial post on our Newsroom plans). It soon became part of a presentation explaining what we were up to at True/Slant, the digital news startup I founded that was purchased by FORBES a year ago. We knew we were onto something when we saw how our investors reacted to it. Tim Forbes, a board member, removed the page from the deck, folded it, then slid it into the inside pocket of his suit jacket. Jonathan Miller, the former CEO of AOL who had been a board member before going to work for Rupert Murdoch, nodded with knowing approval when we discussed it over lunch. He made me promise to send it to him.
At its core, The New Newsroom we’re building at FORBES is made up of four different teams (in red) working together to harness real-time data, effectively the “News Signals” that are absolutely vital to running any digital news business today. The data forms a powerful feedback loop that informs departments in every corner of our company — and the new breed of entrepreneurial journalist that is key to powering our content engine. The New Newsroom is about collaboration — between editorial, product, design, production — and, yes, the advertising sales and marketing departments, too.
Here’s who occupies The New Newsroom:...
http://blogs.forbes.com/lewisdvorkin/2011/06/12/forbes-update-our-newsroom-for-the-digital-era-is-now-up-and-running
So, what exactly is The New Newsroom? Well, it all started a few years ago with a diagram first scrawled across a white board (you can see it here, in my initial post on our Newsroom plans). It soon became part of a presentation explaining what we were up to at True/Slant, the digital news startup I founded that was purchased by FORBES a year ago. We knew we were onto something when we saw how our investors reacted to it. Tim Forbes, a board member, removed the page from the deck, folded it, then slid it into the inside pocket of his suit jacket. Jonathan Miller, the former CEO of AOL who had been a board member before going to work for Rupert Murdoch, nodded with knowing approval when we discussed it over lunch. He made me promise to send it to him.
At its core, The New Newsroom we’re building at FORBES is made up of four different teams (in red) working together to harness real-time data, effectively the “News Signals” that are absolutely vital to running any digital news business today. The data forms a powerful feedback loop that informs departments in every corner of our company — and the new breed of entrepreneurial journalist that is key to powering our content engine. The New Newsroom is about collaboration — between editorial, product, design, production — and, yes, the advertising sales and marketing departments, too.
Here’s who occupies The New Newsroom:...
http://blogs.forbes.com/lewisdvorkin/2011/06/12/forbes-update-our-newsroom-for-the-digital-era-is-now-up-and-running
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)