By Robert Andrews - 

Despite continued digital inv*stm*nts, Britain's regional newspapers lost around GBP 225 million ($444 million) in 2006 - and online growth is nowhere near enough to make up the fall. Amongst findings in The Newspaper Society's Annual Regional Press Survey for 2006, published today ( release)...

-- The number of websites operated by the regional press ballooned by a third, from 828 to 1,102, as publishers looked to the web to shore up the bottom line.

-- But online ad revenue from all of those sites combined accounted for just GBP 71 million ($142.91), a mere 2.5 percent of total ad revenue. (This was an 18.3 percent growth from the previous year's GBP 60 million, ($120 million) when online ads comprised two percent of the mix). So the entire regional newspaper sector only brought in an additional GBP 11 million ($22.1 million) from online ads in the year.

-- Even magazines and niche supplements brought home more ad revenue than the web - GBP 74 million (GBP 149 million), or 2.6 percent of the advertising base (up from GBP 51 million ($102.6 million), or 1.7 percent of the mix). The number of these titles grew 21 percent from 595 to 755.

-- Illustrating why the sector is so vulnerable, print ads still make up 94.5 percent of regional advertising revenue (GBP 2.67 billion, $5.23 billion). The year before, print had comprised 95.9 percent of ad revenue, GBP 2.86 billion ($5.76 billion), so publishers have slimmed their reliance but not by enough, and that's a loss in print ad revenue of GBP 187 million ($376.4 million). This is so critical because advertising makes up 73.2 percent of turnover, circulation sales only 15.4 percent.

-- Staffing levels fell from 52,889 to 49,246. While the number of advertising and sales staff grew, editorial and production jobs declined.

Overall regional press turnover was GBP 3.87 billion ($7.79 billion), down from GBP 4.09 billion ($8.23 billion) the year before. Yesterday's H1 earnings from Johnston Press are typical - publishers are putting more and more resources into online while seeing continuing, if slower, print ad declines. This detail of this snapshot may be nuanced - in the first half of this year, both Johnston and the two other strong regional newspaper publishers Trinity Mirror and DMGT both grew online revenue by more than than the Newspaper Society's 14 survey respondents overall did last year.

Update: ABC circulation figures released today for the half-year to end of June saw almost all local titles post a fall, HoldTheFrontPage reports, with Manchester Evening News, England's third biggest selling regional, experiencing the largest drop-off of 24.2 percent year-on-year (via Guardian).
paid content org

Brenda Zulu

African Journalists need to embrace the new revolution of Web 2.0 tools if they are to catch up in this globalised World. Below find an interview on Web 2.0 with Matongo Maumbi a journalist from Zambia whose blog matongo.blogspot.com

Maumbi recently attended an online training focusing on Web2.0 tools organized by PenPlusBytes, the International Institute for Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Journalism. In 2006, PenPlusBytes launched an online course on ICT Journalism in Africa and it attracted about forty three participants from nine countries spread across Africa, Europe and Asia. You were one of these fortunate students.

Why did you want to engage in such a course? What were your needs?

Matongo: I engaged in the course because I have an interest in exploiting ICTs at personal level and also professionally. I have been working as a broadcast journalist since 2002 and I was lucky to have been exposed to the computer and internet right from the early days of my career. My ICT knowledge is driven by personal interest and enthusiasm. I needed some professional guidance on using ICTs in my career as well as how I would fully utilize them. I needed to know the pros and cons of using ICTs . The limits, the potential benefits the fun of using the internet and how to explore it better.

What did you learn? What did you prefer (e.g.,. learning about new tools, engaging with other journalists, sharing your ideas and knowledge with others, working together on a common article, networking and interacting…)?

Matongo: I leant quite a number of things. I initially only took blogging as an adventure. Writing whatever came to my mind without any real set objective or target. I guess this was because I did it just out of interest and curiosity. I learnt how to conduct better online research for background information. How to source documents, how to set good parameters for searching. My knowledge on Web 2.0 was improved. Blogging is a good place to express oneself freely without the censorship of your editor or superiors on your work.

