Category: Media

Thoughts on the N.Y. Times’ modified limited paywall

Earlier today, Lois Beckett of the Nieman Journalism Lab asked me and a number of other media observers to write brief commentaries on the New York Times’ modified limited paywall, which was announced this morning. She got some interesting responses, ranging from Steve Buttry (“ridiculous”) to Amy Webb (“a wise move”). Here’s what I wrote:

The New York Times is taking a smart and nuanced approach. Times executives have struck an interesting balance between charging heavy users for access while remaining part of the free online conversation that’s become such an important part of the media ecosystem. I have no idea whether a limit of 20 free articles a month is too little, too much or just right, but I assume they’ll adjust in response to what the market tells them.

I was also pleased to see that print subscribers, including Sunday-only customers (like our family), will have free access to most of the Times’ online platforms. The Sunday paper remains a vital source of revenue for the Times, and it makes sense for Arthur Sulzberger, Janet Robinson and company to do whatever they can to preserve that money machine.

That said, the Times will no longer be able to make excuses for glitchy software and access problems. I’m reasonably happy with the Times iPhone app, but my wife reads the Times on her iPad, and it’s buggy. You can get away with that when it’s free. But once you put a price tag on your product, you’ve got to guarantee that it works — and be responsive to consumer complaints when it doesn’t. That’s especially true given that the Times is charging more for electronic access than many had predicted.

The news business may be watching this very closely to see what lessons can be drawn, but I’m not sure that there will be many, because the Times is such a unique product. For many people, the Times may be the one “newspaper” for which they’re willing to pay to read online. Rather than paving the way for other newspapers, the Times’ paywall may instead lead to a further stratification of the news business, as executives at other papers find themselves unable to emulate the Times’ success in persuading customers to pay for electronic access.

The announcement was pretty much along the lines of what the Times said was coming months ago, though the fees for non-print subscribers ($15 to $35 every four weeks depending on your platforms) are higher than some had expected. There are also all kinds of exceptions regarding Twitter and Facebook access, top news on smartphones and the like.

The plan is very different from one that will be unveiled later this year by a sister Times Co. property, the Boston Globe, which announced last fall that it would divide its Web offerings into a free Boston.com (filled mostly with content that doesn’t appear in the Globe) and a paid BostonGlobe.com.

Last October, I interviewed Globe publisher Chris Mayer about his paywall plans.

Police officer vows to defy First Amendment

Last fall, the New Haven Police Department came under criticism after officers were caught harassing people trying to video-record them while they were making arrests during a crackdown on rowdy bars. In one instance, according to an internal report, a commanding officer went so far as to confiscate an iPhone and order another officer to erase the video.

Police Chief Frank Limon, in response, said publicly that citizens have a right to video-record the police as long as they don’t interfere. Officers are attending training sessions reinforcing that message. And Limon recently issued a general order putting it into writing.

So what do you do when an officer — posting pseudonymously in the comments section of the New Haven Independent, a five-year-old non-profit news site — makes it clear that he’s going to keep doing things his way?

It’s an interesting question, and one with no easy answer.

On March 3, Independent editor and publisher Paul Bass covered a training session led by Assistant Chief Tobin Hensgen. Nineteen of the department’s more than 400 officers were there. Presumably all of them will be cycled through at some point.

As it happened, I was on one of my reporting trips to New Haven, so I was there. Among other things, I got to see another dimension to the controversy: Hensgen showed a video clip of a handgun convincingly disguised as a cellphone. I can certainly understand why an officer would want to inspect a cellphone if someone were aiming it at him at a crime scene.

Coincidentally, later that afternoon Chief Limon held a news conference at police headquarters to respond to two investigations into incidents of police harassing cellphone-wielding bystanders. (I was on hand for that as well, tagging along with reporter Thomas MacMillan.) Former assistant chief Ariel Melendez was at the center of both incidents. He retired in January with a pension of $124,500.

On Saturday, a commenter who identified himself only as “J” (scroll down) wrote that he was at the training session, and that he would insist on inspecting a cellphone at the scene because of the possibility that it could be a weapon. So far, so good. Then he added this:

Also if I am conducting an investigation involving a juvenile and I find that you are filming I will ask you to stop. If you do not comply I will take your phone and place it into evidence.  The identity and image of a juvenile will be protected. Of course if you see a officer abusing a juvenile or anyone for that matter and film it this is a different story.

