Thought #2 on the Chicago Media Future Conference: Let’s find a sustainable model for online journalism

When I was first hired as editor at a local free-press magazine in Rome, Italy, I came with ideas, enthusiasm and willingness to work as hard as I could to increase readership.

The publisher looked at me and said without hesitation: “That’s all wonderful, but in the end all I care about is that you get advertisers in. I don’t really care if no one reads the magazine.”

The struggle to make any news business profitable and keeping it interesting at the same time was at the center of the second half of the Chicago Media Future Conference, held at Columbia College Chicago on Saturday, June 13.

The four panelists exchanged very different views on what an online news organization must be in order to be financially successful.

Patrick Spain, CEO of Newser, had a pretty doomsday vision of things.

In essence, he said that even if a news-website were to get 5 million hits a  month it still wouldn’t be a profitable model. He also said that newspapers such as the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times are all going to disappear by 2011 because advertisers are running away.

I think this “We need to make huge profit margins” mentality is what has driven newspapers to today’s disastrous situation. Maybe I’m still a young and foolish idealist, but I didn’t get into journalism for the big bucks. I knew very well that I wouldn’t be making millions of dollars.

Steve Rhodes of the Beachwood Reporter was very frank about this topic. Multi-billion dollar news corporations, he said, aren’t the model to pursue because, as we’ve all seen in recent years, they’ve all failed miserably.

Small and successful news-business models are possible. An example of such a business was exemplified by Brad Flora, who started The Windy Citizen little over a year ago and told us the website can already claim to make between $50,000 and $60,000 a year.

Patrick Spain said he didn’t believe local news coverage could be a sustainable model.

On the contrary, I think that’s where web-news might be heading right now.

The “all the news that’s fit to print” model hasn’t yet been developed online. The aggregator model represented by Newser is still too confusing, especially if compared to the simplicity and clarity of newspapers.

Local and hyper-local news models such as Chi-Town Daily News, Chicagoist or Chicago Talks, on the other hand, are gaining readership because people are going on the internet to find specific news about specific topics or areas of interest.

In my opinion, the newspaper as a general container of information will still exist even after 2011 (maybe a reduced and more compact version), while the web will continue to specialize in opinion writing and local news coverage.

Thought #1 on the Chicago Media Future Conference: Why newspapers won’t disappear so quickly

As journalists we are continually looking for answers.

Saturday’s Chicago Media Future Conference tried to find some answers to some of the most fundamental questions that have been hovering over every journalist’s head as of lately: How do people consume the news and how can we – as journalists – make money selling the news? The two questions were addressed by two separate panels.

The first panel tried to focus on news consumption and innovative models of news distribution, especially on the local (ex. Gapers Block) and hyper-local (Everyblock) levels. Everyone seemed to pretty much agree that one of the reasons the traditional newspaper is in crisis is because it had significantly reduced its coverage of local news.

During the second panel discussion, Patrick Spain, CEO of Newser, said the New York Times would disappear in a year and a half and the Trib and Sun-Times wouldn’t be around anymore next year.

Medill professor Rich Gordon, however, said he didn’t believe newspapers were going to disappear so quickly.

“Print is not going to die until the digital platform substitutes everything the newspaper does today,” he said. We might get there one day, he added, as screen technology evolves.

Does that mean one day we’ll all be walking around with Kindles, Blackberrys or iPhones and getting our news exclusively from there? To me, this scenario appears to still be very distant. For two reasons:

1. Right now that technology comes with a high cost. The devices are getting cheaper every year, as demonstrated by the new iPhone for only $99, but you are then bound to pay relatively high monthly fees to actually use them.

2. A lot more people need to know how to use these wonderful devices. I think some journalists are so hyped up with new technology that they often think everyone else uses the internet just like they do.

Well, that’s not how it works. The reason why newspapers will survive for quite some time (most will change, some will fail, but they’ll still be around) is because they are still today the simplest way to get the news.

News distribution in newspapers is based on the “push” model: The news is packaged and handed to you.

Since most people are not information-junkies, they won’t waste their time on countless news websites that pretty much all offer a “pull” model: You get a homepage with as much information possible, and you’re just one click away from all you need. If you’re a journalist, you probably can look through tons of links and other pages. After all, that’s what we do for a living.

But if you’re just someone trying to get some information on what happened in your town, how are you supposed to know that there are dozens of websites out there that can give you in-depth coverage on almost any topic?

The answer, for now, is you can’t.

In my opinion, news-websites still today are trying to figure out how to create a single, compact and user-friendly “package” that will truly substitute the newspaper. That’s why hyper-local news websites can be successful: They are very specific “packages”.