How does, what your learnt, influence your current journalism practice? How did it modify your way of working? How did it nurture your work (if so)? How do you apply what you learnt?

Matongo: I preferred learning new tools and also interacting with other journalists from across the continent and globe. As curiosity satisfaction was among my needs, I was really looking forward to learning new tools on ICTs. My mind was more set on learning new tools from what I already taught myself. I guess from the many things I learnt, I now spend less time on the internet. I spend less time because I know better how to conduct my online research with in the shortest possible time but with maximum information. As I am now working better with internet, it has encouraged me to continue getting a local touch to what I read on the internet. During the course I found my self working on fewer but better researched programmes that are of great relevance to our catchments community.

You created your own blog. How do you use this blog? What is the main purpose (PR, information sharing, interacting….?). Did you reach your goal? What are the strength and the weakness of such an exercise?

Matongo: Initially had a website aimed at doing radical campaigns online on things that affect Zambia. Time and resources could not allow me to continue and my site died out. Then I though of creating blog with a similar aim. I basically transferred what my site to the blog. I use the blog to make and achieve my thoughts online. As my blog is more of expressing my self, I have not yet set a good objective. In a small way I have reached my goal of transferring my thoughts online. The greatest strength is that you are your own editor and can write anything you fell is morally right at your own pace and space. You get unlimited freedom besides that fact that you have sensitive stories. Weakness comes in as most of the time I only write about my thoughts without backup professional thoughts. This creates a sense of non credibility from readers. Updates are seldom coming on the blog as I use company equipment and internet to do the updates.

What are the main challenges for African journalists to use Web2.0 tools? Do you think that most journalists have already a "mindset" for Web2 tools? What would the African Media community gain by using Web2.0?

Matongo: The main challenges of African journalists using web 2.0 tools is that we do not have our own working space. We have to rely on computers and internet from our offices. How on earth could one fully use web 2.0 tools when one does not have their own resources? The mindset for most journalists is there but a mindset with out resources is meaningless. Internet connection and access is very expensive for most journalists and even when it is affordable it is very slow. There is plenty to gain such as information sharing, unlimited power to express oneself (group) without the trouble of going through the censoring editors and managers.

Do you think that web2.0 applications - if well used by African journalists - can make the Internet more "relevant"? How so?

Matongo: I think Web 2.0 tools if properly used can make it more relevant. There is a lot of information that African Journalists have but because they have to go through editors, such info is suppressed. Mostly it is as a result of editors, managers not appreciating the role of ICTS tools.

Have you advertised your blog. If yes to whom and how?

Matongo: I think my blog is an isolated one. I have not advertised it. The only people that know about are my friends. I never thought of advertising it mainly because I think I do not update it regularly.

Are you making money from your blog?

Matongo: I am not in any way making money from my blog . I still do not fully know how I can tap into that potential. I do not really see how I can make money. I guess this is something I have to learn next. I know I have what it takes; I just do not have the right guidance.

Have you taught other about blogging?

Matongo: I have not taught any of my close friends' blogging and taking full advantage of the internet besides e-mail messaging. Training for African Journalists in necessary on new web tools because these are new things which are not taught in Journalism. It is also important to note that a blog helps to store content online for African Journalists which has been for a long time been stored in paper form. The content put on a blog is shared and people learn from that kind of content.
http://brendait.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-can-african-journalists-benefit.html

Adapted Consulting from Toronto has recently released an open source FM radio station for community radio in rural areas.
http://adaptedconsulting.com/?q=node/25

Some very cool features:
- Transmitter costs under $1200, which is one of cheapest transmitters available so far
- Dust, heat, humidity resistant
- Runs from 12V batteries charged by solar power
- Receives stereo input from a computer, which can be a Via ITX box or maybe even a Soekris
- Computer can run mixing and editing software such as Campcaster or Audacity
- Software is also provided for account and bill maintenance at the community radio station, fetching of rss feeds from the Internet, and publication of news feeds.

