Q: Where do you see yourself fitting into “the new media ecosystem”? What kind of job would you look for if you were graduating in December?

Personally, I feel easy with any form of journalism thrown at me. I am not strong in video nor audio, but plan on working on them as college progresses so I can fit into any role.

I see myself, if I had to get a job by the end of the semester, fitting into an online & print organization – like newspapers that are also on the Web. The New York Times and Newsday would be ideal since they offer both online and print editions, with the print serving almost as a record of what online covered the day before in some cases.

I’d love to work for one of those organizations where I can blend the “big three” of print, audio, and video into one big story.

Of course, jobs are disappearing like Houdini in this day and age, so my back up, non-Journalism-related, plan would be to go into teaching either some form of writing (journalism included, perhaps) or be a history teacher.

Discussion Points for Guest Speakers

Michael Rosenblum

1. “Newspapers Will Be Dead in Two Years, Five Tops” – Mr. Rosenblum raised the point that the newspaper industry is, indeed, dying. His estimate, however, seems a bit off considering that a little research can find old articles online from major news organizations and bloggers predicting the same amount of time for the industry only five years ago; yet, here we are. I believe that newspapers will survive some years from now, maybe having some twenty years to go in a newspaper-format, meaning that they are received on a paper product. His estimate only seems fueled by his love for video and the Internet, which seemingly parallels his non-mention of written reporting.
2. If it get their attention or interests them, show it - Mr. Rosenblum also discussed what I would like to call “reckless journalism.” It’s the basic idea that if the majority of the public are interested in the subject and will pay attention to it, the reporting agencies should show it. This isn’t a bad at all, but when he suggests that journalists ignore the things that matter – politics, government, and wrongdoings – it crosses the line to being reckless.

Brian Farnham

1. Localizing News Without a Newsroom - Patch seems like a great idea. For Long Island, it poses a threat to News 12 & Newsday, which as a combined force, I honestly do not like. (I love them both actually, but I hate that they’re associates now) Patch’s local news force will be a new foe that will attack the centralized, traditional newsroom from all sides (literally). However, I have to wonder whether or not the lack of a newsroom can be successful. I have more success with reporters I actually know (as far as being an editor) than those who have contacted me online (and then disappear from existence). I don’t see the lack of a “newsroom” or news meeting working.
2. Over Localizing - Long Island, especially, is an odd place. The whole length of the actual island contains four counties and slowly goes from urbanized to rural as one goes from west to east. The community changes in this way as well. However, Long Island, by itself, is its own community since individual towns seem to be very fragmented here (obvious by the lack of enthusiasm for high school sports). I believe that further research needs to be done on areas before Patch goes forward, especially here. In a place where car travel across many miles is common, community is a word that takes on a different meaning.

Questions for Brian Farnham

1. I see you worked for a variety of places, including New York magazine. What made you want to leave New York Magazine in the first place?
2. Where did you get the idea for Patch.com’s local blogs from? It seems so easy, yet nobody had come up with it before.
3. Our guest last class, Mike Rosenblum, said journalism as we know it (television and newspapers) will be gone; replaced by the internet. What do you feel will be the future of journalism in, say, five or ten years?

Questions for Mr. Rosenblum

Hello, Mr. Rosenblum. After conducting some research on your life and your organization, I have decided to ask you the following questions:

1. I see that you have worked for and improved the video capabilities of organizations like the BBC in the United Kingdom and the New York Times. Why did you leave those organizations if your changes were so profound and successful?
2. Your organization states that it replaced camera crews and editing suites. In a world where journalism jobs are disappearing into thin air, do you think that cutting down these crews is helpful or hurting the journalism community?
3. Your organization also states that they have “trained over 15,000 people.” Do you know where most of these trainees end up (company-wise) or what organization they worked for upon training?
4. Your organization also states among its clients are the very geographically close New York Times (Manhattan, NY) and Newark Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ). While neither directly competes with the other, do you feel that having clients from different news organizations compromises their ability to report if they receive help from the same company?

