March 2nd, 2009
Actually, content has never been free, Web or daily newspaper. We’ve just never charged readers for the expense. Instead, advertisers foot the bill. Sure you pay 75 cents if you buy it on the rack; you pay much less if we deliver the newspaper to the doorstep. But, that subscription price is a pitiful percentage of the actual cost. Depending on the market, you’d have to fork over upwards of $5 if there were no advertisers in the newspaper.
Back 15 years ago when the Web toddled into the market as a tool for distribution of information, we convinced ourselves that content on the Web had to be free, that no one would pay for it. I never agreed with that, but what the heck, as long as the newspaper’s advertisers footed the bill for print and online content, go ahead and give it away. The advertisers got — and still get — results as long as we drive readers and online visitors, which we do.
Back to the “content is not free” point. These days, news Web sites are reconsidering. Maybe we should put all our content behind the so-called “paywall.” I can hear you now: Go ahead, charge me — and I’ll just go somewhere else for my news and information.
Yeah, sure you will. But, if every news content generating entity from the Register Star to the New York Times, along with the Associated Press, Fox News and CNN, all erected a wall, there’d be no place to get the “free” news on which all those opinion-divas and spin-doctors depend for their blogs.
I’m kinda in the middle on this discussion. I do think we have undervalued our content. I do think we need to understand that gathering news content requires cash, a lot of cash, to pay professional journalists — even those who are owned by non-profit foundations. Either the advertiser pays or the reader pays. If someone doesn’t pay, we can kiss farewell any pretense to democracy.
Here’s a good exploration of what’s being talked about out there in News Land. Click here.
March 2nd, 2009
What in the world possessed Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey and the Rockford School Board members to “evade” discussing publicly the involvement of Paul Vallas in the search for a new school superintendent? These folks, all of whom I consider smart, caring, and community-committed, tried to pull off contortions that would have made an Olympic gymnast cheer. And, the parsing of sentences? Lands, Perry Mason would have been proud. Read it here.
The whole evasion thing makes absolutely no sense. Getting Vallas involved was a brilliant move. Making sure the mayor – one of the school district’s most vehement critics – had a seat at the table, whether he forced himself in or not, was strategically superb. Getting some local business power brokers (like Sunil Puri and Cyrus Oates) inside the circle? Equally excellent.
The misstep was not standing shoulder to shoulder at a press conference back in the fall and shouting from the podium: We are all committed to finding the absolute best superintendent. We include the board, the city, the search firm, business leaders and nationally known educators, traditional and alternative. We are going to do the right thing for our children, our community and our future, and we’re doing it together in the sunshine because you – the public, parents and taxpayers – need to understand and we need your input.
Instead, they did it the Rockford Way: play it close to the vest, shut out the public, and when questioned, parse and evade. And, oh, yes, be sure to repeat the mantra: It’s the newspaper creating the problem by asking all these questions that we leaders would prefer not to answer.
And, so they didn’t. They went straight to parse and evade, pretending not to understand the questions. Pretending they were shocked the reporters would even think to ask such a thing. They opened their eyes wide and said to us with straight faces, “nah, didn’t happen.” And, behind their backs they crossed their fingers. But, it did happen – and, guys, it was a good thing. Unfortunately, you’ll get no credit for the smarts it took. Instead, your parse and evade approach raises doubts and hints at collusion and exclusionary behavior that once again isolates the leadership of the community from its followers.
The Register Star’s news coverage has been neutral even to the point of being compassionately gentle; its reporters used the word “evade.” Were I writing it, I’d have said you lied to us. Sins of omission (parse and evade); sin of commission (lie).
