US industry news website Editor & Publisher has removed the paywall from its website. Says its publisher:
Paywalls in name alone connote a psychological negative, which is one reason we have never been big believers. [Former owner] Nielsen had been using one for a number of years, but nothing during the past year has changed our opinion about them. We have removed it to build more traffic and make more of our original content available to our visitors.
According to a piece in Editor & Publisher, defence secretary Robert Gates has has demanded that military officials must now get clearance from the Pentagon for press interviews.
Gates allegedly sent a memo ordering military and civilian personnel across the globe to first gain permission before sharing stories with the media, which would prevent a repeat of the General Stanley McChrystal affair.
The order, issued by Gates on Friday in a brief memo to military and civilian personnel worldwide and effective immediately, tells officials to make sure they are not going out of bounds or unintentionally releasing information that the Pentagon wants to hold back.
The order has been in the works since long before Gen. Stanley McChrystal stunned his bosses with criticism and complaints in a Rolling Stone article that his superiors did not know was coming.
Editor & Publisher this morning reports that a total of six media organisations, across three countries, have transferred to Atex’s advertising, editorial and Web content management system in recent weeks.
The controversial editorial CMS is now being used by the Erdee Media Groep in The Netherlands and The Sun in Arizona.
Editor & Publisher have a comment piece from Congressman Lamar Smith in which he claims the US media have been exceptionally favourable toward President Obama and relatively disparaging of George Bush and the tea party movement.
The mainstream media’s treatment of President Obama provides an interesting case study. Journalists who gave to President Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign outnumbered those who contributed to Sen. McCain by 20-to-1.
And once the election was over, the slanted coverage continued. The nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs, comparing media coverage of Presidents Bush and Obama at the same point in their presidencies, found that 58 percent of all network news evaluations of Obama and his policies were favorable, while only 33 percent of assessments of Bush were favorable.
The U.S. Appeals Court has ruled that a ban on newspaper racks in Raleigh Durham International Airport, North Carolina violates the first amendment, following a challenge from a group of US newspapers including the Raleigh News & Observer, Durham Herald-Sun, New York Times, and USA today.
The Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority removed the racks, claiming that they were a security threat, a traffic impediment, and that they reduced revenue for airport stores that sold newspapers. But the majority of the Appeals Court panel voted to uphold the November 2008 U.S. District Court ruling that the ban violated the First Amendment.
“The government interests asserted to justify the ban do not counterbalance its significant restriction on protected expression,” the panel said in a 35-page opinion.
Mitchell is, understandably, highly critical of some of the changes that have already been made:
Now I was out, along with the great Joe Strupp, senior editor and staff writer. That meant that the magazine would lose the two staffers who had been responsible for roughly 80 per cent of the magazine’s news-making and traffic-driving ‘scoops’ over the past several years – at a time when web impact needs to be expanded.
(…) Much of the speculation about the ‘new’ E&P has been on the decision to focus on business and tech/press room issues. Many observers in recent days have warned that the ‘E’ will be largely taken out of E&P.
Keller suggests that the public editor’s position is still ‘much debated’:
Q: Has the public editor helped build the Times’ reputation, or done more to knock the paper’s reputation down? It may help to address this question both as it pertains to this particular episode and, more generally, over the brief history of public editorship.
A: On balance, I think the fact that we offer a paycheck and a platform to an independent critic to second-guess our journalistic judgments is good for, pardon the expression, the brand. I don’t always agree with our public editor, but I think he is fair-minded, his reporting is meticulous, and his targets – as in this case – are usually fair game. He doesn’t just blow raspberries. He tries to explain how bad things happen, and he reports what we are trying to do to avoid future mistakes. Whether a public editor should be a permanent, or at least continuing, fixture at The Times is a question much debated within our walls. I’ve kicked it down the road until we near the end of Clark’s term next year.
Journalism.co.uk is aware of full-time newspaper ombudsmen at the Guardian [Siobhain Butterworth] and the Observer [Stephen Pritchard] and yesterday learned that Sally Baker is feedback editor for the Times. Does anyone know of any other UK titles with full-time and independent readers’ editors? And do those without one need one?
“The amount of time people spent at the top [US] 30 newspaper websites is stuck in neutral if not reverse: more than half saw significant falloff in May,” Editor & Publisher reported yesterday.
“The list is for May Nielsen Online data for the top 30 newspapers’ websites ranked by unique users. Nielsen (owned by E&P’s parent company) defines the average time spent per person at a site during the month.”