Oh, young people, what do they know?

September 2, 2009
Harvard grad- Amelia Lester (image via theAge.com)

Harvard grad- Amelia Lester (image via theAge.com.au)

A few days ago, I tweeted about 26-year old Amelia Lester becoming the new managing editor for the New Yorker.

I gave her massive props because that’s a remarkable thing to accomplish at her age, but it isn’t surprising that the New Yorker hired her to lead the company. In fact, it’s smart.

The notion of a 26-year old leading a news organization goes against the grain of traditional journalism, but it’s no coincidence that Lester happens to be young.

Today, more than ever, age is just a number when it comes to working in the media industry.

For those who think differently, let’s consider the facts.

With the rise of digital media, social-networking, and web 2.0 (going on 3.0), to be a young journalist is more of an advantage than not.

I can’t speak for everyone, but most young people:

- grew up with the Internet so they understand how to interact and utilize the web.

- can relate to younger audiences who increasingly use the web.

- are not only eager, but it is also easier for them to learn new programs and concepts.

- are not attached to “how things used to be” or “the good ole’ days.” They are more willing to innovate and propose fresh ideas that (hopefully) will rock the boat, which is exactly what journalism needs.

- are willing to work many, many hours, for fairly cheap.

That being said, I do not discount the value of experience, and the wisdom and expertise that usually comes along with it. I won’t be ageist as long as the news industry refuses to be as well.

But most news companies are still playing a game of numbers.

Editor & Publisher recently published an article about an APME (Associated Press Managing Editors) survey that finds:

“Most of the 95 editors responding to the August survey said their newsroom staffs had shrunk by more than 10 percent during the past year. And workers between 18 and 35 years old represented the largest age group affected by the layoffs, buyouts and attrition.”

Cost-cutting younger reporters might have made sense ten to twenty years ago, but now it’s comparable to securing your company’s death wish.

The majority of newspaper companies are not successfully transitioning online, and they’re quickly becoming outdated and more importantly, out of touch. Most newspapers are not investing enough resources into their website, developing mobile products, or grasping the notion of multimedia storytelling. They’re held back by the lack of financial resources, manpower, and their obligations to their print counterpart.

But the last thing they should be doing is shaving off their young staff members.

Unlike previous generations, most young people coming out of college or still in college know more about the web and understand the future of news media than most vetted journalists do. Unlike their specialized colleagues, most young people know how write, film, shoot, and edit content for the web. In fact, young people are the ones teaching other seasoned journalists how to shoot and edit video and engage with new websites and trends. Young people have more innovative ideas to contribute than they are even allowed to share.

The E&P article agrees with me:

Retaining younger workers may be more important than ever as the Internet reshapes the way stories and photographs are assembled and presented. While many older journalists are adapting, the adjustment presumably isn’t as difficult for younger workers who have grown up with the Internet and may have honed their digital skills in college. Having the viewpoints of younger workers also helps newspapers identify trends and issues affecting younger generations.”

11-year old Damon Weaver interviewing President Obama

11-year old Damon Weaver interviewing President Obama

Of course, when it comes down to it, being young is not a determinant for success. It’s still imperative to find young and qualified journalists. But traditional attitudes toward young people in the journalism industry needs to change. Let Amelia Lester be an example for news managers and aspiring journalists alike, that it’s not impossible to be both.


WAPO reporter: “Kill off online newspapers” and go print-only

August 29, 2009
A fellow colleague brought this article to my attention the other day. It’s entitled “Build that Pay Wall High” and it is written by Paul Farhi, a reporter who “writes frequently about the media for the [Washington] Post and AJR [American Journalism Review].”
This was my reaction after I read it.
(image via Polyvore.com)

(image via Polyvore.com)

You have got to be kidding me.
As a journalist who is trying to be as innovative and progressive thinking as this tradition-laden industry will allow, this article is a testament to the backwards and short-sighted logic that is endemic to old media hands. These ‘veteran’ journalists are continually given a soapbox and a microphone for their informed “reporting” about the future of news media, yet they are less tech savvy than the average American teenager.
I don’t know anything about Farhi as an individual, but people like him don’t really understand new media. Or else they wouldn’t publish articles that toy with the idea of newspapers being the messiah of journalism.
Here are some of the “highlights” from his article.
Paul Farhi (image via Google)

Paul Farhi (image via Google)

