Tag Archives: mUmBRELLA

Australian titles publish afternoon editions to update cyclone news

Several newspapers published by Australia’s News Limited brought out “rare” afternoon editions today in an attempt to keep print readers updated after Cyclone Yasi hit last night, according to a report by mumbrella.com.

A special edition of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph is available in the Sydney CBD, North Sydney, Parramatta and at airports with nine pages of new coverage along with updates on the situation in Egypt and the arrest of Bulldogs player Ryan Tandy.

According to mumbrella.com’s report the Australian also published a special lunchtime edition which was distributed in Cairns, Townsville, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.

Read the full post on mumbrella.com at this link.

Sydney Morning Herald tries to shore up print sales with iPad app

The Sydney Morning Herald in Australia has been criticised after an announcing that local users would have to subscribe to the print edition in order to access the Herald’s new iPad app.

The SmartEdition app is advertised by the paper as enabling users to “read the Herald exactly as it appears in print, but on digital devices”.

It’s ideal for when you are away from home and crave local news in the newspaper format, with the convenience of digital access.

The design has already frustrated some commentators, who have called the app a “glorifed PDF reader”. The payment method outlined by the Herald on iTunes only served to annoy some further. mUmBRELLA.com.au writes:

Australian users can subscribe to a 7-day free trial if you download before August 31, 2010 if you are not a Herald subscriber. To access THE SMH app after downloading, tap the subscribe button within the app and follow the prompts.

Readers that live outside Australia can access a 7-day, 52-week subscription to The Sydney Morning Herald SmartEdition for just AU$52 a year.

According to mUmbrella this means “if you’re in New South Wales or ACT, the only way you can get hold of the iPad app is to subscribe to the print edition”.

It’s about using the iPad app as a way of shoring up plummeting print circulations. This is all about Fairfax being able to present its iPad subscribers to the Audit Bureau of Circulations as full price print subscribers who happen to be getting a “complimentary” copy of the app.

Techdirt added to the criticisms, saying this revenue stream will prove to be a “short-sighted” move by the publishers.

It’s no secret that some publications view the iPad and paywalls as ways to slow down the rate at which people are ditching subscriptions to paper publications — but it seems particularly short-sighted to make that the only way to get access to the digital app.

See mUmbrella’s full post here…

Mumbrella: Fairfax Digital responds to online video complaint

Fairfax Media, one of the main newspaper groups in Australia, has been taking external YouTube video and re-publishing it in their own media player, says Tim Burrowes of Australian marketing and media site, Mumbrella.

When the YouTube content is embedded on other sites, it’s a benevolent little ecosystem – the site gets free content, YouTube gets revenue and the creator gets revenue. So it’s a shame that Fairfax Digital’s answer to this is the sort of thing that gives traditional outlets a bad name – lifting the content.

Since Mumbrella raised the issue, Fairfax has responded and says it is looking into the complaint. In the meantime, it has changed the video clips noted by Burrowes, and is now using the embedded YouTube player.

Full post at this link…

Mumbrella: ‘The Australian shows it’s easy for a paper to go overboard’

Down under, a fascinating media battle continues to play out: between News Corp’s Australian newspaper, the newspapers’ critics and the Victorian Office of Police Integrity (OPI).

In fact, via regular Crikey updates I’m truly hooked, but every time I come to summarise the plot for a UK audience I get put off by its numerous layers. However, I think it’s worth attempting, and directing you to more thorough pieces on Australian media sites.

I’ve previously written about the so-called ‘OzLeak’ case, which Margaret Simons has been steadily reporting for some months on politics site Crikey.

It involves a journalist’s source, an award-winning scoop about a police terror raid by the Australian, an inquiry by the Victorian Office of Police Integrity (OPI) and the attention of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI). Eventually the Australian prevented publication of the OPI/ACLEI report on its scoop with a court order.

Since my last update, the situation has got even more tricky. The Australian has published more attacks on the OPI and Victoria Police’s chief commissioner Simon Overland. The Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper has also turned its attention to Simons’ journalistic activity, accusing her of receiving “inaccurate leaks” from Victoria Police and the OPI that discredit the Australian and its reporter Cameron Stewart; a charge she denies.

Fortunately for us observers, trying to make sense of all this, another independent Australian media site, Mumbrella, steps in to provide a little more commentary and summary:

“This appears to be a story that is of more interest to journalists than the public, and it feels a little like whoever writes about the issue ends up being sucked into it,” writes Tim Burrowes. “Certainly Simons is now involved in her own tussle with The Australian.”

Drawing on his own journalistic experience, he says the newspaper has got caught up and gone “overboard” in its coverage of the OPI.

So far, those outside the story probably see one of two sides. Either, the paper is cynically pursuing its own agenda to prosecute a private war. Or it is subjecting a powerful figure to long overdue scrutiny. It is, I suspect, neither of those two things, and both of those two things.

Once you’ve got something, it’s hard to let go. Particularly when you take it personally. That’s the nature of  investigative journalism.

But I don’t think this is a story that would have got anything like the column inches if The Australian wasn’t directly involved, and the senior editorial staff were not heavily invested in it.

Is there a story there? Yes. But has The Australian gone overboard in telling it? Yes.

I’ll try and update when there are further developments. In the meantime, I’ll be following Australian media news with interest.

Mumbrella.com.au: Aussies won’t pay for online news either

According to a poll of more than 18,000 Australians released today by Pure Profile, only five per cent said they would be willing to pay for ‘high quality articles’, reports Mumbrella, the  Australian media and marketing site.

“A further seven per cent said they would be willing to pay if there was no advertising. Ten per cent said they would not pay because the quality of online news was unimportant to them, while the vast majority – 78 per cent – said they would simply refuse to pay for online news.”

Full post at this link…

Related: Readers prefer subscriptions to micropayments – according to paidContent:UK/Harris survey

Police attack The Australian newspaper over terror raids scoop

Australian police have attacked the way The Australian newspaper reported its planned terror raids, claiming that the newspaper’s exclusive was available before the operation had actually taken place early this morning (Tuesday).

Four people are in custody today with more arrests a possibility, the Victorian police commissioner, Simon Overland, said today.

The Australian defended its decision to publish in an article available here. The Australian does not accept that the paper was available for sale before raids were conducted, it reports.

MUmBRELLA: ‘Police attack Australian over publication of raids story’

Crikey.com.au: ‘Ethics aside, a big day for The Oz’