The cost of the online edition of the Wausau Daily Herald went up. It was at zero, and it ended up higher than zero. So, it went up. The online uproar was, well, muted. The only place I saw any sort of reaction was the on air hosts from Midwest Communications mocking the paywall, and trumpeting their own online news being free. They told the truth, it is free. If you go there today, to any of them, at this moment is the same wire story about the Planned Parenthood trial starting tomorrow. And the story is free. And the story is uncredited, so we have no idea who wrote it.
Now, if you go to the Wausau Daily Herald site you will find lots of stories. None of them mention the Planned Parenthood story, and 90 percent of them are bylined by someone from the Wausau Daily Herald. I believe this is local news gathering.
I support the paywall. I also support journalism for the public good, as a true resource that is important to a local community. I believe that we have a right to good and accurate reporting of stories. I believe that if more journalists were Murrow on the rooftop during the London blitz we would be better off.
But, that sort of presupposes that there is a lot to report, you know like a World War. Sometimes in small town America there is not really an air raid happening. Sometimes, well, nothing happens.
But, like public transit, I think that Wausau is large enough to have a daily news gathering machine. Now, don’t get me wrong. 550 AM has one reporter, Raymond, and Raymond does a great job gathering news every day. But, Ray is a single person and is bound by the space time continuum, and as a result, cannot be in more than one place at one time. And, a day is the same 24 hours for Ray as it is for you.
The television stations are expanding. Both Channel 9 and 7 have expanded their online news delivery, their gathering tools, and their presence over all. They have moved past the 6 and 10 programming and offer more programming throughout the day. Both have great morning programs that I like very much. And they manage to do it for free. Sort of.
You see, while they do offer the news for free, they also have syndicated and network programming through which they make advertising dollars to support stations operations. They have Seinfeld or Baywatch reruns; they can sell advertising to those, and that money goes in the stations’ coffers.
The newspaper does not offer Baywatch or any syndicated programming. So, their advertising dollars are capped as to what can be sold per inch, per day. I am sure it is a lot, but it is capped.
I support the paywall, and I subscribe to the paper online because I like to read the newspaper. I am fan of writers writing, especially daily writing. I support the paywall because it will keep the newspaper alive, even if just for a little longer.
Sure, I have a Kindle, and iphone, and online access. So, if like many other papers, the newspaper disappears from print, I will be able to get it. But, what of Joe McGrath. I do not anticipate the civic warrior being online with his Galaxy Nexus, looking at the WDH app. I just do not think that is going to happen.
I believe in the public trust that newspapers have, the same way I believe in the public trust that radio stations have. Journalism is a higher calling. They make very little money, they work so very hard, and everyone hates them.
The right wing in this country calls them the lame stream media. The left calls them shills for their corporate overlord. The accountants say that the staff is an unwanted cash liability.
And the minute they are gone, all those who were complaining about price will point at the company and say that they were just in it for the money, even though these are the same people who were mad they were asked to pay.
So, they just cannot win.
The reality is journalism is a job, a career and a craft. You have to seek it out. It is not the calling of a minister or the choice to be a priest. These people, these journalists are the eyes and ears of the community, and as such deserve to be able to buy a ham sandwich.
Susan Firer was a college professor of mine. She taught me that poets are the diviners of the world. That by looking at something, and writing about it, the poet makes it divine. I think of the poem ‘Burning the Christmas Greens’ by William Carlos Williams. We did not think of the tree that way, not until the poet gazed upon it.
And we do not see the local government the same way before until after the newspaper puts it in some form of perspective. We do not see the faith healing case the same way until there is the amount of reporting we saw.
Journalists are the record keepers, the watchdogs, the front lines of our cultural battle. They point like a hunting dog at the thing that is happening, and when it is great journalism, they let us know what is happening, and then we can decide what we want to do or feel about it.
Journalists are important. And I think that the ability to be financially sustainable is important. We need the news, because now more than ever, we are confronted with a tidal wave of information. We need something strong to sift through it.
Journalists work hard, and they deserve to be able to pay their mortgages or their rent. I totally get that. When I was in J school 10 years ago, I knew I’d never be wealthy as a journalist, but I did expect to be able to find employment. I understand the structure of advertising has to change. It isn’t enough to have a business advertise per square inch if the populace isn’t interested in paying to read the inches.