How to get all these “packages” into one big “container” so that people don’t have to waste their days on their computers, now that’s something we should start talking about.

A newspaper’s value in a democratic society

As I read about newspapers filing for bankruptcy (Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times), cutting down on home-delivery (Detroit Free Press and Detroit News), or even going online-only (Seattle Post-Intelligencer), I can’t stop thinking about what is at risk here: a plurality of voices that can guarantee a democratic society’s ability to thrive and – most importantly – to improve itself.

A strong and healthy newspaper industry allows people to be aware of and meditate about the changes the world is going through. More newspapers in a city or country means more articles and more opinions, which ultimately lead to a debate about what is viewed as wrong or right about a certain issue or topic.

Societies evolve through debate, and newspapers have represented the battlefield for many causes, from the Civil Rights movement to the on-going struggle to guarantee equal rights for women and same-sex couples.

The reason why newspapers are vital is because they allow readers to respond, to let the editors and reporters know what the public thinks. Letters are published and a discussion might soon start and lead to more articles, more opinions.

Don’t get me wrong, broadcast media are just as important for a democratic society’s success. The difference, though, is that radio and TV (especially) are more efficient at quickly spreading the news, not allowing in most cases people to think about what they just saw and heard.

Another problem shows up if the news they spread is pretty much all the same (that’s what is happening in the TV news market in Chicago). The efficiency of TV news – in this case – is limited.

On the other hand, the newspaper is something that can be kept, read over and over again, passed around.

The news on the internet? Its potential for debate is even greater than that of newspapers. Unfortunately, the enormous amount of information out there can scare away many people.

The newspaper instead concentrates everything inside its one daily issue, in which you can find all the news you need to know and many starting points for a healthy discussion at home, at the workplace or even on the bus with a total stranger.

The men behind the men

Presidents and leaders around the world are usually people with strong personalities who are able to push certain policies among politicians and justify them to the public.

But often it is the men (or women) behind these leaders that determine the direction in which to go. It also often happens that key advisors during the electoral campaign gain in popularity and are seen as indispensable to bring forth that same message they had somehow created.

It has happened to Bill Clinton, who awarded Tony Coehlo key jobs when it came to decide how the Democratic Party would go through crucial elections; George W. Bush, who rewarded Karl Rove’s 2004 aggressive electoral campaign with a position as Deputy Chief of Staff, and it’s just a matter of time before we see who moves the puppets inside Barack Obama’s White House.

Right now, it seems like there are especially two men behind the scenes who can force the agenda more than others: David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. Obama’s current chief of staff has maintained a rather liberal approach on social issues, while maintaining a more conservative foreign policy, especially in regards to a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.

Axelrod, on the other hand, is someone who has often worked through his consulting firm for big corporations in the past. That is why a helping hand from the Obama administration towards these big interest groups might not come as such a big surprise.

Moving ideas around the world

How much sense does it make, in today’s globalized world, to be a strenuous nationalist in judicial matters? Not much, if you ask me.

In a recent article published by Newsweek, Stuart Taylor Jr. and Evan Thomas were somewhat critical of Harold Hongju Koh and how his probable confirmation as top legal adviser to the State Department “could erode American democracy and sovereignty.”

Let me start off by saying that the article’s authors do no justice to Koh by citing Edward Whelan, the head of a conservative Washington policy group named Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Koh is “all about depriving American citizens of their powers of representative government by selectively imposing on them the favored policies of Europe’s leftist elites,” said Whelan.

The problem with this quote? It is left out to hang, without a response from another voice.

Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy has been influenced by European law and jurisprudence by spending many summers in Vienna, where he would talk with famous international judges and lawyers. Does that mean he selectively chooses to apply European standards to American law? I doubt it.

The world that is being shaped today is so interconnected it is hard to remain isolated. Instead of trying to fight and resist this process of internationalization, judges and lawyers should take the time to discuss, analyze and exchange views between different judicial cultures.

The result can easily be a positive one, for it is only through the combination and mixture of ideas that great results can be obtained. Ideas would travel around the world and a new global jurisprudence might accompany the global society that is being created.

Age limit and speed not suitable for Justices

An New York Times article published on April 12 tried to evaluate if age is an important factor in determining whether a Supreme Court Justice should retire.

The article’s author, Duke Law School Professor Paul D. Carrington, expressed his preference for a system – similar to the one in Great Britain – that would impose an age limit to Supreme Court Justices. The elevated average age of today’s Court is 69, and Carrington believes that this is one of the factors for the rather low number of cases heard every year. (about 75)

I believe Carrington is wrong in two separate instances: First of all, an age limit might cause more harm than good. The knowledge of a term coming to an end may bring some to speed up their decisions in order to finish many delayed works and to push harder for a proper agenda.