- YouTube: The video sharing site's policing policy has brought more controversy in Europe. Germany's Central Council of Jews is reportedly considering suing Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) for allowing videos that allegedly incite neo-Nazi racial hatred, Reuters says. A German TV investigation today centers on clips of a 1940 anti-semitic movie and a far-right rock band and hears from a parliamentarian who says the site "aides and abets incitement of the people". Last month, BBC's Panorama documentary series criticized YouTube's moderation policy for allowing mobile video clips of youngsters engaged in violent acts in the U.K.

- Telegraph.co.uk: The Daily Telegraph's website is expanding its online video offering, Telegraph TV, in a move that will see it switch to Brightcove's media player before the end of the year. The newspaper already uses a Flash application to power its news videos, produced by ITV after an alliance the pair forged last year that also sees Telegraph reporters appear in more ITN output. Now it is set to recast its video channel with arts, fashion, travel and rolling news content. Release.

- Canal+: Vivendi's (EPA: VIV) French TV subsidiary has signed deals with three broadband providers to supply programs on their ADSL services. The network signed with Neuf Cegetal (another Vivendi unit, EPA: NEUF), Iliad's fr*ee ISP and France Telecom's (EPA: FTE) Orange to offer programming from TPS Star, Sport+, Cinestar, Cineculte, Cinetoile, Piwi and Teletoon, according to Les Echos (via Thomson).

- Aardman: Bristol, U.K.-based Aardman Animations, the company behind Wallace and Gromit and Chicken Run, has added a new video website to wallaceandgromit.com where visitors can see clips from previous and forthcoming shorts and full-length features. The video is powered by a player from Roo. Guardian and Media Week say the feature will include pre-roll and banner advertising, though at present only banner ads seem to be visible.

- BBC: Canonical, maker of the Linux-based Ubuntu operating system, has joined criticism of the BBC's iPlayer catch-up TV application, which, for now, thanks to its Kontiki DRM solution, works only on Windows XP. Canonical's Chris Kenyon, via Personal Computer World : "To link the ability to download content from the BBC, a publicly funded body, to the use of one operating system is anti-competitive and at odds with the BBC charter. Locking access to BBC iPlayer content to phones and internet tablets running Windows is short sighted and bad for fee-payers. Platform neutral means that we need a solution that supports Linux and Apple's OSX." It bears noting the BBC has repeatedly promised iPlayer will eventually work on other platforms.

paidcontent.org

Full-time PhD Studentship: Sky News-City University Studentship

Department of Journalism & Publishing, School of Arts

Further Details

Click here for Employer Profile

http://www.jobs.ac.uk/jobs/UB291/Full-time_PhD_Studentship_Sky_News-City_University_Studentship/

As Canada's largest daily newspaper faces revenue challenges amid ongoing slippage in advertising, the newspaper's website torontostar.com is enjoying increased traffic and revenues as the company invests heavily in online media, The Canadian Press reports.

"Digital revenue for our newspaper and digital segment grew by about 50 per cent year over year, albeit on a modest base," company head Rob Prichard said.

Although digital revenues accounted for just 4.3 per cent of the total in the quarter, that was still significantly ahead of the 2.8 per cent in 2006.

"This is an important achievement for securing our future," Prichard said.

http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/004305.php

LONDON: Many bloggers draw their identity and inspiration from that which they are not: The Mainstream Media, or "MSM," in blogging shorthand.

But the unbridled growth and limitless libertarianism that once defined the blogosphere have eased of late, and blogs are looking a little bit more like the MSM.

Technorati, a search engine for blogs, says there are more than 70 million blogs globally. But it will take nearly a year for the total to double, according to Technorati; two years ago, blogs were doubling every six months or so.

Universal McCann, an agency that buys advertising space and time, said in a report last month that the percentage of Internet users who read blogs had actually fallen recently in the United States, Germany and Italy, even as it was rising in China and South Korea.