Farhi describes:
“…online news sites aren’t exactly cash cows. The still-unanswered question is whether there’s a business model to sustain news online. Even as each day brings new talk of online subscription models, pay walls and micropayment schemes, there’s very little certainty about whether any of it will work…That’s why downplaying the Web, or dropping it altogether and going back to print only, looks not just smart for the struggling newspaper industry, but potentially lifesaving.”
Spare me.
He admits that “The cost of producing news online is admittedly far lower (and more environmentally attractive) than the old business of pressing ink onto ground-up trees,” and that “It’s true that print is declining. Classifieds, the most lucrative type of newspaper ads, began to dry up like a desert lake several years ago. Retail consolidation came next, followed by economic convulsions that undermined banking, automotive and real estate advertising. Put it all together, and newspaper revenue was down 18 percent last year. This year could be worse.”
But it all comes back to generating revenue and the ad-based business model, which admittedly hasn’t translated well online.
The American newspaper industry generated nearly $35 billion in revenue from that kind of industrial production last year, which dwarfs its online revenue by a factor of 10 to 1. Throw in the money generated by subscription sales and print accounts for almost 95 percent of all the dollars newspapers still generate. Rick Edmonds, Poynter.org’s media business columnist, says this lopsided ratio is unlikely to change anytime soon. “The ad dollars are still mostly in print for a while,” Edmonds says.”
This is what Farhi recommends:
Eliminate web offerings because it “would save precious dollars now being spent on a product [the website] that does little more than undercut the printed paper,” and drop or downplay the web because it “would give readers one less reason to drop their print subscriptions.”
Of course, one could easily say that newspapers are the financial burden and that newspapers are the ones undercutting the performance of the website. And by dropping the print edition, news companies would force readers to turn to the website and build viewership. No matter how you look at it, Farhi’s argument is terribly faulty.
Print is in decline. More and more people are not reading newspapers. They are using the Internet, or using mobile devices that have access to the Internet, to get their news.
Why?
Let’s see…
- Newspapers are not relevant or effective when it comes to breaking news. Ie. Death of Senator Ed Kennedy- he passed away at 11 PM on Tuesday. Newspapers reach your door step at 6 AM on Wednesday. The story is seven hours old, and the degree of reporting between the time of death and the article being sent to the presses, can’t compare to the ongoing reporting that can be done for the web. People are expecting more information by the morning after and their going to turn to the Internet, or even to TV, to find it.
- The web is free and newspapers are not. Nuff’ said.
- The Internet is much more convenient to access. In one click, I have hundreds of news sites at my fingertips.
All signs would seem to indicate that the web is a growing industry. It may be under performing in ad sales, but as more people use the web, and eventually develop loyalty to particular sites, then more advertisers will have to follow suit.
Rather than “making online access to their work very expensive,” as Farhi proposes, or re-investing in their print products, news companies should be revamping their websites and conducting R&D to quantify web user trends. They should be producing interactive projects that engage users, and finding new ways to monetize their content. Newspapers SHOULD be doing so much other than, as a print colleague recently said, “going into survival mode.” Times are tough now, but they’re bound to get tougher if they don’t innovate and experiment with new concepts to find a solution to their problems.
Let it be known that constructing high pay walls and reviving newspapers are NOT the answer.
Farhi champions college newspapers as an example of newspapers thriving among a relatively tech savvy demographic. His words: 
“Kill off online newspapers and they might eventually find their way back to print. Hard to believe? Well, they’re already doing it. Check out a college campus sometime. Despite the availability of student newspapers online, and despite the ubiquity of laptops and smart phones on campus, college students still avidly read their school’s printed newspaper.”
Why college newspapers cannot be used as a paradigm for his argument:
- College campuses are small and insulated. Compared to other daily newspapers, college newspapers serve a very small and condensed population that is typically active and ultimately interested in the college community.
- College newspapers don’t have to compete with other outlets. They are the only news source that covers the university and its students.
- Most importantly, college newspapers are free and they are conveniently placed all over a relatively small campus. It almost becomes a question of why wouldn’t you pick one up?
Having attended UCLA and having worked at the Daily Bruin, one of the top college newspapers in the country, I can personally attest that our college newspaper was not doing so well either. This April, for the first time ever, the paper ran a full, front page ad about Haagen-Daaz vanilla honeybee ice cream in response to dwindling ad revenue. Also, this year the DB lost its financial independence and barely passed a student referendum that enabled them to receive a portion of their funding through student fees.
College newspapers are not a representative example of the metro and daily newspapers across the country. The communities they serve, the environment they exist in, and their business operations are entirely unique. For all those reasons and more, students don’t need to go online to get campus news. It doesn’t mean they don’t, but ‘tech-savvy students’ still pick up a newspaper because college newspapers are still relevant, convenient, and free. Most newspapers in the country are not.
People like Farhi have got it wrong. No one’s figured it all out yet, but reverting back to newspapers will not save the journalism industry. Newspapers do not need to be restored, they need to be completely remodeled. If companies are going to wait until print ad revenues completely dry up before they make a move, then so be it.
Sometimes you have to burn the entire house down before you can build a new one.
I hope newspapers won’t have to, but if the people on top continue to share Farhi’s mindset, then they ultimately will.