This problem is directly tied with the second issue that Carrington brings up and criticizes: The limited number of cases heard by the Justices each year. To invert this trend, the Justices would have to accept more cases every year and deliberate much quicker. Unfortunately, speedy processes frequently lead to poor decisions, such as in the case of Bush v. Gore right after the election of 2000.

Speed is a trend of today’s world that should not be forced on judicial or legislative branches. A newly-elected president, for example, is justly scrutinized from the moment he or she starts his or her term, but the expectations sometimes seem to be too high. Barack Obama, just like Franklin Roosevelt after his first election, has an economic plan that is being pushed forward, but we as a society want to see immediate results.

We live in a time where gratification needs to be instantaneous and decisions are made without meditation. Therefore, the success of a social-network such as Twitter must not come as a surprise. Twitter is the perfect platform on which we can share random thoughts with breath-taking speed.

An interesting study conducted by scientists at the University of South California shows that the urge to “tweet” or to update statuses on Facebook or LinkedIn could cause “potentially negative consequences” on our thought processes and evaluation of feelings.

The key word here is time. Time and patience is what has always characterized the Justices’ modus operandi. Therefore, to put pressure on the Justices by imposing age limits or a minimum of cases to be heard each year might end up hurting the delicate balance of wisdom that has always lived inside the Supreme Court Building.

Supreme Court watchdog groups

It is of some comfort to know that a thorough discussion takes place every time a controversial law or judicial case is brought to the Supreme Court’s attention. Nevertheless, the political composition of the Court, due to the fact that the president of the United States nominates every justice, constantly reminds everyone that a certain amount of influence and pressure can be put on the justices by the political world.
To reduce the Court to a battleground between Republicans and Democrats would be simplistic and untrue. In his book, “The Nine,” Jeffrey Toobin clearly demonstrates how justices that were elected by Republican presidents turned out to be more liberal, and vice versa. Even when the Court would have an overwhelming majority of judges appointed by Republican presidents, the Court still ruled on issues such as Roe V Wade. Still, the justices know that almost every decision they make will have inevitable political (and maybe even electoral) repercussions.
It is therefore fundamental to have many watchdog and oversight groups that are able to keep an eye open on what the Court might decide on delicate issues such as abortion, sex and racial discrimination, gay rights or international law.
Women’s rights are perhaps the most delicate issue when it comes to the subject of abortion. Groups such as the National Organization for Women pay close attention to every decision the Court makes on women’s rights. (abortion, sexual discrimination) The group was very critical of a 2007 Court decision to uphold an abortion procedure ban in the cases of Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood. The organization has also “fought tooth and nail against the confirmation of Roberts, and even more passionately against Alito,” it says on its website.
There are also groups that strongly oppose Roe v. Wade, and would want to see it overturned by the newly shaped conservative Supreme Court. The National Right to Life Committee was created right after the Roe v. Wade decision, (1973) and has grown to about 3,000 chapters spread throughout the country.
Overall, there are many oversight groups that follow the Court’s decisions regardless of the subject. The American Civil Liberties Union, Change.org or Amnesty International are just some of the major watchdog groups that can help individuals have their voices heard inside the nation’s most influential and important Court.

Trip to Springfield, Ill.

Walking around Springfield, Illinois,  alone is not what you typically do on Sunday nights. Neither do I, but it just happened that that was the day I arrived in the State capital.

Amid the darkness and solitude of the deserted city, I found the lit Capitol to be beautiful and reassuring.

On Monday I was already out by 9 a.m. and heading back to the Capitol. On my way there, I stopped by the Illinois Republican Party headquarters and got to speak with Political Director Curt Conrad.

The small office just a couple of blocks from the Capitol was empty and Conrad took some time to talk about where the Party was headed. The main focus, he said, was to seize the political advantage the Blagojevich scandal had created and get a big win in the 2010 gubernatorial race.

After that I went to the Capitol and was lucky enough to sit in at the first ever press conference of the Coalition for Honest and New Government Ethics (CHANGE) Illinois, “a coalition aligned to bring government integrity in Illinois.”

I got to speak with many advocates such as Cyndi Canary and Peter Bensinger (co-chair of CHANGE Illinois), and AARP Illinois Senior State Director Robert Gallo. They would all testify that day at 3 p.m. in front of the Joint Committee on Government Reform, and I didn’t want to miss taking notes there.