Blogs are still generating news scoops, particularly in the United States. And marketers are increasingly trying to figure out how to include blogs in their campaigns, both as a way to "seed" awareness of new products and as a platform for ads.

But blogs are also attracting attention because of the spread of "cyberbullying" and other activity deemed to be antisocial.

In some cases bloggers are taking action to curb unwelcome comments or participants; in at least one country, South Korea, the government has moved to rein in some bloggers, an action that some critics see as a restriction on free speech.

A new law went into effect in South Korea in late July that requires bloggers and other participants in online forums hosted by large Web portals to enter their resident registration number, which is similar to the Social Security number in the United States.

The law was imposed after several Korean celebrities who had been the subject of venomous anonymous commentary in blogging forums committed suicide. Some free-speech advocates complain, however, that the law could also curb the kind of political expression that thrives on anonymity.

"It's an abhorrent, undemocratic idea," said Jeff Jarvis, a blogger and journalism professor at City University of New York.

"Anonymity is an important protection for free speech, particularly in countries that try to limit it."

In the United States, too, there has been concern about cyberbullying, after a blogger on technology issues, Kathy Sierra, was subjected to a series of menacing comments on her blog. Another Web commentator, Tim O'Reilly, proposed a code of conduct for blogging, including a ban on anonymous or defamatory comments.

So far, the idea seems to have gained little traction, and other bloggers say it would be unworkable in practice.

"It's a useful thought experiment but a laughable idea," said Tim Bray, director of Web technologies at Sun Microsystems in Vancouver, who has a blog of his own.

"There are limits on free speech in any society, and something posted on a Web site should abide by roughly the same rules as something printed in a newspaper," Bray said. "But it's better to fight these things using the courts and existing laws."

Elsewhere some bloggers, or operators of blogging sites, are taking action to curb what they see as abusive behavior, sometimes from politically motivated individuals or groups who try to hijack a blog for their own ends.

Ole Wejse Svarrer, editor of avisen.dk, a Web site affiliated with a free newspaper in Denmark called Nyhedsavisen, decided last week that he would no longer accept anonymous comments on the site's open blogging forum.

The move came in response to persistent breaches of what he considered good blogging decorum, and followed an action in May to suspend about 35 people who he said had stepped over the line.

Some leftist commentators, for example, were referring to members of the Danish People's Party, a far-right group, as Nazis, and were attacking individual members of the party as illiterate.

"Just like with football hooligans, it's a small number who ruin it for everyone," he said.

The problems arose in part because avisen.dk, unlike some newspaper Web sites, does not monitor comments before they are published in the discussion forums. Doing so would spoil the spontaneity that attracts many people to blogging, Svarrer said.

Other blogs that abide by the same policy, particularly one-person operations, are finding it difficult to keep up with the volume of comments they receive, some of which they feel they need to delete quickly if they are wildly off-topic, potentially libelous or simply spam.

At the height of the presidential election season in France this year, Loïc Le Meur, a popular blogger, was receiving 300 to 400 comments a day from opponents of Nicolas Sarkozy, whose eventually victorious campaign Le Meur supported.

Many of these comments were spreading false rumors about Sarkozy and his wife, Le Meur said, potentially causing him difficulties in a country where even politicians' private lives are protected by law.

So Le Meur turned to an outside firm based in Mauritius, called Modero, which now scans every comment that is posted on his blog, 24 hours a day, filtering out potentially defamatory material, personal attacks or other objectionable content.

"I had to do this to keep it going," he said, acknowledging that the move meant that his blog had "crossed a line from a personal company to being an edited service."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/19/business/blogs20.php

Newspaper Roundup: Lee, McClatchy And Gannett July Total Revs Decline; Online Continues To Rise

By David Kaplan 

The newspaper industry dynamic of falling total and ad revenues, amid increases obtained by their online operations, can be found in the today's respective reporting of July results for Lee Enterprises (NYSE: LEE), the McClatchy Company (NYSE: MNI) and Gannett (NYSE: GCI). The revenue balances between print and web categories for the three did vary, however:

-- Lee Enterprises: reported its revenue results for July and while advertising overall continued its downward slide, online ad revenue grew 62.5 percent in July and 57.2 percent year to date. Despite those gains, online ad revenue was not enough to offset a total decline in ad spending brought in by the newspaper chain. Still, those losses were fairly low. By comparison, July 2006 ad revenue came in at $72.9 million versus $74.4 million the year before, a decrease of 2.1 percent. Year to date, overall ad revenue fell a slight 1.1 percent to $724 million compared to $732 million for the same period in 2006.

