As I was leafing through the Guardian on Saturday morning I came across an article with the rather alarming headline

Google news tax could boost local papers, report says

Google and other websites that carry news they do not produce should be taxed and the money generated used to prop up local newspapers, says a report which warns control of the media is concentrated in too few hands.

I tweeted it and got a number of interesting replies:

The report comes from the Carnegie trust UK’s commission on Making Good Society. It does indeed set out a suggestion for Industry levies citing Institute for Public Policy Research research that a 1% levy on pay TV providers of 1% “bring in around £70m a year”

A similar fee imposed on the country’s five mobile operators could generate £208m a year. Making Google meet its full tax liability in Britain would boost the pot by a further £100m.‘ The same IPPR report argues that ‘such sums could save many local newspapers and web sites from closing down, could stop the destruction of local and regional news on ITV and could help new media start-ups to plug these gaping holes in public service provision – all without the taxpayer having to stump up any more cash and without having to raid the licence fee.’

But the report also makes it clear that the money would come with something of price

Levies on the use of aggregated material have the potential to generate significant revenue to support the production of new public service and local content, involving civil society associations. If this form of funding were to be explored, changes in regulation would be needed to ensure that revenues go to original news producers and not just to those who present and disseminate material. Original news reporting needs to be supported so that it is financially viable; this could require charging those who are not authorised to use and distribute this material.

Not quite free money from a google tax.

The whole report makes for an interesting read (I mean genuinely interesting not that other academic definition of interesting)

It’s pretty wide ranging but it singles out “democratising media ownership and content as one of it’s four main areas where “a stronger civil society could make the most difference”

A whole chapter (chapter 3) is devoted to trying to understand the pressures on and drivers of news production and the impact that has. They are clear that technology plays a key part citing radical cultural shifts associated with pervasive technology and the rise of ‘digital natives;’ as an uncertain driver of change. But the discussion is a bit more broad ranging:

…[D]espite the proliferation of online platforms, more of the news we receive is recycled ‘churnalism’ and aggregated content. Trends of concentration in media ownership and increased pressure of time and resources have narrowed the sources from which original news derives. Moreover, the centralisation of news production and neglect of local issues has particular repercussions for access to information across the UK and Ireland, especially in the devolved nations.

And it’s clear where the problem is:

…the central issue affecting traditional news providers is not the decline of audiences or interest in news, but the collapse of the existing business model jeopardising the democratic role of journalism. According to the National Union of Journalists: ‘The media industry is essentially profitable but the business model is killing quality journalism.’

Media concentration.
When I first read the Guardian article I bristled at the idea of a google tax of newspapers. Why? Because we would essentially be propping up commercial organsiations who still work at a profit. It would be akin to a bail out. So I found myself drawn to the areas of ownership and centralization in particular. The report is pretty robust here.

The challenge of creating original content and the diminishing number of newspapers is further compounded by the concentration of media ownership in relatively few hands…..with four dominant publishers controlling 70% of the market share across the UK

That concentration of ownership and the influence it exerts is cited as a “key obstacle to transparent policy-making which incorporates a sustainable role for civil society associations” Which comes from the ‘continuing and intimate relationship between key corporate interests and policy-makers; a relationship whose bonds are rarely exposed to the public’

Their suggestion seems to be that the Scott Trust/Guardian model is more likely to serve the development of a pluralist media landscape than a purely commercial one. But it sounds a note of caution

While independent funds directly supporting journalism can come with strings attached and endowments are not immune from economic pressures, philanthropic funding can help preserve journalistic independence and secure guarantees on public service content.

General suggestions.
The big ticket suggestions like tax breaks and levies are balanced by some more specific suggestions that form the main discussion of the chapter.

• Growing local and community news media.
• Protecting the free, open and democratic nature of the internet.
• Strengthening the transparency and accountability of news content production.
• Enhancing the governance of the media.
• Protecting the BBC.
• Redirecting revenue flows to promote diversity and integrity.

Their ideas for strengthening transparency include the suggestion of a Kite mark that shows no dis or mis-information. Good luck with that one.

But back to funding, the last three points are interesting in themselves.

When they talk about enhancing the governance of the media they say that”

“All news organisations in receipt of public funding should actively engage with the public and with civil society associations, through their governing bodies as well as through their daily practice.”

Which could only really mean the BBC right? But in developing the suggestion of redirecting the revenue flow they:

…want to see new funding models explored: for example, tax concessions, industry levies or the direction of proportions of advertising spend into news content creation by civil society associations, or into local multimedia websites.

The price of public money.
My reading of the report was that nothing comes for free. In an earlier chapter the financial sector comes in for a real battering. But though the media orgs are more delicately handled the implicit message is still the same. All the money that could come from tax breaks, funding and other sources comes at a cost. That cost is de-centralisation, openness, stronger regulation and in transparency (a phrase that seems to disappear mid report to be replaced by integrity)

Would be nice but I can’t see it happening.

The full report is available here.

“Those ‘traditional’ consumers are joined by younger readers who prefer to find their news ‘unfiltered’ on the web. We are trying to serve both groups, and we are delighted with the enthusiasm that our new British partners bring to the effort.”

That from a press release for Futurity.org reported in journalism.co.uk.

It’s essentially a website for Universities to publish research and news about their research. Why? Because…

In an increasingly complex world, the public needs access to clear, reliable research news. Futurity does the work of gathering that news. Think of it as a snapshot of where the world is today and where it’s headed tomorrow. Discover the future

A lot of this has a familiar ring. The claims sound a lot like the reasons why journalism is so important and the role of journalists will be vital.

