It Ain't Easy To Get A Newspaper To Provide Useful Data

from the not-their-thing dept

We've discussed in the past the idea that newspapers today need to get beyond reporting the news and also move towards opening up their data such that others can make that data useful. Newspapers have access to all sorts of interesting and useful data -- but traditionally, they've hoarded it and only used it as a resource for editors and reporters in creating stories. However, by opening up that data to others, it could make those news organizations much more valuable. We're seeing some movement in that direction, and recently noted that the NY Times had come out with an API for the campaign finance data it had.

However, one thing that seems clear is that very few newspapers have the resources necessary to do this on a regular basis. The NY Times (and, to some extent, the Washington Post) seems to be willing to invest in this area, but for many newspapers, the entire concept seems foreign. Writing for OJR, Eric Ulken from the LA Times discusses how much effort it took to get the necessary resources just to build a homicide map to go along with a blog that planned to chronicle every homicide in the LA area. If Ulken's experience is any indication, it seems pretty clear that very, very few traditional news organizations are going to be able to pull this off. They're just not set up to do such things.

It seems increasingly clear that these types of innovations are more likely to come from newer news organizations who actually recognize the value of data in addition to straight reporting, and the concept of openness compared to being a gatekeeper.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

LA Times Just Realized That Print And Online Newsrooms Should Be The Same?

from the a-bit-slow-on-the-uptake,-huh? dept

Nearly three years ago, we were surprised to hear the NY Times proudly announce that it was going to merge its online and offline newsrooms. What we couldn't believe was that in 2005 a newspaper actually still had thought it made sense to treat the two separately. However, apparently the Times was way ahead of some other newspapers. Buried in the ho-hum news about massive LA Times layoffs is the news that, as part of this reorganization, it's finally going to merge its web and print operations as well. When you're sitting around wondering where newspapers went wrong, the fact that they wanted to keep web and print operations separate is probably a good place to start.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

LA Times Embarrasses Itself With Kozinski Coverage

from the digital-dumpster-diving dept

Last week we wrote about the hoopla surrounding some racy images and videos Judge Kozinski had accidentally made public on his personal web server. This week, it was announced that a panel of federal judges will be investigating Kozinski's conduct. I don't understand why an investigation is needed because it's pretty clear what happened, and that Kozinski did nothing wrong. My colleague Jim Harper links to a defense of Kozinski by Larry Lessig. I share Lessig's conclusion that the treatment of Kozinski has been disgraceful, but I don't think the analogy Lessig uses is especially apt. Lessig analogizes the situation to a man who climbs into Kozinski's den through a poorly-secured window and makes copies of the materials he finds within Kozinski's house. He also uses the term "hack" to describe the process of accessing Kozinski's files. I don't think this is quite right. It was a public web server; the files were readily available without a password to anyone who went looking for them. What was done to Kozinski was unsavory, but it wasn't illegal, and it's not analogous to breaking and entering.

A better analogy is dumpster diving. What happened was the digital equilvalent of somebody combing through Kozinski's trash and discovering an issue of Playboy. No respectable respectable newspaper would publish a front-page story about finding porn in a federal judge's trash. It's no more newsworthy that Kozinski inadvertently made some racy images available on his personal website. Kozinski's wife, Marcy Tiffany, wrote a letter about the affair that's well worth reading in full. She claims (and others agree) that the files were unearthed by an attorney with a grudge against Kozinski, who obtained the files months ago and has been shopping them around to different newspapers ever since. The LA Times apparently had this story months ago, but waited until Kozinski had finished the grueling work of impaneling a jury for a big obscenity case (it's hard to find a dozen people willing to watch hours of defecation and bestiality videos) before putting the story on its front page.

Even worse, the LA Times coverage appears designed to cast the material on Kozinski's computer in the worst possible light. For example, it describes one video as depicting "a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal." This description prompted a number of follow-up reports, including one in the San Francisco Chronicle, to describe the contents of the video as "bestiality," despite the fact that the video in question obviously doesn't depict bestiality. (The Chronicle story was here, but the word "bestiality" has since been deleted) The LA Times really ought to apologize to Judge Kozinski for needlessly dragging his reputation through the mud.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wait, Weren't Big Newspapers Needed For Credibility?