-- Lee's combined print and online retail advertising was up a moderate 0.6 percent in July ($36.2 million from $36 million, year-over-year) and slipped 0.4 percent year to date to $382 million from $384 million for the same period a year ago. Combined print and online classified revenue fell 4.4 percent (to $31 million from $32 million) and 1.1 percent year to date ($281 million from $284 million), with employment up 3.6 percent for the month and up 5.8 percent year to date. Combined print and online national advertising revenue was down 7.2 percent (to $4.2 million from $4.6 million) and down 6.3 percent year to date ($47 million from $50 million). Release

-- McClatchy: Advertising revenues in July 2007 decreased 9.4 percent and total revenues were down 8.6 percent in July. Reflecting the industry's trend on the opposite flow of print and internet spending, online-only ad revenues were up 8.4 percent to $14.4 million from $13.3 million. Release

-- Gannett: Operating revenues in July fell 4.3 percent to $626 million from $654 million. Total ad revenues were down 6.1 percent to $408 million from $434 million, year-over-year. While Gannett did not provide dollar figures for its online revenues, it claimed that segment gained 37.3 percent in July over the same period the year before. Release

paidcontent.org

Perspectives about the news from people in the news

We wanted to give you a heads-up on a new, experimental feature we'll be trying out on the Google News home page. Starting this week, we'll be displaying reader comments on stories in Google News, but with a bit of a twist...

We'll be trying out a mechanism for publishing comments from a special subset of readers: those people or organizations who were actual participants in the story in question. Our long-term vision is that any participant will be able to send in their comments, and we'll show them next to the articles about the story. Comments will be published in full, without any edits, but marked as "comments" so readers know it's the individual's perspective, rather than part of a journalist's report.

As always, Google News will direct readers to the professionally-written articles and news sources our algorithms have determined are relevant for a topic. From bloggers to mainstream journalists, the journalists who help create the news we read every day occupy a critical place in the information age. But we're hoping that by adding this feature, we can help enhance the news experience for readers, testing the hypothesis that -- whether they're penguin researchers or presidential candidates-- a personal view can sometimes add a whole new dimension to the story.

We're beginning this only in the US and then, based on how things go, we'll work to expand it to other languages and editions. We're excited about the possibilities of this new feature and we hope you are too, so if you've been covered in a news article please send us your comments and we'll work with you to post it on Google News.

http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/perspectives-about-news-from-people-in.html

Google is making some journalists edgy with a new feature that allows story 'participants' to add comments that will display below Google News story links.

The Google comments differ from those on a typical blog in that only "those people or organizations who were actual participants in the story in question" will be able to add a message, according to Google's announcement from last night. According to a Computerworld news story, Google will vet a commenter to make sure he is who he says he is, and will post the comments as-is without any editing.

Here's an example of a comment:

To read the text, you have to click the comment link, which brings up a whole new page. I'd much rather see the comments expand on the same news listing page, or come up in a pop-up. It's a little annoying to have to use the back button to get back to the story listings.

But that's not what has at least some reporters leery about this new experiment. There are plenty of times when a source thinks we left out useful information, or gave the other side too much credit, or should have used an entire quote. It's our job to boil down a story to its important details and make it flow well (or fit in the allotted space), but that often leaves people in the story less than happy.

In fact, it's common to see a genuinely fair and balanced story on a hot topic tick off both sides in the story, since neither is presented as entirely winning the argument. And I think some journalists may worry that 'participants' with an agenda may cast doubt on a good piece with a comment that might not be entirely accurate, but sounds good and convincing.