On a practical level, however, with the broadcast stations expanding their reporting and online presence, I wonder what the added value to WDH online will be. (Certainly it’s not the forums.) What do they have that I want enough to pay for? From your post, Dino, it seems like your decision to pay for the online edition is tantamount to charity.
Maybe.
But, the Television stations have about 30 minutes of news programming a day. That is a small amount.
Ray at Midwest, well, he is one man.
I believe in paying for news gathering. It is not charity. It is paying for something I want. The same way I pay a plumber. He is an expert at the flow of water within the house, the journalist has an expertise I am willing to pay for.
Oh Dino! At it again! For a champion of journalism, you seem go make a lot of leaps-to-facts. WSAU has multiple staff members gathering and producing news stories right now. Matt Lehman has left, but his position is currently being filled, so for this second, yes the staff is down a person.
Now to humor you, I went and grabbed a Daily Herald today, Sunday, their biggest day. To my surprise, I had to get to page 3 before I noted “for the Wausau Daily Herald” under a name…noting that the author isn’t from the local staff. Not counting the opinion section, I only found 3 local writers in the news section. Weird. There are 2 people gathering news right now for WSAU, 3 when the new hire is made, and yet that’s not good enough?
As for the “for the Wausau Daily Herald” type stories, WSAU has state-wide staff through Green Bay and Sheboygan. And for the opinion section, WSAU can match that with Pat Snyder. Of course for sports, there’s Tom King. WSAU may not have the same size staff as the local TV stations, but for a single news radio station, they stack up good against a paper.
I haven’t noticed any local TV stations charging for their online content.
So let’s get this straight.
Dino’s views:
A newspaper website charging for local advertising AND charging people to read the articles and read that paid advertising is a good thing.
A radio station charging for advertising and giving all their content (web and airwaves) away for free isn’t good enough. No, they must also advertise the venues for free as well.
Cheryl,
Do you think that we are seeing an expansion of news gathering? I think that we do see an increased in online content generated by the news gathering of the televsion stations, but I wonder if this will continue?
Do you think the web content and traffic of online television content from Channel 9 will be a economic driver, and sustainable?
I’m not sure if any online news media is sustainable without a lot of annoying ads or paywalls. I think news gathering is getting more shallow. Reminds me of the Doris Day and Clark Gable movie Teacher’s Pet. “Newspapers can’t compete in reporting what happened anymore, but they can and should tell the public why it happened.” — That saccharin, utopian ideal for newspapering sounds great, but I’m not sure people will pay for a daily account of news… the big “why” can be told in a weekly or monthly news magazine… and I’d pay for that… but I probably wouldn’t pay for a daily digest of events.
So it’s all getting pretty shallow. I don’t mean this in a negative way since it’s the way I consume news, and I’m a relatively intelligent person. Let’s take the guy who drowned in Manmade a couple weeks ago. I had just been there the night before it happened, so I felt a tie to the location. I was curious as to the details, so I kept going to the various local news websites to see if any of the stories had updates. I was basically waiting for a name and cause of death. Pretty shallow reporting. Wouldn’t pay for it, though I consume it. But a feature story about the family, the history of the lake, etc. That’s premium content. I might pay for that.
Here’s the other thing… I don’t have cable TV, so if their news isn’t online, I don’t watch it or read it. I’m sure our local news stations have realized that and are going to where they can find their audience= online.
But then lets look the other way…if we accept the idea that it is getting shallow.
How do we counter act that? How do we encourage depth and thoughtfulness in our media outlets?
We each make economic decisions every day.
Every business needs to decide what to charge for its product, and what aspects of the product are included in the price, and what aspects of the product are “free”.
Every consumer has a limited amount of resources, and therefore decides based on the pricepoint, the value, the need, the desire, where to spend their money and where not to.
Although these are primarily economic decisions, there are often other factors that can play a roll in decisions. Some people will pay more for the same product because it locally produced, or organic, or safe for the environment. We might spend money that doesn’t make economic sense to support a product a cause we beleive in, or we might not spend money to make a point, basically speaking with our wallets.
