Two more cents worth

If the public and publishers choose to support free content in the name of community journalism, everyone deserves what they get.

For example, the Sedona Red Rock News recently canceled a city column because they found out the city was simultaneously submitting the column to my local publisher.

The RRN dressed up its rational in a disagreement with the mayor over editing policies, but the back story was that the paper wanted exclusive rights to the free content.

A city staffer told me the city was going to relent and only send their content to the RRN. I suggested it might not send a good message for the city to play favorites with the media when the objective is supposed to be maximizing public outreach.

I mean, who are we supposed to be serving here?

In another example, The Sedona Verde Valley Times posted an article yesterday that crucified a man for being gay, perhaps to intimidate him from appearing in a court case in which he is the victim of a threat by the guy who wrote the article I mentioned in my last comment.

The editor who wrote the piece is an avid supporter of the defendant, and the groups he is involved with. He and I have different ideas of journalistic ethics.

By the way, the special interest group I spoke of was supposed to make a presentation today at a mayors’ committee meeting that might have influenced the type of lighting ADOT will install in Sedona. They canceled it, according to city staff, based on the faulty information in that article; written by their ally.

Apparently, they didn’t read my follow-up piece before canceling.

The SVVT read it. And still won’t admit they were wrong.

Ya get what you pay for, folks.
Read more!

Free Press v. Free News

Today, anyone with bandwidth can be a publisher; and anyone with a word processor can pen an “article” and get it published. In this example, the writer intentionally misinformed the public to further a special interest agenda.

My article with the other side of the story is filed and awaiting publication.

One problem our industry faces is that people don’t seem to recognize the hours, thought and effort we put in to our work so that they don’t have to attend all those stimulating government meetings, read all those riveting technical documents, and put the hard questions to the talking heads.

Yes, it’s the public’s right to know. But, professional journalists deserve reasonable and timely compensation for bringing it to them.

So who’s going to pay for it?

For a long time now, advertisers have subsidized news. People complain that advertisers have too much control over content, but seem to overlook that advertisers and publishers often respond to what is popularly read.

Are nonprofit business models the answer? I don’t know. Initial support and sustainable funding seem to be the main obstacles.

Spot.us has an interesting nonprofit model. I pitch a story idea and the public decides whether it gets reported. Or, the public posts a tip, and a journalist turns it into a pitch. No one can fund more than 20 percent of a given project, which is supposed to ensure objectivity, although I have some doubts.

Most important, I think, is that our industry must re-establish trust with our audience. And our audience must find value in our work and be willing to buy it, however that looks.

Professional journalists across the country are talking about this. I say it’s time the general public weighs in and tells us what they will support and how.
Read more!