Of course, there are also plenty of times when we all-too-human reporters screw up a name or do in fact miss a piece of information, and nobody likes to have their mistakes trumpeted front-and-center.

But realistically, I think this is a good thing. A real online conversation can only add to a story I write, and I think we can trust most readers to discern when a source is trying to sell instead of inform. And I think most sources are similarly understanding. The scientist who left the above-pictured comment, for example, wrote "One thing that is missing is a feeling of all the hard work of many people who helped make this discovery happen, but that is probably not possible in a short news segment."

And more importantly, this kind of conversation is inescapable. In a sense, Google is behind the curve here compared with all the back-and-forth in any thriving blog community. The days of essentially one-way communication are over.
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/005119.html

Commentary: A Times editorial attacks the concept of reader comments on news stories, declaring Google a greater threat "than Osama bin Laden." The Los Angeles Times this morning insulted its readers in a stunning editorial that compared Google with Osama bin Laden and showed why Times editors simply do not understand the medium that is growing to dominate the news publishing industry. A point by point rebuttal follows:

Many publishers consider the Internet, and Google in particular, a greater threat to their livelihoods than Osama bin Laden.

Who are these publishers, exactly? The Times' David Hiller? Ignore the straw man here and the reader is still left with The Times' belief that a search engine company which has helped millions of people around the world more effectively find the information they need, and that has paid publishers billions of dollars to create original content (full disclosure: including OJR and me, personally) is a greater threat to journalism and Western capitalism than a murderer who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

Wow.

After The Times lit its credibility on fire with that statement, one shouldn't need to dissect the rest of its ridiculous editorial.

But I will. ;-)

Among those who have taken particular offense at Google are some current and aspiring newspaper publishers, including Sam Zell (who's in the process of buying Tribune Co., owner of the Los Angeles Times), who once famously asked, "If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?"

Well, does Zell think Google is worse than bin Laden? I do not see that claim in what he said. Furthermore, I, and several other news industry executives, took apart Zell's myopia here in OJR when he made that ill-informed comment last spring.

Up to now, Google's news site hasn't been a moneymaker for the company, at least not directly. There are no ads on Google News, just links to stories on websites run by newspapers, magazines and other news outlets. Those links prompt people to spend more time on the news media's sites, potentially increasing their ad sales.

But Google now is doing yet another thing that's bound to get under journalists' skin."

Umm, perhaps I shouldn't speak for others here, but, as a journalist and a publisher, I like readers to spend more time on my sites, "potentially increasing [my] ad sales." That doesn't get under my skin at all.

This month, it announced plans to let people and organizations comment on the stories written about them. For example, if The Times ran another exposé on conflicts of interest within the Food and Drug Administration's drug-approval process, Google News would provide a forum for the FDA and any researchers or drug manufacturers implicated in the story to respond, unedited.

Goodness, we wouldn't want the sources in our stories to have a chance to respond, would we? /sarcasm

The feature implies that the stories aggregated by Google News are incomplete -- possibly because of limited space, but also possibly because of bias, neglect or ignorance. News organizations have their flaws, and the added comments on Google may demonstrate that.

Finally, a point of agreement. Reader comments on online news stories give readers the opportunity to provide a needed check on reporting flaws. No journalist should ever presume that a single news article ever is complete.

But Google's effort may have a happier side effect: It may illustrate why journalism is more than just aggregating information -- and why Google News isn't really its competition after all.

The essence of good journalism is asking the right questions. Google, however, won't ask anything of those who submit comments. According to the company's announcement, its only interest is that the submissions are authentic, not that they're relevant or even truthful. As a result, the comments section is likely to be larded with spin, hype and obfuscation. A seemingly heartfelt comment may carry the CEO's name, but the words will probably have been typed by corporate flacks.

Another point of agreement: "The essence of good journalism is asking the right questions." No, Google won't ask those questions, but its technology will enable readers to ask those questions, of reporters and of each other. And allows reporters to come back and ask follow-up questions of the readers who questioned the reporter in the first place.