But before the committee hearing I had an appointment with Sun-Times’s Bureau Chief David McKinney. He welcomed me into his office and we chatted a little about State politics and he told me how things have changed for journalists around there. The Tribune, he said, used to have three reporters, and now only one was left.

The Joint Committee hearing started on time but went on forever. Lots of testimonies, many of whom I had already heard at the morning press conference. Both House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) were presiding the committee meeting. The general feeling I got from the questions senators and representatives asked to the various advocacy groups that showed up to present their research and data on campaign funding? A cap on campaign contributions will not be placed, maintaining Illinois’s position as one of five states which don’t impose contribution limits. (New Mexico is currently working on legislation to place a cap)

After a salad-ravioli-beer dinner at Saputo’s (favorite inside joke: “You having dinner with Madigan?”) I headed to the motel to charge up for the next day.

On Tuesday morning I attended some more of the Joint Committee on Government Reform and finally at noon both Senate and House sessions started.

What I saw in front of me from the visitor’s balcony sort of shocked me. No one bothering to even listen to what the speaker was saying, people chatting about who knows what or – even worse – browsing the internet on their laptops.

So I headed down to 3rd floor, where a bunch of people were standing outside the doors. Little cards with specific requests were written and given to the ushers, who would go on the floor in search of the senator or representative. A few came out, and I was fortunate enough to have followed a group of parents and students from Namaste Charter school that came all the way from Chicago on two buses to ask their legislators to increase funding for the school’s expansion projects.

Every senator that would come out looked like he or she was in a hurry, so I had to throw in quick questions and grab whatever quotes I could among the chaos. I even got to talk to a lobbyist about my age whose main interest was having speed-rail legislation passed.

After that, I walked to the nearest cafè with free wireless, got out my laptop and started typing the story due by 4 p.m.

On my way back to Chicago that evening, I felt exhausted but also very happy that I had gotten a lot accomplished. I looked out the window and watched the sun set behind the never-ending plains.

The need to communicate

I opened a Twitter account recently.  Before that, I opened this blog (which, I admit, I should take more care of).

Add to that a Myspace account I’ve had for a year and a half, a Facebook account, a YouTube and a Vimeo channel for my videos, and then other accounts on not-so-popular sites.

There are two reasons why I’ve put my soul in front of a potentially infinite expansion of itself throughout the internet:

1- The need to stay in touch.

2- The need to be constantly informed and to inform others, when I can.

I’ve heard many times people criticize the extensive use of social networks as a symbol of our society’s transition from a face-to-face society to a screen-to-screen society.

On the contrary, I feel that this urge of staying constantly in touch, updating statuses every five minutes, is a sign of our increased need of communication.

There is one fundamental problem, though.

One must be able to balance the time spent typing with tens, hundreds or even thousands of strangers, and a proper face-to-face interaction with friends, family or even the guy standing next to you on the bus.

Sometimes a smile can mean more than a million tweets, a beer with a friend more than a million status updates.

Skeleton closets and politicians

There are two things politicians fear most: the skeletons in their closets and powerful opponents with enough influence to determine one’s political future.

The worst types of skeleton closets are the ones politicians try to conceal. A politician’s future is often determined by what he or she did and who he or she met. (which often translates to who they have slept with)

Richard Nixon had to leave office while more incriminating evidence was piling up to prove his paranoia of failure; Former president Bill Clinton got impeached because of an extra-marital affair with Monica Lewinsky; Ex-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer had to resign because of his affair with a high-class prostitute.

Then there are the opponents. These adversaries sometimes have common interests with others, and will do anything to destroy and conquer. An example of this has been shown in the recent ousting of former-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who found himself playing by himself the dirty little games everyone else was playing in Illinois politics. As soon as the Madigans, Giannoulias and others saw in Blago’s exposure an opportunity to advance to higher ranking positions, the game was over.

Blagojevich’s case is not the most common, though. Often times, attacks from opponents do not succeed, even though they still hurt. Barack Obama had to shield himself from the GOP, which accused during the 2008 presidential campaign of hanging out with anti-patriotic ex-terrorists such as Bill Ayers.

Franklin Roosevelt risked his political career a few times, too. Maybe the closest he got to failing, during his years as governor of New York, was during the trial of then mayor of New York City, Jimmy Walker. The corrupt mayor, who loved the city’s night life and had a very open extra-marital relationship, was a symbol of the untouchable power that Tammany Hall had so far represented.

By trying to oust Walker, Roosevelt was going to show he had the moral strength to stand up to corrupt politicians. Perhaps his impulsiveness, combined with an extra dose of self-confidence, helped Roosevelt through the trial. Or maybe it was just luck that helped him out by having the Catholic Church not support Walker in the upcoming special reelection for mayor.