Newsday.com Throws Fence Across Site

This past week, Newsday.com, website to Long Island daily Newsday, closed the site for public access by requiring users to be registered subscribers to the online edition. The move came almost 9 months after the newspaper announced the intentions to do so.

The new access-only site comes with steep charges for those wishing to grab the latest on Long Island online – $5.00 weekly. By comparison, the New York Times’ Times Reader costs $14.95 a month (roughly $4.27 weekly). The weekly cost of the website actually comes out to more than the real paper (due to a $100 gift card given to subscribers)!

The website does have some back-door entry, however. Optimum subscribers and home delivery subscribers get access for free (which makes that $5/week + $100 gift card look even better). These users are not crippled in their access to the site at all, having full range as other subscribers would.

The move generally puts Long Island’s only two long standing and island-wide news sources behind the fence of a internet guarded mansion – News 12 Long Island and Newsday, both owned by the same company. Recent addition FiOS 1 Long Island by Verizon has yet to break through and make a website addition.

Newsday/News 12 Connection: “DANGER DANGER!”

When Newsday was bought up by Cablevision earlier in 2009, I had many reservations. The fact that Long Island’s then-only television news station was buying up the only Island-wide daily made me cringe with ideas of a singular news source – “Newsday 12 Long Island” I called it. I hoped the two would remain separate and prove me wrong.

They haven’t done anything but prove me right.

It’s not as if the two companies have not worked together in the past. Newsday and News 12 teamed up in the 90s to pull off the great “Long Island: Our Story” project, pulling together the organizations investigative efforts to give a great view of Long Island’s long history from beginning to then present.

I don’t mind news organizations together; in fact, I like it. The more people available to use, the better. However, this is the great exception.

What is Long Island to do? News 12 & Newsday have never been closer, often swapping out stories to each other for use. The only other papers I can think of with relative pull are very area specific – Southampton Press, Long Island Press, etc.

What would be great for the island is for a new, great news organization to rise right now. Sure, the timing isn’t great considering how papers are dropping left and right, but the cause has never been more clear. The Island needs to have direct competitors to these conglomated mega-giants or suffer the fate of a single news organization telling you what’s going on and what’s not.

Possibly in that mess of what is and isn’t, the truth will be held back for the bettering of the mother company. Big Brother will then be watching.

Boston Herald: We Need to Move to Paid Model Together

Talk about reading my mind.

The Boston Herald’s publisher, Patrick J. Purcell, said recently that, in order for the journalism industry to survive, the entire industry would need to attempt to move to a full-blown paid model online.

“It’s going to take everybody moving … together. The newspaper industry will not survive without an additional revenue stream,” he said. Purcell even said he expects the move to begin with weekly or quarterly fees, maybe later moving to an annual charge after the “big players” (i.e., New York Times, Washington Post) test it out first.

Seriously now, this is EXACTLY what I thought of not so long ago. In order for the paid subscription service model to work, EVERYONE must move to it at an exact time. Otherwise, the whole idea gets trampled with some staying free and others asking for payment. Naturally, people will go towards what is free and if they leave the option open, then the idea fails and even more organizations fall.

The future is coming quick, news organizations. Get yourselves together or bite the dust.

NYT Announces Layoffs, People Whip Out the $$$ To Stop It

Ever wonder when the future would become the present? Seems like it might happen way sooner than I, at least, expected.

In a not so shocking announcement considering the times we live in, the New York Times said they would be cutting 100 newsroom jobs, roughly 8% of the workforce there, by the end of the year. The Times will be “offering buyouts to union and non-union employees, and resorting to layoffs if it cannot get enough people to leave voluntarily.”

Rough words from a tough company facing as hard of times as the rest of the industry. It would seem that content like my beloved Times Reader has done little to nothing to help the industry’s top dog. However, the news brought with it something entirely unexpected: public outcry(!).