This is is point that journalists who have spent their lives publishing in a one-way medium too often fail to grasp: That online reader comments are not a one-way medium, in the opposite direction. They are a two-way conversation, in which reporters can, and ought to, participate, as well.

Nor should The Times condemn Google for sins that many traditional journalists have committed. "Stenography" journalism runs rampant at newspapers which have cut reporting staffs to the bone. Readers of Dan Froomkin's outstanding White House Watch will be familiar with many examples of Washington-beat scribes dutifully "reporting" U.S. administration spin, with no effort to provide context or determine truth.

Furthermore, is the reader of this editorial to assume that The Times never runs quotes from CEOs in its paper that were in fact written by corporate spokespersons? If The Times' editorial writers truly believe that, I suggest they take a trip over to The Times' newsroom sometime.

There will be some valuable responses too, plugging holes in stories or correcting mistaken impressions.

Third point of agreement here. So why, then, is The Times attacking this technology which would plug holes in stories, correct mistaken impressions, enable readers to ask questions of reporters and provide a check on reporting flaws?

Google, however, won't help readers separate the factual wheat from the public-relations chaff -- a reminder that Google may strive to be the world's index, but it's not journalism.

If The Times wants to criticize Google's implementation of reader comments, that's fair game. Many good publishers have shut off reader comments because they didn't want the hassle of handling them. But plenty of system administrators have developed systems to allow readers and/or editors to filter comments, so that readers can separate the wheat from the chaff. By not acknowledging any of those, however, The Times allows its editorial to stand as a condemnation of the concept of enabling online comments to news stories.

So let The Times readers be warned: The Times doesn't get it. It hasn't enabled comments on its own news stories ( previously criticized in OJR), nor does it like the idea of others linking to and commenting on its stories.

As I said at the opening of OJR's annual unconference last spring, journalism should noy be defined by its process. Journalism ought to be defined by its end result: fresh, accurate information that helps its readers see a truth that they did not before.

Smart news organizations need to be blowing up their old ways of producing journalism -- not just publishing it, but reporting it as well -- in order to better provide more accurate and insightful journalism to beat the increased competition from millions of new content publishers online. To do that, publishers need to hear fresh perspectives, from their employees... and from the public.

But what does The Times tell them with this editorial?

"Shut up."

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070817niles/

Commentary: OJR's editor offers a five-step plan for competing with blogs and websites. Step one: The answer is, always, 'yes!'
You can't pay the bills with your reputation. Yet, concerns about newsrooms staffers doing "something" that might hurt the paper's, or the station's, reputation are killing the news industry's ability to innovate at a critical moment in its history.

Richard R. Klick of the Daily Herald in Arlington, Ill. reminded me of this issue when he posted this query to the Online News Association 's e-mail list earlier this month:

"Our organization is looking into setting up guidelines for staff members who also have non-business-related blogs outside the newsroom. There is a lot of discussion in our organization whether we need such guides for our staffers, who represent and, by association, are linked to the newspaper whether they are on or off duty."

I've heard the same question from several other newsroom editors. It's a fair question, and one that would deserve greater weight if newsrooms were not losing so many readers to blogs, discussion forums and other online information destinations.

Few newsroom managers today have worked in a newspaper war. (I consider myself fortunate to have spent four years competing in Denver's, in the late 1990s.) But that's what we all face today, except that the competition isn't another daily. It's everyone else on the Web.

As I wrote in response to the ONA list, "newspapers need to be creating a culture of blogging and online entrepreneurship in their newsrooms, not choking it to death." Too many guidelines about outside Web projects send a clear message to staffers: "Don't go there."

Here is my opposite approach: A five-step plan for dealing with reporters and editors in your newsroom who want to blog, or try anything else online outside their traditional job description:

Step One: The answer is 'yes'

Analysis paralysis has been killing newsrooms' response to new online competition for the past decade.

>