Bass responded in an “Editor’s Note”:

I believe you will be breaking the law in that latter case. If you do that to us, we will pursue all legal avenues to make sure you are punished. However, I agree with you that we shouldn’t film the juvenile; that is our responsibility. However again, we do feel comfortable filming the scene but leaving the juvenile’s face and identity out of it.

“J” posted again, making it clear that he understood the law, but was going to do what he thought was right regardless:

No, if I am dealing with a juvenile while conducting an investigation then the entire well-being of that child is MY responsibility, not the individual who is filming.

I completely understand that you or anyone would pursue me or any other officer legally, unfortunately that comes with this job.

If I am to be pursued legally my report will show my justification for what I have done and I will have to play the odds. I can say that anything regarding a child plays heavily on the feelings of all adults, so I would find it extremely hard for any court to find fault in what I did. I, however will sleep well knowing I did the right thing legally or not.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

Bass:

We are not disagreeing about what the law says. We are not disagreeing about what the policy is. We are disagreeing about whether you should follow the law; that’s your choice. In terms of protecting the juvenile — in the case of the Independent, we agree not to run the face of a juvenile being arrested. If another citizen or media outlet chooses to run a photo of juvenile in public causing trouble, the law is 100 percent clear that this is legal and permissible and that you are breaking the law if you try to prevent it.

There’s more, but that’s the gist of it. What’s at the heart of this dispute is a little-understood fact: that news organizations protect the identities of juveniles by custom, not as a matter of law. No one is legally prohibited from publishing the name of a juvenile charged with a crime — and, in fact, names often are published if the crime is notorious enough.

Nor do juvenile victims and witnesses enjoy any legal protections against having their identities revealed. Protecting their identities is a custom, and a good one. But making it a matter of law would violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and freedom of the press. The Supreme Court has on several occasions struck down laws that attempt to codify that custom.

What’s interesting about “J” is that he seems to be well aware of that, but doesn’t care. In part, he may be reacting to a legitimate concern about citizen journalism: though a news organization like the Independent isn’t going to publish the names of juveniles, there’s nothing to stop someone with a cellphone camera from posting a video to YouTube that clearly identifies underage suspects, victims and witnesses.

Under the Constitution, though, they have every right to do that. As the saying goes, “What part of ‘no law’ don’t you understand?”

Boston magazine promotes acting editor

John Wolfson

John Wolfson, who’s worked as acting editor of Boston magazine since December, has been named editor. The announcement was made by chief executive officer Rick Waechter.

I rarely see Boston (the magazine, not the city) these days and do not know Wolfson, who is described as a “native New Englander” who “has covered some of the most influential leaders in the Boston area.” So let me get right to the press release:

BOSTON, MA — March  10, 2011 — Boston magazine Chief Executive Officer Rick Waechter today announced John Wolfson has been named Editor of the magazine.

Wolfson has been Acting Editor since December, managing daily magazine operations, working with other senior editors on a strategic plan and leading a re-launch of bostonmagazine.com.

“John Wolfson had the toughest type of interview ever imagined — one where he had to jump into the fray with no warning and being expected to perform at a top level — he did this while putting out transitional fires, strengthening our staff, managing a monthly magazine, weekly newsletters and daily digital products,” said Waechter. “In addition to seamlessly running the day to day operations, John has excited me with his plans for the future. Most importantly, John and I share the same vision for the magazine — Boston magazine needs to be a relevant, strong and trusted voice of authority … and we know we have to earn that right every day in all that we do.”

Before being named acting editor in December 2010, Wolfson was the magazine’s executive editor. A self-proclaimed news junkie since childhood, he has covered some of the most influential leaders in the Boston area. A native New Englander, he’s as caught up in the intrigue on Beacon Hill as the action at Fenway and the Garden.

“I’m honored by the opportunity to lead the talented and dedicated editorial staff of this great magazine,” Wolfson said. “These are fascinating times in Boston. We remain rooted in our history, of course, but more than ever before, we’re remaking ourselves in new and surprising ways.”

