fkcblog

Happy Holidays!

farrell kramer — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:27:34 -0800

another major publication goes digital

farrell kramer — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:32:03 -0800

For the second time in two months, a major publication is giving up on print.

PC Magazine is shutting down its print edition and focusing on its PCMag websites. In late October, The Christian Science Monitor said it was closing down its daily print edition and would move that content online.

For Ziff Davis, the owner of PC Magazine, the move seems to be more a final step in its evolution to online than a catastrophe. According to paidContent.org, only about 7 jobs will be lost, related to print-specific tasks.

The magazine, which was started in 1982, has a storied history, but its print base eroded over the years as its core brand of journalism—news you can use while shopping for computers—moved online. It cut back from bi-weekly to monthly earlier this year.

I have a feeling we'll see a lot more of these announcements, especially for publications off to a good start with their web presences. But as ad dollars dry up, even those lagging online will have little choice but to seriously consider such moves.

'in difficult times' newsletter launching

farrell kramer — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:16:15 -0800

How can we carry on PR and communications when budgets are being cut and resources tight? Why not just put the whole thing on hold until business improves?

Tough times like we're experiencing now have always been a challenge for PR and marketing -- which are often the first to experience budget cuts. But take heart. Good communications can continue.

That's why we're launching the free newsletter, "In Difficult Times." In it, we will show readers how to do more with less. In some cases, it's a thoughtful approach to existing tools and workflow.

In other cases, it's embracing Web 2.0 distribution channels, which tend to be far cheaper than their traditional media brethren.

The first issue should be out this week, so go ahead and subscribe now. Just visit the newsletter homepage or use the form on the sidebar to your right. And please, share any ideas for future topics via comment or our contact form.

national newspaper gives up on paper

farrell kramer — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:27:48 -0700

The Christian Science Monitor, a highly respected national newspaper, is throwing in the towel on paper.

The Monitor has announced that it is giving up its daily newsprint and ink distribution -- and instead will be a web-only publication. It will run the presses only for its weekend edition. Poynter Online explains:

The Monitor, celebrating its 100th birthday this month and next, is the most prominent newspaper to date to take the online plunge. But, like some of the others that have quit daily print publication this year, it has special circumstances that would not apply to the typical metro daily. In the Monitor's case, those circumstance include a modest circulation -- about 50,000 -- combined with national distribution. Also, it is owned by the Church of Christ, Scientist, which has been willing to underwrite operating shortfalls though the years but not the big losses that come in the current deteriorating print climate.

Whatever the specific circumstances, this is clearly the wave of the future. And, to my mind, it has been a long time coming.

Just think of it this way: If you were to devise a way to get news to the public today, would you ever think of printing newspapers -- which take literally tons of newsprint and ink to put together -- and then deliver them every morning with a very expensive combination of vehicles and manpower ranging from planes and trucks to kids on bicycles?

Of course not. Newsprint and ink is a hopelessly outdated model. For up-to-the-minute news, the answer clearly is online distribution in some form. The Monitor is paving the way.

photographer uses light to editorialize mccain portrait

farrell kramer — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:22:31 -0700

Many of you know that in addition to my communications work, I'm also a photographer. But for the most part, photos have not played into the discussion on this blog. Until now.

In a story that broke last week, it was reported that noted photographer Jill Greenberg shot a cover of John McCain for The Atlantic and purposefully set the lighting to cast him in a monstrous way. The Atlantic did not run this particular photo and chose another from the shoot for the cover.

However, Greenberg apparently has made the this editorialized image public, according to a post I saw on the PDN Pulse blog:

She delivered the image the magazine asked for—a shot that makes the Republican presidential nominee look heroic. Greenberg is well known for her highly retouched images of bears and crying babies. But she didn’t bother to do much retouching on her McCain images. “I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad,” she says.

After getting that shot, Greenberg asked McCain to “please come over here” for one more set-up before the 15-minute shoot was over. There, she had a beauty dish with a modeling light set up. “That’s what he thought he was being lit by,” Greenberg says. “But that wasn’t firing.”

What was firing was a strobe positioned below him, which cast the horror movie shadows across his face and on the wall right behind him. “He had no idea he was being lit from below,” Greenberg says. And his handlers didn’t seem to notice it either. “I guess they’re not very sophisticated,” she adds.

There's more to the story if you're interested. The author of the McCain article has responded. And there's a very interesting discussion in the Strobist group on Flickr, to which I sometimes contribute.

This is a very sad moment, of course, as it is a shocking breach of journalistic ethics. For communicators, it demonstrates how important it is to scrutinize all means of communication -- not just words. The simple placement of a photographic strobe can have a great impact on public perception.

press corps overhaul reminds us: it’s the story that counts

sharon bially — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:18:43 -0700

Over the past few weeks, there have been fifty some-odd changes to my most active Cision MediaSource press list. Which means that a staggering 20% of the reporters I’m in touch with on a regular basis have recently switched beats, switched organizations, or simply switched professions.