(Camera) Size Doesn’t Matter

August 23, 2009

Last week I covered Mayor Greg Nickels’ press conference where he was announced that he was formally bowing out of the race for Seattle mayor.

It was a solid piece of local news, so of course, every local TV news company, KING 5, KIRO 7, KOMO 4, and Q 13 FOX, all made an appearance.

As I was setting up my equipment among the row of videographers, it amazed me how I stuck out among the crowd.

1) I was the only woman operating a camera

2) I was using the smallest video camera in the room

I’m not going to lie. This is the camera I use when I shoot for the Seattle Times. This little baby below.

Sony HVR-A1U C-MOS 1080i HDV Video Camera

Sony HDV video camera

It’s light, portable, and it gets the job done when it comes to online video.

The room, however, was packed with burly men carrying these big boys in tow.

Panasonic DVCPRO® Camcorder

Panasonic DVCPRO® Camcorder

BAM! These cameras were probably quadruple the size of my Sony, but in an industry (broadcast TV) where camera size has always mattered, I felt a tinge of irony and sympathy for all those cameramen.

Irony because these broadcast quality video cameras are gradually becoming a source of pain, rather than a source of pride. They’re bulky, outrageously heavy, expensive, technologically troublesome, and the root of many shoulder problems.

I understand that some of their unwieldy technology is used for live broadcasting, but the growing presence of wi-fi has enabled live TV coverage to be substituted with live (and inexpensive) video streaming sites, such as Mogulus or Justin.TV.

I felt pangs of irony because now as almost every company pushes their content online, my lighter and more affordable Sony had become just as effective as their Panasonic.

However, I sympathized with them too because these cameramen were working for TV news companies that don’t understand how to take advantage of the web.

They are deeply rooted in a broadcast TV culture that continues to prevent their company from moving forward. An attitude that “it’s business as usual,” and that the bigger camera you use or the larger camera crew you have is somehow an indication of the quality of your company.

What they should really do is get rid of their live trucks, hire more VJs that can report, shoot and edit, equip them with smaller HD cameras so they are not bogged down by equipment, and produce live webcasts as frequently as possible. Forget the 4PM, 6PM, and 10PM news slots, and the infamous ’sweeps’ periods that happens four times a year. The .com news cycle is 24/7 and users are constantly demanding more content.

So yes, welcome to the new world of digital news media. A world where news is fluid and incessant, production is mobile, and the size of your camera doesn’t matter… at all.


NYT Co. (still) unable to stop hemorrhaging money

July 23, 2009

Many journos look to the NYT as a role model for the future of the newspaper industry.

Mainly because they already have what many newspaper organizations lack and strive for: hefty financial resources to support an expert staff that produces quality news and multimedia content. The ability to then attract strong and stable readership and generate ad revenue.

Despite these advantages, PaidContent reported that the company is continuing its downward spiral and losing millions of dollars in profits and revenue.

Some interesting statistics from the PaidContent report:

- Operating profits are down 42.2 percent to $23.3 million from $40.3 million in Q208

– Revenues  are down 21 percent to $584.5 million from $741.9 million

– Total internet revenues fell 14.3 percent to $78.2 million, as online ad dollars slipped 15.5 percent to $68 million

– On the print side- advertising revenues decreased by 30.2 percent, while circulation revs bumped up 1.5 percent

Actions that the NYT Co. has taken:

“- Reduced its debt by roughly $45 million

– Recently sold its New York City classical-radio station for $45 million and hopes for a potential sale of the company’s stake in New England Sports Ventures

– Reduced operating costs by 20 percent”

The fact is most newspapers cannot continue operating the way they do or have done so in the past. The operations of printing and distributing newspapers alone is an expensive burden to bear, and that does not include producing quality reporting and trying to scrounge up enough resources to make a successful leap to the web.

