Subject: Report: Nieman Conference, Day 2 From: CIIR@aol.com Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 21:12:33 -0400

Sender: owner-online-news@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The second day of the Nieman conference offered more optimism--from my
perspective--than day one I reported on yesterday.

We started with multiple breakfast sessions at 7:30. The most heavily
attended had the topic "Civic Journalism, Tabloids, Talk Radio And the Future
of News," lead by Ellen Hume, Jay Rosen (NYU) and Ed Fouhy (ex-ABC, now Pew
Center for Civic Journalism).  The topic was mostly about how to get into
public service journalism, especially given limited budgets. The value was
that it focused on the _subject_ of what journalism can be about, with
relatively few mentions of the distribution vehicle (online or otherwise).
That is, the notion of good journalism is, of course, independent of the
technology. Certainly technology has enhanced the ability (and reduced the
cost) of such journalism. The Phila Inquirer's Barlett and Steele team could
not have engaged in their analyses without the use of databases and
spreadsheets.

This was a good lead into to an excellent first session that was a discussion
between Esther Dyson and Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., joined later by Frank
Daniels, III (Nando Net) and Walter Isaacson (Time's Pathfinder). One insight
here was the information that newspapers have that separate them from other
information providers. Sulzberger pointed out that when the Times tried an
audiotext system, the only part that made any money was the clue for the
crossword puzzle--a nice chunk of change, he said. The lesson: unlike
weather, sports scores or "the news," the crossword puzzle clues could only
be gotten from the Times--its was truly unique info. The rest is essentially
commodity information, available from multiple sources and therefore of less
value to a paying audience. 

Sulzberger further successfully stepped along a careful line between
supporting the current version of the newspaper while indicating an
appreciation for the evolving mechanism. His main point: publishers can't
over invest now in online at the expense of keeping up the quality of the
existing product. Otherwise, when the day arrives for online as a truly
viable replacement, the "brand" or image of the local newspaper would be
worth little.

This session was followed by an unexpected wonderful presentation by Nancy
Hicks Maynard, who ran the Oakland Tribune with her late husband, Bob. It was
unexpected, for me, because it was the type of presentation I would have
given, with slides showing trends, schematics confirming the maturity of
print or the changing nature of information. She reiterated the notion that
for newspapers to be serious players in the online world they had to focus on
the noncommodity functions of the newspaper--the stuff that pretenders to the
info supply business would have trouble duplicating. (With her bona fides as
a former Times reporter and as a publisher, I believe this relatively
"academic" presentation carried more weight with this audience than if I had
offered the same content).

The afternoon was less valuable. FCC Chairman Reed Hundt did say again that
the FCC was getting out of the content regulation business. A high powered
panel including Mitch Kapor, Steven Brill, Ester Dyson, and Steven Rattner
(Morgan, Stanley, ex-NYT) was wasted on a weak case study.

Jack Fuller, Chicago Tribune Publisher, wrapped up the conference saying that
essentially, no matter what the technology, he thought humans were "wired" to
want to read and to think lineally, even if the conduit was electronic.

In my conversations with journalists over the two days, I believe my
impressions from yesterday were perhaps a bit too critical of the audience's
orientation to the online world. Although much of the old guard may wish that
the world was not changing, I sense that even they at least acknowledge that
the trend to electronic distribution for newspapers is not a choice. Over
time they recognize that they will have to participate or their institutions
will not survive. 

As a few people on this list wrote me after my first report, there are
similarities to 1973-75, when newsrooms started going electronic. I too
remember the die-hard Front Page types who swore they would NEVER give up
their manual Underwoods. But usually their resistance dissipated after they
saw the power and flexibility of the new Harris and Atex systems. 

The Nieman Foundation married legitimate questions of the nature and
importance of quality journalism with the nature of the technology. It was,
in part, a live version of the thread here a few weeks ago on "Wrong Focus."
But the audience, from the establishment "names"  to the editors in the
trenches encompassed a broader spectrum than the participants on this list.
 It was from my perspective, overall a useful consciousness raising for all.

Ben Compaine
Chairman, Center for Information Industry Research
Temple University


From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Sun May  7 23:48:57 1995
Received: from marketplace.com by cnj.digex.net with SMTP id AA06686
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Sun, 7 May 1995 23:48:55 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27258 for online-news-outgoing; Sun, 7 May 1995 20:00:13 -0600
Received: from rmc1.crocker.com (densmore@rmc1.crocker.com [204.97.12.50]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA27252 for ; Sun, 7 May 1995 20:00:09 -0600
Received: (from densmore@localhost) by rmc1.crocker.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id WAA16477; Sun, 7 May 1995 22:00:41 -0400