Wolfson said he wants the magazine to ask the big questions: “Where should we be going as a city? How will we get there? And who will lead us? Those are the kinds of questions we plan to ask, and answer, each month in Boston magazine,” he said. Wolfson first joined Boston as a writer and editor in 2004. He briefly left the magazine in 2008 to become editor of the startup website Summitas.com, then rejoined the Boston team in 2010. Previously, Wolfson worked as a reporter for the Seattle Times, Orlando Sentinel, and Lowell Sun. His writing has appeared in theNew York Times, Wired, Legal Affairs, Middlebury, Consumers Digest, and other publications.

Waechter said it was a priority for him to hire a leader with strong ties to the Greater Boston community with a passion for exploring all aspects of city life including the great communities that surround it.

Turmoil at NPR finally reaches the top

NPR chief executive Vivian Schiller has resigned following the latest controversy to dog one of our three or four most vital news organizations. Yesterday we learned that NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller — no relation — was secretly recorded by right-wing prankster James O’Keefe. Among other things, Ron Schiller was heard trashing the Tea Party and generally coming off as a liberal.

I’m writing this up for the Guardian later today, and at the moment we don’t know much. My snap reaction, though, is good riddance. NPR handled the long-overdue departure of Juan Williams ineptly and over the wrong issue. Vivian Schiller threw her top news executive Ellen Weiss, over the side of the boat when it was all over.

Then, yesterday, Vivian Schiller publicly humiliated Ron Schiller despite O’Keefe’s flagrant history of doctoring videos of his other targets — principally ACORN.

My fear, though, is that NPR got rid of Vivian Schiller because she didn’t pander to the right hard enough at a time when its funding is in jeopardy. We’ll see.

The New York Times and the T-word

Peter King

The New York Times has a great story today on U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who is presiding over repugnant hearings into the loyalty of Muslim-Americans. Reporter Scott Shane reminds us that King made his reputation as a staunch supporter of the Irish Republican Army, which for years fought for independence from Britain in attacks that included the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians.

Yet I was struck by Shane’s lede, which frankly describes the IRA as “a terror group.” I don’t have any quarrel with that. But I was surprised, given the Times’ well-known squeamishness over using the T-word to describe Islamist organizations such as Hamas, which has engaged in suicide bombings against civilian targets in its war against Israel.

As the Times’ then-public editor, Clark Hoyt, wrote in 2008, “To the consternation of many, The Times does not call Hamas a terrorist organization, though it sponsors acts of terror against Israel.” It’s a policy that has put the Times in an awkward position previously, as in 2010, when the paper reported on criticism of Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam of the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero, for failing to label Hamas a terrorist group.

The United States, Canada, Israel, Japan and the European Union have all classified Hamas as a terrorist organization.

King’s response to being called out as a hypocrite is truly rancid, as he reveals that he couldn’t care less about the lives of British civilians who were killed in IRA attacks. “I understand why people who are misinformed might see a parallel,” he tells the Times. “The fact is, the IRA never attacked the United States. And my loyalty is to the United States.”

And in the 1980s, King had this to say: “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it.”

Shane attempts to make comparisons between the IRA and Al Qaeda, and concludes — correctly — that Al Qaeda is considerably worse. But the parallels between the IRA and Hamas seem pretty obvious.

The IRA engaged in terrorist attacks, but gradually moved toward a renunciation of such attacks as it uneasily groped its way toward a peace settlement with Britain and participation in government.

Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, may or may not be capable of moving toward a peace settlement with Israel. But certainly it was unclear at a similar stage as to whether the IRA was capable of making such a transition.

It’s pretty simple. Either the IRA and Hamas are/were terrorist organizations, or neither is. I hope public editor Arthur Brisbane will explain why it’s all right for the Times to call the IRA a “terror group” when it refuses to do the same with respect to Hamas.

Michael Paulson leaves Globe for Times

Michael Paulson

If you are a weekend Romenesko reader, then you already know that Boston Globe city editor Michael Paulson is leaving for the New York Times, where he’ll edit stories about local politics and religion for metro editor Carolyn Ryan — herself a former Globe reporter and editor. (Both are alumni of the Patriot Ledger in Quincy as well.)

It still seems strange to refer to Paulson as the Globe’s city editor because, before that, he was a very good religion reporter — among the best working for a general-interest publication, in my opinion. He shared in the Globe’s Pulitzer-winning coverage of the sexual-abuse scandals within the Catholic Church, but he also excelled at covering religion-as-religion.

You can read the memo from Globe metro editor Jen Peter at Romenesko. Below is another memo, from Ryan at the Times:

Folks

I am very happy to tell you that Michael Paulson, city editor at The Boston Globe, will be joining us as Political Editor in Metro.