This report doesn’t signify the end of the NYT Co. (yet), but it is definitely a continuation of a popular trend in the media biz.

Newspapers are bleeding, and it’s not going to stop until they are either rescued by some form of government aid (unlikely), or they finally decide to fully cross-over and go digital.

Until then, keep coming back for coverage of more bloody deaths within the newspaper industry.


Dept. of Homeland Security on YouTube

July 22, 2009

It’s the Obama effect!

DHS YouTube Channel (image via YouTube)

DHS YouTube Channel (image via YouTube)

In an effort to keep up with technology, the Department of Homeland Security announced a re-design of its website and the launch of a new DHS YouTube channel.

It’s interesting news…but if the U.S. government ever becomes more Internet savvy than the U.S. media industry…

well let’s just say that it will be a dark, dark day for mankind.

(Yes, new media makes me melodramatic.)

MORE importantly though, do you think having a DHS YouTube channel actually promotes public transparency and government accountability, or is it just a pointless gesture?

Thoughts?


Pay for a Press Release (via Twitter)

July 22, 2009

For Immediate Release

Muck Rack's new Twitter PR payment plan (image via MuckRack.com)

Muck Rack's new Twitter PR payment plan (image via MuckRack.com)

Yvonne’s Desk- July 22nd, 2009- Muck Rack, a start-up dedicated to tracking and filtering Twitter updates from professional journalists, recently launched a one line press release service that allows people to send twitter press releases to ‘top’ journalists for the cost of $1 per character.

It is certainly an interesting concept and I admire Muck Rack’s effort to monetize a service that’s related to Twitter. However, I cannot help but think that this PR service is an absolute waste of money, and that it reflects the conventional idea that the media has a major role in being a traditional conduit of information.

It’s ironic that a company that has built their business around a new media platform like Twitter still doesn’t grasp the meaning and the beauty of the web.

People don’t need to pay for PR services anymore. If Ashton Kutcher can independently shoot off random tweets everyday and reach over two million of his followers on Twitter for free, then why does he need to hire a PR guy? If Kanye West can reach his fans just by writing in his blog then why does he need to pay for a press release?

The web has revolutionized how people acquire and distribute information (durr), and it’s continually being demonstrated that celebrities, politicians, companies, non-profit organizations, or whoever wants to get their message out, don’t actually need the media to do so.

Moreover, the idea of paying $130 for a Twitter PR service is comparable to me paying $130 to yell one sentence into a speakerphone in a room full of journos with the (false) hope that someone will listen, let alone give me press coverage, to whatever I have to say. The image is slightly hilarious, and so is this concept.

As innovative as Muck Rack may be in harnessing the power of Twitter, some of their ideas are grossly backwards. People have to get used to the fact that journalists are no longer the sole gatekeepers of information and access. The general population no longer need to go through the media in order to get their message out to the world anymore, and charging people for a service while other means of distribution are free and available (ie. blogging, YouTube, Facebook, the list goes on and on) is laughable, at best.

With that being said, the media will always have some influence and impact on society, but their role of doing so is evolving and gradually being redefined.

Again, I have to give Muck Rack a little bit of credit for trying something new, but all I have to say is – try again.

Contact:

Yvonne Leow

Yvonne Reports: The Media Biz

YvonneReports@gmail.com


Journalism Just Got More Social

July 14, 2009

It’s about time.

Last month, the NYT released a product called TimesPeople that allows readers to ‘recommend’ web articles, multimedia, and videos to other users within their ‘network.’ They never even use the term, but what this development is really called is social-networking.

TimesPeople (image via NYT.com)

TimesPeople bar on the top (image via NYT.com)

Are newspapers finally getting it??

It’s too early to tell. But one thing is certain- Whether it’s gathering or distributing information through new apps called TimesPeople or otherwise, journalism is a conversation, and social networking is the future.

The nature of the web is that it connects information, ideas, and people to one another at an almost instantaneous rate. There is no such thing as a daily news cycle anymore, and forget trying to create a news program (television or radio) for people to follow and consume. Since information is so readily available to the everyday user, if your site doesn’t meet a certain need than another site most likely will.