We all know that most newsrooms are shrinking. In mid July alone, about 400 newsroom people lost their jobs at papers across the country, according to MediaLife. Among the organizations making cuts were the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

We also know that the ones that aren’t shrinking are undergoing a major overhaul. As print outlets shed staff and streamline content, newswires are reacting to fill the void. Last month, AP realigned its business news department around 12 core beats, each staffed with five to ten reporters and one editor. In early August CNN moved its daytime shows to a single-anchor format and unveiled a host of changes in the newsroom.

At the same time, a few brave new traditional outlets are popping up. At the end of ’07 Fox Business Network launched on TV. Just a few weeks ago Bloomberg reported that Thomson Reuters is gearing up to launch its own business television network.

For communicators working with the press, this state of flux can bring pandemonium. While some beats are being eliminated, others are becoming consolidated. The realignment of AP’s business news department decreased the number of beats but actually increased the number of reporters on staff. Data base services like Cision just can’t seem to keep pace with the changes, and I for one have spent a lot of time figuring out the new lay of the land.

In the process, I’ve been reassured to see that reporters I’ve never been in touch with before are just as receptive as the old ones to good story ideas. This drives home the conclusion that contacts may come and go, but above all, it’s the idea that counts.

thoughts from a former la times reporter

farrell kramer — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:46:22 -0700

Here's something new and interesting on the decline of newspapers.

A longtime Los Angeles Times reporter, William Lobdell, has left the paper and provides his list of the 42 Things I Know about the newspaper, its challenges and its future in the Web 2.0 world.

Here's a sample, from Lobdell's blog:

There is plenty of uncertainty about the newspapers, but this much I know:

1. I made the right decision leaving the newspaper business.
2. That’s not to say I’m happy about breaking up with my one true career love.
3. But the business model for newspapers is broken.
4. No one has figured out how to fix it.
5. That’s probably because it can’t be fixed.

There's a lot more in the post worth reading ... from someone who's actually been in the trenches.

new WSJ counting on 'objectivity' to beat NYT

farrell kramer — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 07:31:49 -0700

Some things just leave me scratching my head.

In an interview with Robert Thomson, the new managing editor of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, we find out that the Journal is gunning for The New York Times by way of its ability to be objective. Business Week reports:

Still, how can the Journal compete with the Times' much bigger newsroom? No worries, shrugs Thomson. "Journalists at The Wall Street Journal have the objective of being objective. At The New York Times, you have news with a skew. Or a skew with news."

This is a ludicrous assertion, albeit one that echoes his boss, Rupert Murdoch. Told that such talk sends some into seizures, Thomson concedes "there are great journalists at the Times," but the paper's "calcification of culture" gives the Journal an opportunity.

Now, I don't want to take sides here. But I'd say the Journal is as well-known for the conservative bent of its editorial pages as the Times is for its liberal editorials.

What Thomson is suggesting is that the Times' newsroom -- as distinct from its editorial team -- is less able to divorce itself from the paper's editorial positions than the Journal's newsroom. Business Week calls this "ludicrous." Maybe it is. And maybe it isn't.

My point: Who cares? Is objectivity of news reporting really where news organizations win and lose today? I don't think so. The wires provide plenty of plain vanilla news.

The big papers will have to be a lot more creative if they want to survive.

web journalist not afraid to become part of the story

farrell kramer — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:49:45 -0700

When journalists get arrested, usually it's to protect an anonymous source or support the First Amendment. Video blogger Lindsay Campbell of MobLogic.tv chose jail in order to better understand the story she was covering.

At the end of the clip below, Campbell questions why reporters are supposed to avoid becoming part of the story. She asks why it's wrong to relate her feelings about a story along with the facts?

As a reporter, I was taught not to do these things. But watching Campbell's piece, I wonder if there aren't new ways to approach news coverage we should all think about? New technology, a new generation...

network 'military analysts' part of pentagon pr campaign, NYT reports

farrell kramer — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:54:41 -0700

Many of the "military analysts" who explain wars and weapons programs to the public on CNN, NBC and other TV and radio networks are actually part of an Pentagon-orchestrated PR campaign, The New York Times tells us this weekend:

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

As a former journalist, I'm disturbed by the newspaper's findings. (This story is a very nice piece of investigative journalism. Kudos to the Times here.)

As a student of communications, however, I'm not surprised a bit. For two reasons:

These guys are usually retired generals or other senior officers. I don't think you turn off a lifetime of loyalty to the chain of command just because CNN calls.
TV is interested in performance appeal as much a substance. It's far more interesting to have a former general in the studio than to simply quote one in a story.

Sadly, I think this whole mess is really about ... wait for it ... money. The Times story notes that some of these "military analysts" after retirement work as lobbyists or for defense contractors -- which makes Pentagon access vital to them. TV pays them just $500 to $1,000 an episode. So where will their loyalties be?

If TV wanted to do this right, they'd hire retired generals and admirals full-time to be military correspondents and then have their undivided attention, with no conflict of interest.

The way they do it now is far cheaper, of course. But as The New York Times shows, it is fraught with challenges.