The Wausau Daily Herald has decided to charge for their online content. That is there decision and I am sure that they have valid economic reasons for that decision.
As a consumer, I am choosing to not pay for said content and will take a website that I had been frequenting less and less since other changes in their online content and just not visit it at all anymore, and find other sources for news. I have valid economic reasons for my decision.
That is how a free market works. A provider of a product makes a decision, and consumers of that product decide whether they want to continue to be a consumer because of that decision.
I will not fault them for their decision, I hope they will not fault me for mine.
You are correct, journalists are important. Information is what our Internet driven society needs.
A number of newspapers no longer print an actual physical copy. This has helped to lower the cost of printing and distribution and reassign those monies to more reporting staff and a web design team. Other media companies are hiring more journalists to beef up their own reporting capabilities and expanding their offerings.
Over time, you’ll see more shifts in where these journalists end up. You see companies focusing their staff on local coverage and working with third parties like AP and Reuters to provide them with coverage around the world, like Midwest Communications does. (Full disclosure – I do work for Midwest Communications.) Ray may be one man covering local news, but we do have stations, around the state that work together to provide state news. Soon enough, we will have a replacement for Matt, who left us a little while ago.
https://news.google.com/ aggregates news from around the world, for free. Yes, this is done by local and national news agencies. You are starting to see more news sources than newspapers joining the ranks on Google News every day. More media outlets that have their feet in multiple forms of media, to help pay for the expenses of staffing, are the ones that will make it in the long run.
It seems that the problem is newspaper’s hubris. The belief of too big to fail is a dangerous myth. We’ve seen how well that worked over the past 4 years with our economy. Focusing on one revenue stream is not how our economy works anymore. Newspapers could have flexed with the times and modified it’s business model to keep up. It didn’t and is reaping what it sowed.
Thanks Brad. I think it is cool that your take on the news staff at Midwest is different than the other guy.
I think that people are going to have to decide. Even with things like the aggregation model, news has to be collected, edited, verified to be true.
There has to be accountability. There has to be journalistic ethics.
Do you not think, Brad, that this is exactly what they are doing…changing their business model?
I think that while the internet is a daily part of you and I’s life, the reality is that we are the exception. The desire for a incremental move to a paywall model, is important.
I pay for the coverage of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and LA Times. These are reporters I like very much.
I am both an internet guy, and a news guy. I believe that the pay model, in one form or another is needed to support the news gathering that we are a society needs.
Selling the local news, which is covered by two TV stations, a couple of radio groups and City Pages is really hard to justify. I think the notion of “If I pay for it it must be good” is a very bad notion. I’ve paid a lot of money for thins I thought would last and ended up being junk. Information is no different. A price tag doesn’t guarantee veracity. Also, the comments section of news stories is where inaccuracies are taken to task. The level of interactivity on the web can help build a more informed society. In the end, I think that’s what we all want.
When you mention major metropolitan newspapers, that isn’t a fair comparison. The New York Time has a world renowned Best Seller list and Broadway show reviews. That content is extremely unique and very sought after. People will pay for that.
In changing the business model I mean things like…
(I’m going to throw out some ideas. Not being in newspaper or the printing industry these may not be feasible but are just ideas.)
•Having a large print run facility may give the opportunity to print things like magazines and multi-page brochures.
•Increase the size of your design department and do design and consulting work for local businesses.
•Increase reporting staff to cover more niche topics and sell that content. (Along the lines of Krause Publications)
I don’t claim to have the answers and would love to hear more from folks that work in newspaper to tell me how crazy those ideas are.
I don’t relish the idea of newspaper shrinking. It’s tragic and with some retooling, perhaps it could be avoided.
I read the paper everyday online. I just subscribed yesterday. Considering that I read the paper online several times a day, I think $12 is a good value. I also like the new iPhone app you get with it.
Well said Dino,
I’ve been a hard copy subscriber for years. I still like the feel of a newspaper at the breakfast table. I can have my coffee and donuts on the back porch if I want and start my morning off with local HS sports, obituaries, and local news and commentary in a short few minutes. When something sparks further comment, I can hit the computer later on those targeted topics.
Is it the greatest? Maybe not, but it’s local, it’s Wausau and for me it is worth it.