What is increasingly apparent is that more and more people are not only spending more time on the web, but they are also talking on the web. Instant-messaging, chatrooms, message boards, forums, comment sections, and video responses all facilitate an environment where information/opinions can be easily shared. Hence, the epic rise of social-networking sites, like FB, Myspace, etc.

So far, newspapers are still focusing on the numbers game. Higher traffic, views, hits, whatever you want to categorize it as, corresponds to greater online ad revenue, and that’s how many of these news sites are able to survive. However, their strategy has always been editorially focused on having the best coverage, content, and reporting, which is still a grand and noble idea, but they have to realize that it is increasingly more difficult to attract and keep online users with this method. Competition and availability of other news sources are just two reasons that come to mind, but as newsrooms make financial cutbacks, as of right now, the majority of their coverage and reporting is no longer at the top of their game.

So why is TimesPeople so fascinating and crucial to journalism?

Because social-networking is a way to build and maintain online viewership. Case in point- The NYT is trying to harness their own web traffic and keep it in-house with TimesPeople. If you have a sizeable NYT network that allows you to communicate and share news articles with other users or ‘friends,’ than you tend to dawdle a little longer online rather than when you’re individually surfing the web.

It happens all the time. Think e-mail and instant-messaging. Google has got it down. When I normally check my e-mail, it usually takes about five to ten minutes to click through the junk and maybe respond to an e-mail or two. With G-chat, however, I can see if my (fellow g-mail) friends are online, and if so, then I can potentially get sucked into a conversation for a half an hour or so.

In a business model, where time spent on the web translates into (ads and then) money, any way to keep viewers on your site is tremendously important. TimesPeople only offers the basic framework of social-networking, recommending NYT stories and building a network of other NYT readers, but imagine if they began to offer IM, user search tools, and status updates.

Social-networking adds another layer of meaning to journalism, but it doesn’t take away the need to produce quality reporting. The demand is still there because the need for information is insatiable. Though, as the industry becomes more competitive, the craft of journalism is no longer two-dimensional or one-sided. It is a multi-faceted process, it is a dialogue, and the thoughts and opinions of everyday people can no longer be ignored.


Where’s L.A. Times Video?

July 1, 2009
LAT homepage (image via LAT.com)

Missing Video player/links on LAT homepage, it used to be where L.A. Now is located (image via LAT.com)

It could be an ominous sign of the times or the beginning of a new video project, but just when most newspaper sites are vamping up their online video departments, the LAT seems to have stripped their video player from their homepage. The “Video” link that used to be located on the left-hand menu column has also mysteriously disappeared.

Oddly though, videos are still being produced (to a degree), but they’re hardly being promoted and they’re being embedded within articles, such as a LAT critic Kenneth Turan’s movie review of Public Enemies.

Their “new” video player looks like this:

LAT 'Public Enemies' video review (image via LAT.com)

LAT 'Public Enemies' video review (image via LAT.com)

which is hardly an improvement by any means. What was once LATimes.com/video now automatically routes you to LATimes.com/videobeta, a quick and dirty compilation of online videos.

So what’s going on at the LAT? Have they given up on online video or are they investing in something bigger and better? I have my fingers crossed for the latter, but if anything, their YouTube Channel remains intact. If anyone has more information, feel free to divulge. Otherwise, we’ll just have to sit tight and see what happens.


Twitter lied, and Ads still Rule

June 27, 2009
(image via Tinker.com)

Tinker model (image via GlamMedia)

A little over a month ago, I published a post about Twitter co-founder Biz Stone forgoing the use of ads as a revenue model. In his words, he described ads as being “just not quite as interesting to us.”

Well, Twitter lied.

TechCrunch has recently confirmed that a new media agency called GlamMedia approached the microblogging enterprise about building “an advertising network powered by Twitter.”

Of course, it hasn’t been confirmed that the folks at Twitter have accepted GlamMedia’s proposal, but why would Twitter turn down a way to make money (even if ads are dull)? So, here’s the basic premise:

GlamMedia is a company that “connects premium brand advertisers to targeted niche audiences online” through the use of social media networks. They are essentially the middle men that connect thousands of traditional content publishers and professional bloggers with advertisers. Tinker.com is a new project they launched where microbloggers, aka Twitterers, can “find, follow, filter, create, and share events and breaking news.”  Not only is it a resource for users to search what people are twittering about, but it’s also a method for advertisers to target users.

