[This review was originally posted at the Nieman Journalism Lab on March 28, 2014.]
This week's essential reads
: If you only have a minute, the most important reads this week are the overview of Pew's State of the News Media report
, Deadspin's Tim Marchman on the cynicism of the term clickbait
, and the Tow Center's Alexander Howard putting the data journalism discussion
in historical context.
Reasons for optimism about the news industry
: The Pew Research Journalism Project's annual smorgasbord of data about the news industry, the State of the News Media
report, was released this week, and after several gloomy years, the report had a distinctively optimistic tone
this year. The headlining figure, as CNN's Brian Stelter reported
, was Pew's tally of 5,000 new journalism jobs created at more than 400 digital news startups, in addition to at least $300 million in venture capital
into news-related digital media startups in 2013.
Pew's president, Alan Murray, provided several reasons for optimism
from the report, including its findings of increasing news consumption on mobile devices and social media, and Pete Cashmore of Mashable praised
the growing efforts to make news more accessible and mobile.
USA Today's Rem Rieder also expressed his enthusiasm
for journalism's online growth, though he expressed concern about the future of local journalism. The Knight Foundation's Eric Newton said student journalists are a big part
of the new work that's being done in local journalism and shouldn't be left out of studies like this. The Washington Post's Paul Farhi went deeper
into local journalism's long decline, pointing out that "the biggest investments in digital news have gone toward start-up ventures that target broad and borderless audiences, bypassing community news altogether."
There was plenty of bad news in the report, too, and Digiday's Lucia Moses gave an overview
of some of it: The new revenue is only a sliver of journalism's total funding, which still remains heavily dependent on advertising. And the 5,000 new jobs are a long way from replacing the jobs that have been lost. Poynter's Rick Edmonds noted
that despite its decline, the newspaper industry still accounts for more than half of the news business' revenues.
TV news — whether local, cable, or network — earns far less revenue, as Edmonds pointed out. Pew's numbers were particularly dire for MSNBC, as Erik Wemple of The Washington Post
and Dylan Byers of Politico
pointed out. The Lab's Justin Ellis highlighted
the year of ownership upheaval in the local TV news industry, as well as the growth of online video. Poynter's Sam Kirkland noted that that growth isn't as great as one might expect
, though the audience for online news videos is remarkably young. And Patrick Seitz of Investor's Business Daily detailed the role of Facebook
in young people's news consumption habits.
Debating the merits of chasing traffic
: The move toward a more nakedly traffic-driven orientation has been in the works in online news for a long time, but the Advance-owned Oregonian in Portland may have taken it to new levels among traditional news organizations. The alt-weekly Willamette Week reported on internal documents at the paper
that require Oregonian reporters to post new articles three times a day and post the first comment on any substantial post. Annual bonuses will be based on performance ratings, which will be determined in large part on web metrics.
The Columbia Journalism Review's Ryan Chittum decried the move
as a brazen institutionalization of the "hamster wheel" mentality that has overtaken journalism, saying it makes it much more difficult for The Oregonian's reporters to do good, serious work. "The sad thing about Advance’s digital forced march is that its executives really think they’re getting ahead of the curve. But they’re implementing 2008’s conventional wisdom in 2014, and they’re doing it badly at that," Chittum wrote. Mathew Ingram of Gigaom agreed that the plan is too pageview-focused
and likely to lead to clickbait, but said he liked the focus on engagement, producing lots of regular content, and a variety of posting styles.
The Lab's Joshua Benton said he's not so much concerned about the particulars
of The Oregonian's bet on online traffic as the fact that it's making a bet in the first place. Any bet, he said, is an encouraging departure from the age-old plan of cutting, retrenching around declining print advertising and circulation, and relying on an aging audience.
The New York Times' David Carr
included The Oregonian's changes as an example of a larger trend toward paying journalists based on the traffic they bring in, a practice that brings a welcome meritocracy to journalistic production but is also alarmingly open to manipulation. Newswhip's Paul Quigley argued
that this trend actually tilts things toward writers' favor rather than their bosses, because it depends in part on their brands and their networks. Gigaom's Ingram noted, though, that this obsession will continue
as long as advertising (and, by extension, advertisers) are still driving the bus of online revenue.
Lucia Moses of Digiday looked at the range of approaches
among online news organizations to giving journalists metrics, and Poynter's Sam Kirkland noted
that there are still lines editors won't cross in search of traffic. Deadspin's Tim Marchman railed against the cynicism
in the ubiquitous term clickbait, saying it presents a moralistic "false binary between stories that serve the public interest and those cynically presented just because people will read them."
Facebook jumps into virtual reality
: Facebook made another big-dollar, out-of-left-field purchase this week, buying two-year-old startup Oculus Rift, which makes virtual reality headgear, for $2 billion. Recode's Kara Swisher reported some details on how the deal came together
, and Time's Lev Grossman wrote a good profile
on Oculus' background and what sets it apart.
