Public-supported news, or as the news industry would have us believe – state run propaganda machines, is a hotly contested sore point in the US. Of course not all countries look at this way as evidenced by the BBC in England or the CBC in Canada. Even within the US there is the often looked down upon NPR which as an organization has to continually defend itself from attacks not just from their peers in the industry but also the government.

The argument used against these types of publicly-supported news agencies is that no matter how hard they try they will always have to kowtow to the government of the day. You will also hear the argument that publicly-supported news agencies don’t have to compete on the same ground that other non-public (big business) run news businesses and that gives them an unfair advantage.

If this is the case then one has to wonder why the BBC of England has been able to continually grow in this new media environment while big business run news agencies are floundering. Not only is the BBC growing but it is seeing its ad revenues triple in the last year an are expecting to double in the next year. In fact business is so good because of foreign visitors to their news site that they will be launching a US site at BBC.com to meet the need.

Even the US’s own NPR is continually striving forward always finding ways to use new media and new technologies to provide a better service while at the same time you have the big names in the news industry talking paywalls and subscriptions.

Given all this it was interesting to read an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University and First Amendment scholar, where he questions this idea that publicly-supported news agencies are inherently biased and dangerous to journalism.

Interestingly, Bollinger contends that our largest threat to journalism isn’t from government abuse but the corporate sector. “To take a very current example, we trust our great newspapers to collect millions of dollars in advertising from BP while reporting without fear or favor on the company’s environmental record only because of a professional culture that insulates revenue from news judgment,” he argues. “This reinforces the point that all media systems, whether advertiser-based or governmental, come with potential editorial risks.”

He concludes, “In today’s rapidly globalizing and interconnected world, other countries are developing a strong media presence. In addition to the BBC, there is China’s CCTV and Xinhua news, as well as Qatar’s Al Jazeera. [Our] system needs to be revised and its resources consolidated and augmented with those of NPR and PBS to create an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters.”

Source: Fast Company

It is an interesting argument and one that I believe have a lot of merit. After all one just has to look at the polarization that is happening in the United States and how news organizations align themselves, whether they admit it or not, with those different sides. News has become more and more about the rating, about the mega-dollar advertising deals that sponsor many of these “news” shows that feed into this polarization.

I also find it very interesting to watch the rise, and profitability, of publicly-supported news agencies like the NPR, BBC and other similar “state” news organizations while at the same time the name brand news businesses we grew up with are struggling.

I have never believed that traditional media at its heart was in any danger of vanishing into the sunset. Rather I totally expect it to morph, to grow, to learn from new media, even to blend with it and in the end we will have a stronger and more ethical provider of the news.

The BBC could very well be that model.

Is public-supported news the real evil that the news industry portrays it as? is a post from: The Inquisitr

McClatchy posted a net income for the quarter ending September 28 of $4.2 million, or 5 cents a share, compared to a loss of $1.3 billion, or $16.42 a share in the same period last year. Last years loss was due to a write-down in company assets. Third-quarter net income, excluding one-time charges, was $10.4 million, or 13 cents a share.

The news on the advertising front for McClatchy is all grim heading into the worst economic crisis since the great depression.

In September, classified advertising revenue fell 31%, national advertising declined 19% and local retail advertising declined nearly 13%. The losses were offset slightly by a net gain in online advertising of 6.6%. Print advertising dropped 21.8% to $325 million for the quarter.

Until we see more newspaper results to compare, we can’t call this a trend yet, but the decline in McClathchy may indicate an acceleration in the downward spiral in print advertising, that throughout the United States averaged 14% for the first half of 2008.

McClatchy owns The Miami Herald, The Sacramento Bee and 28 other daily newspapers.

(in part via Forbes)

McClatchy Co down 19.9% in ad revenues, delivers a profit (just) is a post from: The Inquisitr

Fenez argues that globally print media has growth opportunities, and expects advertising revenue to grow in the short term, driven by emerging markets.

But it’s these quotes (via The PressGazette) which are telling:

“One of the things we need to get into context here is that traditional media isn’t dead yet and won’t be for the next five years.”

“It’s very important to think why. The over-50s are helping to sustain traditional media, and also in many of the emerging markets there is still plenty of room for traditional media. The death of traditional media is exaggerated, at least in a five-year context.”

The inclusion of the growing age divide in readership is notable: here’s an analyst arguing for short term growth in the industry, but only with the proviso that those consuming traditional media are graying.

The context of the global vs American figures isn’t new; although we’ve covered the decline in the newspaper industry in the United States (and by extension, Western countries), globally newspapers are still growing. The World Association of Newspapers reported in February 2007 that circulation of newspapers worldwide was increasing; the factors at play driving the death of newspapers in Western countries aren’t in play to the same extent through out the rest of the world. Not everyone has internet access…or even power for that matter. Countries such as China have an emerging middle class, the traditional buyers of newspapers, and as other countries see improved literacy rates, people turn to what they can get, and despite the superiority of the internet as a delivery mechanism in the west, newsprint is often all they have access to.

This picture though doesn’t change the death spiral in countries such as the United States. It just shows that the death of traditional media will come at different rates in different countries, respective of their connectivity to the internet. The pessimist in me will note that in some countries, print will never be replaced because they’ll never get widespread access to the internet..well at least for a long time to come.

(via PaidContent, Img Credit: Free Republic)

Traditional Media has 5 years left: PWC Analyst is a post from: The Inquisitr

NBC is rolling out a “link out” policy with its owned affiliate stations starting today, The New York Times reports. Starting with Chicago station WMAQ, the network will attempt to recreate its local Web sites as “city guides,” with ample links to third-party sites. A beta version, The Times says, featured links to local papers as well as USA Today and TMZ — and, perhaps most notably, there’s no difference in branding between the internally created and externally created content. As an executive explained to The Times:

“If we can provide them great content, that’s wonderful. If it comes from somebody else, that’s fine, too.”

Spin Zone

While the stations are working hard to spin the shifted focus as a fresh change that’ll “provide a destination” for its audience, we here in the modern Web community know the concept is far from new; it’s just thus far been resisted (or ignored) by traditional media. There’s another side of the equation not being touted, too: cost-cutting. Local television stations are scaling back like you wouldn’t believe. Smaller staffs are doing more than ever, and typically, these added online duties are being done by the same people already performing the equivalent of two jobs for the on-air product.

A Matter of Math

Now, to be fair, in NBC’s case, the network says it’s hired about 50 people to help power the expanded online operation. But what it doesn’t say is how many others it laid off in the time leading up to then. At Gannett, for another example, the nauseatingly overpromoted “Information Center” notion attempts to give viewers the impression that TV stations are a central source of information flow in and out, and that the news teams are everywhere, bringing you the latest information on whatever medium you need.

The impression you don’t see is that within the same company, producers — who are responsible for shaping a newscast, writing its content, and conceptualizing all of its graphics and visual elements, among other things — are also about to start having to edit video for their shows as well. (That’s something that one or two dedicated and trained video editors used to do.) Many of them are also now finding themselves overseeing two newscasts rather than one, as positions are being eliminated. Oh yeah, and those are the same people bringing you those “24/7 information updates” online at the same time, too. And that’s just one example.

The Final Word

The efforts to evolve, even if overdue, are a positive step. The underlying problem, however, remains constant. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The broadcast news industry cannot grow and expand into new media while concurrently cutting back its staff and resources in record numbers. The math just doesn’t add up.

“Traditional Media 2.0″ Still Doesn’t Add Up is a post from: The Inquisitr