Thus, similar to Tinker, GlamMedia proposes to use the Twitter apps network to connect social apps with brand-name advertisers.

Since the emergence of iPhone apps, the development and monetization of apps has been on everyone’s mind. News, new media, and tech companies are all looking for a way to maximize their apps, and it seems like the good ole’ ad model hasn’t completely disappeared.

Everything is still in its developing stages between GlamMedia and Twitter, but it seems like some type of ad-oriented model has worked for Glam and they want it to work for Twitter too (considering they would get a slice of the revenue). So if Twitter, the company that no one believed could be monetized, takes on advertising, and, better yet, it works; then what does that mean for other media companies?

What does that mean for journalism?


What Jacko’s Death says about TMZ (and the media biz)

June 26, 2009
Michael Jackson (AP image)

Michael Jackson (AP image)

Yesterday around 4:30 in the afternoon, reports surfaced the web claiming that the ‘King of Pop’ had suffered a cardiac arrest.

This was serious, breaking news. Everyone needed to know about the fate of pop culture icon, Michael Jackson, and those that turned to the AP or the LAT for the latest developments were sorely disappointed.

By 5:20PM, TMZ, a celebrity news site owned by AOL, broke the news about Jacko’s death and later dominated the competition on MJ coverage.

Although they have a television show, TMZ is very much a new media phenomenon. Unlike its traditional counterparts, TMZ applies a blogger-esque type of entertainment reporting that’s quick, dirty, and often inaccurate. But Jackos’s death marked a new day for TMZ…and the media industry.

Those who regularly work the streets of L.A.’s entertainment news industry know that a major element of TMZ’s success is its monopoly over sources in the LA court system and law enforcement agencies. They invest a lot of their manpower and resources to this “beat,” and so far they have reaped the rewards. Not only do they have the most extensive coverage of celebrity divorces, criminal misdemeanors, and other legal transactions in LA, but they are often the first to break the news.

This is not to say that TMZ is an infallible source of entertainment news, because it’s not. Most people, apart from Harvey Levin and his minions, still question TMZ’s legitimacy and accuracy, as it is often compared to other tabloidy, celeb gossip sites like Perez or Gawker. Yet, the reality is that in an immediate 24/7 news cycle, a “blogger” site that churns out ridiculous posts like this:

typical TMZ post

a typical TMZ post (image via TMZ.com)

can also be the leading source of coverage for the death of globally renowned pop singer.

So what does this mean for the media biz?

- Do not underestimate the impact of blogs. Many “traditional” journalists still hold elitist attitudes when discussing the legitimacy of blogs. They claim that blogs would not exist without their news content. Well, not all blogs are content aggregators and even local community blogs produce their own content and generate unique coverage (often overlooked by mainstream media). Even if most blogs lack the validity of outlets, such as the NYT, there is something to be said about the way they present and distribute information, especially on the web. Many news outlets are not setting themselves up to succeed in the (I want it) NOW newscycle, because if they were, then they would be taking more innovative risks and revamping their websites, and gradually stop investing in their old, floundering enterprises. This is not new news, but for some reason it is a fact many refuse to believe.

- Accuracy and reputation still matters. When news of MJ’s death came out, the first and only phrase on people’s lips was “Is it true?” The greatest edge that traditional news outlets have over other emerging new media companies is that they have a long-established reputation for accurate and quality reporting. For example, when TMZ reports something like MJ’s death there is still a veil of doubt and uncertainty about the report, but if the AP, NYT, LAT, or WAPO published the same article, hardly any reader would question the factuality of that report. No matter how popular news outlets may be, viewer/reader trust has to be earned, and established, decades-old news companies definitely have an advantage in that area.

- The web is big enough for everybody. TMZ is one example of a niche biz model headed in the right direction. The company dominates a slice of the media biz (entertainment) and they apply their resources to a sector of the industry (the LA legal system). They are celebrity “specialists” and overtime people are realizing that they are good at what they do. The web is getting too competitive for most companies to proficiently cover every area of news, but the Internet has simultaneously enabled more niche markets to thrive.

How do you think the death of Michael Jackson has changed the media biz? Would you pick TMZ over other news sites?