Jun 052013
 

Dal 12 giugno anche gli articoli del Washington Post non saranno più gratuiti. Ora totalmente gratuito, tra i grandi giornali USA,  resta solo Usa Today. Come sempre la via scelta è quella del «metered paywall» (anche abbastanza largo: 20 pezzi gratuiti al mese, accesso libero per chi arriva da motori di ricerca e link condivisi)  e a prezzi abbastanza bassi (9.99 dollari per il sito, anche da rete cellulare; 14,99 dollari per il sito e le app). Il trend, comunque, ormai è consolidato. Ora bisogna solo indovinare la data in cui si partirà anche in Italia.

Nieman Lab

Mar 192013
 

Anche il Washington Post a partire da questa estate avrà il suo metered paywall (abbastanza metered: 20 articoli al mese).  A prezzi modici promettono (ma non hanno ancora deciso il fee). Una scelta che negli Stati Uniti, come dimostra anche lo State of the Media 2013 del PEW, sta diventanto obbligata.

This summer, The Washington Post will start charging frequent users of its Web site, asking those who look at more than 20 articles or multimedia features a month to pay a fee, although the company has not decided how much it will charge. The paper said, however, that it would exempt large parts of its audience from having to pay the fees. Its home-delivery subscribers will have free access to all of The Post’s digital products, and students, teachers, school administrators, government employees and military personnel will have unlimited access to the Web site while in their schools and workplaces. Access to  The Post home page, section front pages and classified ads will not be limited.  The step, while modest compared with some other publications, marks a major change for The Post, which has shied away from what is known as a paywall for fear of driving away readers and online advertisers. It now joins a long list of other daily publications that charge for content, including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Boston Globe and New York Times.

Washington Post

 

Jul 272012
 

Alcune testate e agenzie USA (il gruppo McClatchy, Il National Journal e Bloomberg)  hanno deciso di dare un giro di vite alla politica sui virgolettati. Nel senso che hanno proibito ai giornalisti di fare leggere le citazioni alle fonti, anche rischiando di perderle. Il tutto mentre il Washington Post è nella bufera a causa di un suo giornalista che ha fatto leggere una bozza d’articolo ad alcune fonti. E così è  dovuto intervenire Marcus Brauchli, l’executive editor, per mettere le cose in chiaro.

Our objective in quoting people is to capture both their words and intended meaning accurately. That requires care in negotiating ground rules with sources. We do not allow sources to change the rules governing specific
quotations after the fact. Once a quote is on the record, it remains there. Sometimes, a source will agree to be interviewed only if we promise to read quotations back to the source before publication. We should not allow sources to change what was said in an original interview, although accuracy or the risk of losing an on-the-record quote from a crucial source may sometimes require it. A better and more acceptable alternative is to permit a source to add to a quotation and then explain that sequence to readers. If you find yourself in this gray area, consult with your editor. Some reporters share sections of stories with sources before publication, to ensure accuracy on technical points or to catch errors. A science writer, for instance, may read to a source a passage, or even much of a story, about a complex subject to make sure that it is accurate. But it is against our policy to share drafts of entire stories with outside sources prior to publication, except with the permission–which will be granted extremely rarely–of the Executive Editor or Managing Editor. In negotiating terms of engagement with a source, reporters and editors should be prepared for everything they say or write, in any medium, on the telephone or in person, to become public. They should make no promises, agree to no compromises and offer no concessions that aren’t compatible with this policy and The Post’s standards. Clarity and straightforwardness in our communications with sources is essential.

Il tutto per fare capire che quello che succede nei giornali italiani – dove si passa dall’inventarsi il virgolettato alla pubblicazione integrale di qualunque soffietto venga inviato da un fonte “potente” – non è esattamente lo standard da altre parti.

 McClatchy, Poynter, Texas Observer 

 

Apr 222012
 

Pochi giorni fa Elizabeth Flock, una giornalista-blogger  che lavorava al Washington Post si è dimessa. La sua colpa è aver fatto un repackaging troppo fedele di una storia sulla vita su Marte e un’imprecisione in un post su Romney.  Il commento di Patrick B. Pexton, l’ombudsman del WP, è durissimo. Non tanto nei confronti della Flock, che è una ventenne, ma nei confronti delle routine produttive del giornale di Washington.

But The Post failed her as much as she [ cioè la Flock] failed The Post. I spoke with several young bloggers at The Post this week, and some who have left in recent months, and they had the same critique. They said that they felt as if they were out there alone in digital land, under high pressure to get Web hits, with no training, little guidance or mentoring and sparse editing. Guidelines for aggregating stories are almost nonexistent, they said. And they believe that, even if they do a good job, there is no path forward. Will they one day graduate to a beat, covering a crime scene, a city council or a school board? They didn’t know. So some left; others are thinking of quitting. Katharine Zaleski, executive director of digital news, said that bloggers are made aware of The Post’s high standards: “We’re deeply conscious of the imperatives our bloggers face and go to great lengths to ensure they have the editorial support they need. We tell bloggers that their first and central priority is accuracy, not speed, not buzziness. The Washington Post’s standards apply every bit as much to our digital work as they do to our print edition. And our bloggers honor that.” The Post lets go nearly three dozen veterans in the newsroom to cut costs, and it falls short in cultivating its young and future talent. No, not a good few days.

Washington Post


Feb 282012
 

L’altro giorno Warren Buffet ha detto la grande verità che nessuno vuole dire sul modello di business dei quotidiani, cioè che è difficile  far pagare quello che  (su un altro medium, d’accordo) si regala.  E che questo tipo di comportamento non gli sembra un comportamento economicamente sensato. Da allora un po’ tutti gli danno, più o meno garbatamente, del rincoglionito. Sarà che sto diventando vecchio, ma ‘sta storia delle app freemium, della relazione come unico elemento prima o poi monetizzabile e tutto il vaporware che si alza in questi casi mi sembrano ancora più rancidi degli anni di Buffet.

Poynter


Sep 022011
 

Il Washington Post chiude quasi tutte le redazioni locali.

According to a staff memo attributed to Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, Managing Editor Liz Spayd,  and Local Editor Vernon Loeb, operations will cease in three locations in Maryland and four Virginia offices, including one in Loudoun County, where WaPo had an ill-fated hyperlocal experiment a few years ago.Only the two bureaus in the state capitals of Virginia and Maryland will remain open. WaPo was sure to emphasize that it wasn’t getting rid of reporters, just office space that its tight budget could no longer support. The paper also said that it wasn’t abandoning local reporting either, noting that it has added loggers covering Virginia’s Fairfax and Maryland’s Montgomery counties, as well as in DC itself. The staff memo added that WaPo has recently rolled out a local religion blog called On Faith Local.

Paid Content

Jul 132011
 

La Columbia Journalism Review si chiede perché la notizia di un pranzo non proprio dietetico di Michelle Obama in un fast food sia diventata la notizia del giorno negli Stati Uniti. Si vede che Edgar Morin non è molto studiato negli Stati Uniti.

Now, the Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates read this as the “dumbest news story ever written in human history” (also, apparently, the “most popular” news story for a time yesterday on the Post’s site ) but let’s not forget the Post’s exclusive report from the summer of 2003 that “First Lady Laura Bush, who’s made a cause out of family literacy, watched back-to-back Full House re-runs on the East Wing TV.” (Ok, not really.)

Columbia Journalism Review