from the so-much-for-that-plan dept

Over the last few years, it's been amusing to watch defenders of mainstream journalism trash online journalism by claiming that traditional journalists can do real investigative journalism, whereas online-only sources are too easily suckered into fake stories. In fact, one of the loudest complaints about the demise of newspapers is that no one will do "investigative" reports any more. There's no doubt that newer journalism properties get stories wrong at times, but traditional journalists seem just as likely to screw up as well. Witness the big news about the LA Times getting totally suckered into believing a completely made up story concerning Tupac Shakur's murder. Who broke the LA Times mistake? The online site, TheSmokingGun.com. This isn't to say that new media is any better than traditional media -- but it does highlight that for all the supposed "authority" of traditional journalists and their lofty standards, there's a pretty long track record of stunning mistakes and poorly fact-checked stories made by them.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

LA Times: Publishers Think Google Is Worse Than Osama bin Laden

from the no,-really? dept

While the SF Chronicle may have gone through the stages of Google grief, it appears the LA Times is still very much in the denial stage. In fact, it's such extreme denial, that it's reaching near-satire levels. Robert Niles at OJR points us to an editorial in the LA Times saying that "many publishers" believe that Google and the internet are "a greater threat... than Osama bin Laden." Niles does a good job walking through how ridiculous that statement is, including pointing out that the LA Times refuses to name a single publisher who actually believes that. However, as has been pointed out many, many times, Google is not a threat to newspapers. It's only helping them. It's funny that, on the rest of the internet, tremendous money is spent on "search engine marketing" and "search engine optimization" to get better ranked in Google. Yet, when Google ranks newspapers well, suddenly, it's worse than terrorists. You would think that a newspaper with professional reporters would actually bother to get the facts and understand this -- but apparently that's too much to ask. The editorial goes on to complain about Google's new news commenting feature, because how dare Google actually provide people involved in a story a chance to tell their side? Apparently, all information needs to be guarded by some gatekeepers who don't even seem to understand how Google works. Of course, since the LA Times wants to keep those in the story quiet, you can't comment on the article. However, if I were Google, I'd add a response to this... on Google News, to demonstrate why that comment feature makes so much sense.

68 Comments | Leave a Comment..

LA Times Kills Editorial On How To Revitalize Both Music And Newspaper Industries To Avoid Pissing Off Both

from the how-dare-you-make-a-suggestion-that-will-help-us! dept

Last month, when the news first came out that Prince did a deal to have a UK newspaper give away a free copy of his latest CD with every paper, we noted that this showed a great way to increase the value for both the music industry and the newspaper industry in one single move. Apparently, I wasn't the only one to think so. A columnist for the LA Times, Patrick Goldstein, felt the same way as well -- and actually had some fantastic ideas to improve on Prince's experiment in a way that would add tremendous value to a bunch of musicians and the LA Times in a single move. Of course, the LA Times sometimes is known for catering to the incumbent established entertainment industry which so dominates LA -- and perhaps that's why the LA Times' new associate editor killed the column and refused to run it (found via Romenesko). Of course, in true Streisand Effect fashion, the column has leaked and it's hard to see any reason why the LA Times would spike it, other than it was afraid of pissing off the established recording industry.

You can read the whole spiked column at the link above, and it's a worthwhile read. The smart changes Goldstein proposed were that it be a regular series of free CDs distributed with the newspaper (encouraging more subscriptions and positioning the paper as a "tastemaker"). And rather than have the newspaper pay the musicians directly (which is how the Prince deal worked), have a sponsor pony up the money to be associated with the musician (this is exactly how much music is already created). Everyone wins in this deal... except stubborn record labels who don't understand that they should be in the music promotion business and think they're only in the business of selling plastic discs. The musicians get paid, get a lot more attention and are likely to make even more in terms of a wider audience willing to go to more shows, buy more merchandise and increase the amount future sponsors will be willing to pay. The newspaper gives people a fantastic new reason to subscribe and reinvents the role of the newspaper as a tastemaker. Sponsors get a great way to associate their brand with hot musicians. And, most importantly, everyone else benefits by getting access to more good music. Yet, in a town where the entertainment industry rules all, apparently, protecting obsolete business models is more important than publishing interesting columns with fantastic suggestions for creating a great new service.

Goldstein's final paragraph is too good not to repeat (especially since the LA Times doesn't think it's worth even printing once:

"Giving music away doesn't mean it has lost its value, just that its value is no longer moored to the price of a CD. Like it or not, the CD is dying, as is the culture of newsprint. People want their music -- and their news -- in new ways. It's time we embraced change instead of always worrying if some brash new idea -- like giving away music -- would tarnish our sober minded image. When businesses are faced with radical change, they are usually forced to ask -- is it a threat or an opportunity? Guess which choice is the right answer."

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..