Michael has a dazzling array of journalistic gifts: he is imaginative, endlessly energetic, insightful and intelligent.

He was an outstanding reporter, who covered local politics, city hall, Washington, and religion — and helped lead the Globe’s coverage of clergy sex abuse in the Catholic Church, which won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.

But Michael is also a natural editor, of expansive curiosity, sly humor and engaging manner. On the Globe’s metro desk, he has overseen a range of subjects, including transportation, the mayoral election and higher education.

Patrick Healy, a colleague of Michael’s at the Globe, described him as “a rare breed — both tenacious and thoughtful, competitive and determined.”

Michael began his reporting career at the age of 21 amid the cranberry bogs and jaywalking wild turkeys of Halifax, Massachusetts, covering a town of 6,000 people and one traffic light for The Patriot Ledger. He then went to the San Antonio Light in Texas, where he covered politics, and from there moved to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, serving as city hall reporter, state house bureau chief, and, ultimately, as the paper’s correspondent in Washington, D.C.

He joined the Globe in 2000 to cover religion, and wrote with nuance and depth about the intersection of faith, culture and politics. He spent several weeks in France researching Mitt Romney’s experience there as a Mormon missionary and traveled to Dearborn to write about Muslims and Arab Christians in the 2008 election. He also captured the complicated role of the Catholic Church during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts. Michael will oversee our religion coverage, in addition to New York politics.

Michael has many ties to New York. His paternal grandparents were born and raised in Brooklyn; the Paulsons moved to Boston in the 1930s when his grandfather, a hosiery salesman, got a job there.

Michael already has a fair number of fans here at the Times.

Diego Ribadeneira, another Globe alumnus, praised Michael’s “wonderful combination of keen intellect, intense curiosity and reassuring temperament.”

He inspires confidence, respect, and affection among his colleagues. I am thrilled we will be partners again.

Michael will join us in April. He can be reached at xxx.Please join me in welcoming him.

Carolyn

 

Meet two young media entrepreneurs

Christine Stuart

Connecticut Magazine has released its list of “40 Under 40” — that is, 40 Connecticut residents under 40 who are making a difference. And it turns out that two of them have been the subject of video interviews on Media Nation. Among those named were:

  • Christine Stuart, 33, who runs the Hartford-based Statehouse news site CT News Junkie (she doubles as the New Haven Independent‘s Statehouse bureau chief).
  • New Haven’s Ben Berkowitz, 31, co-founder of SeeClickFix, an interactive website that uses mapping and discussion boards to connect citizens, government and the media to deal with community problems.

You can see my interview with Stuart here. Berkowitz is here.

 

Alabama chain whacks local papers — again

The Alabama state employees’ pension fund is taking the axe to its newspapers on the North Shore and in the Merrimack Valley — again.

CNHI, the Birmingham, Ala.-based chain that owns four daily newspapers and four weeklies north of Boston, has eliminated 36 full- and part-time jobs. The dailies affected by the layoffs are the Eagle-Tribune of North Andover, the Daily News of Newburyport, the Salem News and the Gloucester Daily Times. The chain whacked 52 jobs in 2008.

“We have done our best to weather economic difficulties, but like many companies we must take further steps to sustain the long-term success of the company by reducing staffing levels again,” a CNHI publisher, Al Getler, said in a statement posted online.

But it’s not all bad news for CNHI — if you’re fortunate enough to be near the seat of power. The company recently announced that it would move to Alabama’s state capital, Montgomery, and take up residence in a 12-story building being constructed by its chief investor, Retirement Systems of Alabama. The move is expected to take place in 2012.

We subscribe to the Salem News, and we continue to be impressed with the good job done by the reporters, photographers and editors every day. (Disclosure: Mrs. Media Nation was a Salem News photographer until eight years ago.)

But working conditions have been pretty difficult. For the past several years, most employees have had to take roughly a week of unpaid furlough every quarter. And now things have gotten considerably worse.

No doubt management is having a difficult time of it. The Salem News is pretty light on ads most days. But hollowing out the product year by year is a recipe for eventual closure, not revival. If there is a vision beyond continued cutting, it’s certainly not apparent to readers — or to the journalists who still work there.

Make me an angel that flies from Montgomery.