Whip it out! Yeah!

Within minutes of the posting on the Times’ website, readers commented back demanding the legacy paper charge for its online content with several stating they were on the ready to pay for it. One wonders if they knew about that aforementioned Reader, but alas – the news here is people ARE willing to pay for great content!

Perhaps, hidden beneath the veil of seeing the paper struggle, is the secret to the future of these organizations – charge for above average content. The Wall Street Journal seems to do well enough this way; I don’t see how the Times won’t.

One of the commenters might have shown the feeling people have towards the venerable paper:

I want to pay for my online use of the New York Times. I read the site multiple times a day. I can’t imagine life without it. Why oh why can’t somebody come up with a good way to get this money out of the hundreds of thousands of readers who would gladly pay for the content? Figure it out now! I have my credit card ready.

- Anne Hills

Go figure, eh?

Journalist as a “Title;” Niles Says “NO!”

America – land of the free, home of the brave souls that carry the title of journalist? Maybe.

The federal government seems to be looking into the idea of giving journalists a distinct title, giving them the majority of the powers associated with the First Amendment of the Constitution. This comes as other federal representatives look for solutions to save the Fourth Estate, including tax breaks like those the religious organizations across the country receive.

Not my King!

The plan to restrict the First Amendment to save the journalism community might come as a shock. Journalist Robert Niles here admittedly  goes on a completely one-sided argument against the entire notion that idea, let alone titles in America (another thing banned by the Constitution since ~1790).

The point here is interesting. Journalists with a title would lead a privileged life in that they would secure exceptional rights as the only citizens to go in-depth and report. However, this would also violate the unbiased nature of journalism by aligning it with the government, potentially blocking stories about the said government and, in the end, killing the idea of the “Fourth Estate.”

Niles ends his article with a word of advisement and that “Freedom of the press belongs to all Americans, and not just to the newspaper industry.” The problem, of course, is that the public is starting to reject the press at the end of the day.

The best option here is not change; giving journalists a title essentially makes this nation something worth regretting. However, not doing anything can cause the system to collapse further. The answer here is not going to be found in the government; the answer is to be found within the industry itself.

Slobberknocker: USA Today Vs. Wall Street Journal

The New York Times is reporting in a blog post on their website that the daily national USA Today and business behemoth Wall Street Journal are in tight competition to be the most circulated newspaper in the country.

The figures, to be announced October 26th, figure to pit the two newspapers in a face-to-face battle for the number one spot and, like something out of a WWE wrestling match, the two paper’s top executives are already arguing over that spot. Nice and professional, just the way the country loves it’s commercial spats.

It's gonna be a real slobberknocker!

The report notes that USA Today’s numbers dropped significantly this year, dropping perhaps up to 17% or 1.88 million readers. The reason they give? Less people staying at hotels, price increases, and overall terrible economy.

Alright, I’ll give USA Today the benefit of the doubt on the last reason – the economy has been miserable since the crash, although today’s climb back to 10,000 points on the Dow is a solid sign of recovery. However, the fact that one of today’s most read newspapers- perhaps the easiest to read- is losing that many readers in one year is staggering. The newspaper that reads like the internet sounds like it might have gotten a bit trumped by the internet.

While that last statement is pure speculation, it can be said that the Wall Street Journal, which sounds like it maintained its previous conditions, is surviving with its A+ staff and style. So is it a sign of the times or a sign of the quality equals cha-ching? I’ll never know, I suspect, but it is a serious example if the WSJ takes over the leadership role in daily newspapers. Perhaps the industry doesn’t need too much change after all, but just needs to be of a higher quality to save itself.

Of course, that’s something worthy of consideration anyway – better quality never hurt anyone before.

Little extra: The Associated Press is reporting that the WSJ is the “winner” before the results, citing a WSJ article. Sketchy, AP, sketchy.