Virtual reality, of course, wouldn't seem to be a natural extension of Facebook's existing platform, so many people have been wondering exactly what the social network has in mind. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg said he plans to start with Oculus' current ambitions in gaming
and then move toward providing a broader range of virtual experiences with friends. Andrew Wallenstein of Variety said, though, that Facebook's eventually going to end up in the movie business
Several other observers said Zuckerberg doesn't really know what Facebook's going to do with Oculus; he's simply hedging his bets on the technology of the future. Said venture capitalist Fred Wilson
: "The next thing was mobile. Mobile is now the last thing. And all of these big tech companies are looking for the next thing to make sure they don’t miss it."
Reuters' Felix Salmon compared Zuckerberg to Warren Buffett
, hedging his bets in all kinds of fields against the eventual decline of Facebook as a social media platform. Gigaom founder Om Malik said the interesting realization in all this "billion dollar dart throwing"
is that we're moving toward a glass ceiling for the advertising-based model. Forbes' Eric Mack argued
, meanwhile, that Zuckerberg will have a tough time turning virtual reality into a mainstream technology.
Oculus raised its initial $2.4 million through Kickstarter, and its backers there were not exhilarated at the company's big payday, but outraged, as The Verge's Adrianne Jeffries reported
. Minecraft creator Markus Persson said he would no longer work with Oculus
, and Dean Putney of BoingBoing captured the disappointment
of people who thought Oculus could be a "next big thing" that was actually powered by the grassroots, rather than corporations. PandoDaily's James Robinson said virtual reality just became a monopoly
, and other new technologies are likely to follow: "An entire generation of hardware innovation is up for grabs right now, and neither Facebook or Google seem about to close their wallets."
Net neutrality and streaming video
: The net neutrality debate was stoked again late last week by a pair of posts from two of the players with the biggest stakes in the game. Netflix's Reed Hastings made the argument for stronger net neutrality
, saying that Internet service providers are charging content providers for interconnection (like in the deal Netflix made with Comcast
last month) just because they can. AT&T's Jim Cicconi countered
that users' increasing appetite for streaming video (that is, Netflix) has huge costs for ISPs, and that Netflix wants those costs to be borne by all broadband customers, rather than the ones who are streaming the video through Netflix.
Supporters fell in on both sides: BoingBoing's Cory Doctorow called AT&T's policies
"extortion," and the New America Foundation's Sarah Morris called for strong net neutrality
to police the opaque world of interconnection in which the Netflixes and AT&Ts of the world negotiate. On the other side, StreamingMedia's Dan Rayburn said Netflix isn't being straightforward
about the situation it's actually in, and Forbes' Mark Rogowsky said the net neutrality Netflix is calling for wouldn't solve its problems
The Verge's Ben Popper explained Netflix's deal with Comcast
in light of Hastings' post, and Gigaom's Janko Roettgers looked at whether Hastings' tongue-in-cheek proposal
that Netflix should become a peer-to-peer network would actually work.
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reported
that Apple and Comcast are in talks about a deal that would use an Apple set-top box for streaming TV and allow Apple to bypass online data congestion through an interconnectivity arrangement. There was a lot of skepticism about the story, with Variety's Andrew Wallenstein
, Gigaom's Janko Roettgers
, and StreamingMedia's Dan Rayburn
all throwing cold water on it.
: Several other noteworthy stories from this busy week:
— After weeks of hints, The New York Times officially announced
two new paid-content options, an $8-a-month app of core Times content called NYT Now and a $45-a-month subscription called Times Premier that includes behind-the-scenes information about the paper. Poynter's Sam Kirkland has more details on the programs
, BuzzFeed's Charlie Warzel looked at whether NYT Now will succeed
, and Gigaom's Mathew Ingram offered suggestions
for personalizing The Times' paid content plans.
— Turkey's government sought to ban Twitter late last week, prompting widespread workarounds by Turkish Twitter users as well as a legal challenge filed by Twitter
. One Turkish court overturned the ban
on Wednesday, while another one rejected Twitter's complaint
. The government also blocked YouTube
on Thursday. Some of the best commentary on the subject has been by Turkish digital sociology professor Zeynep Tufekci, who explained why Turkey is blocking Twitter
and what Turks are doing about it
— The chatter about Nate Silver's relaunched data journalism site FiveThirtyEight continued this week, and while much of it come from an ongoing slap-fight
and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman
, some of it was also quite thought-provoking. The Tow Center's Alexander Howard gave some historical context
to some of the backlash against data journalism, Om Malik gave some advice
to Silver on dealing with criticism, the Columbia Journalism Review's Tanveer Ali called for better understanding of narrative
at FiveThirtyEight, and Adam Tinworth offered a defense of data journalism
— The New York Times reported
that the Obama administration is proposing an end to the U.S. National Security Agency's systematic collection of Americans' bulk phone records, allowing it access to phone companies' data only with a specific court order. The Volokh Conspiracy's Stewart Baker compared Obama's plan
to Congress' proposed overhaul, and The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald examined the tough spot
the new plan may put pro-NSA Democrats in.
— Finally, tech blogger Ben Thompson wrote a thoughtful post
on the well-trod topic of traditional and future business models for news, and the Lab's Joshua Benton added some of his thoughts
on what might be ahead.