But it also reminds me of the some of the issues that surround much of the ‘council newspapers‘ debate. These are organizations who should be open up to a bit of ‘filtering’ especially when there is public money involved . The content they put out should be open to scrutiny and question.

Of course this risks becoming a circular argument. If journalism was doing its job and reporting science properly then they wouldn’t need to do this.

Futurity.org

But it also goes to underline what we already know but many media orgs seem to be unable to respond to; communities are using the web to tell their own stories.

In the case of Futurity.org it’s a community of interest (with all the self-interest issues that brings) but it’s just as common with hyperlocal communities of geography.

Whatever the motivation, is this the kind of thing that journalism needs to step up to?

I’ve spent the day at the very excellent news:rewired conference organised by the good folks at journalism.co.uk. Lot’s of interesting people and discussions. But I found one thing very frustrating. (actually I found it infuriating and apparently went a shade of purple not often seen)

It seems that some of the breakout sessions descended in to ‘arguments’ generated around an issue which can be best summed up as the “but they are not journalists” argument. The afternoon session on hyperlocal I sat in on certainly fell victem.

We had the whole gamut of arguments including a number of the old favourites, my personal fave was “someone holding a camera is not a photographer”. Erm…yes they are but…I found it frustrating because I thought we had moved on from this. By the time we got to the ‘close the BBC and local newspapers will thrive’ stage  I lost my patience and   my contribution reflects that.  But I realise that was naive and a little unfair.

Given the painful restructuring in the industry at the moment it’s perfectly understandable that people will be looking at where the pinch is. Adam Tinworth made a good point to me that in terms of the stages of loss at least they had moved on to anger from denial. But I realised that it’s not really fair of me to dismiss that out of hand. I should have sat on my hands.

What did become clear to me is a growing divergence in the way hyperlocal and community are being defined and applied. Let me expand.

For me hyperlocal is now best defined by outfits like the Lichfield blog, represented at the session by Philip John. It’s content built on social capital. People are involved because it means something to them other than just a job or brand. Money is second to social status or altruistic motivation.

In contrast we could say that (in the context of the future of journalism) community is a strategy employed by media organisations and the journalists within them to engage with audience. Money is a defining commodity here in terms of starting it and sustaining it. Whether it’s to use that community to newsgather/crowdsource or to bolster the brand.

Both have economies of scale.

A hyperlocal site can only be so big. It will eventually get to a point where it demands more time and resources than volunteers can sustain. The economics of altruism only stretch so far. They can be be satisfied with ‘big enough’ or look at alternatives. Communities can, perversely, be too big to manage for large organisations, they cost too much for little return. In the context of profit and investment the economics don’t work

Both are different.

This inherent difference of motivation and a definition of the economic (investment and return) is becoming increasingly clear (and more so in the debate today) and in that a truth is evident. Hyperlocal websites are not a solution for media organisations who are struggling. You can not fill the gap that hyperlocal sites are starting to fill. A good community strategy may work but your core motivations make it different.

But just as hyperlocal is not the solution it’s also not the cause of the problems.

The truth is that the shift is creating a lot of friction (it’s perhaps bad taste to refer to shifting tectonic plates) and I think thats what created a lot of the ‘grief’ in the sessions.

There was a lot of criticism of hyperlocal as undermining/stealing/destroying journalism; you know the arguments. Likewise the crowd sourcing session seemed to descend in to sa similar semantic debate. As Adam reports:

There’s an undercurrent of hostility to the very idea of calling these contributors to crowd-sourced journalism “journalists” in any way – and that it’s under-mining credibility. In answer, people are suggestion that people can become journalists for single events – one time they happen to be at the right place at the right time.

But growing difference between parish pump websites and the local media, between community and audience, suggests that even discussing hyperlocal and community together is, perhaps, a mistake at a journalism conference.

The motivations, models and practice, it seems from the tone of the debate, are just too different.

There is a future for news – a sustainable and once-again profitable future with the prospect of expanding and improving journalism by taking it deeper into our communities with increased relevance, engagement, accountability and efficiency.

That’s the view of uber J-blogger Jeff Jarvis who, when not asking “what would google do”, is asking (along with his students at CUNY) “what happens to journalism in a city when its last daily newspaper dies?”. According to Jeff’s article in the Guardian, what happens is that the local community could step in and fill the gap with something new and, most importantly, profitable.

Bottom line: after three years, we project that a blogger could hire editorial staff and advertising help – citizen salespeople who help support the citizen journalists – and net $148,000 out of $332,000 revenue. That’s a conservative estimate when you consider that a community weekly paper in such a town probably earns between $2m-$5m.

There are more facts and figures of amounts that, even with the exchange rate as it is, are pretty eye-popping.

In a comment, I questioned if there was enough of a culture of hyper local in the UK to sustain the ‘ecosystem’

Given that most of the metro blogging and hyperlocal networks in the US are driven by/motivated by/focused on politics, you also have to wonder if the legislative structure in the UK would effectively stop the kind of ecosystem you are talking about at a county, or at a push, city, level.

That prompted a response from the Guardians Kevin Anderson who noted that very little of the ‘hyperlocal’ stuff is to do with politics. Pointing to an older post he mused that there was still “much to learn from two-yr old report on hyperlocal” which, for him, underlined a key problem news organisations had.

One of the most common mistakes that news organisations make when it comes to community is trying to build participation strategies around an extremely narrow, overly-professionalised definition of news.

I have a lot of sympathy with that view. Maybe the media does look the wrong way down the telescope at this issue. But I still think there are questions to be asked about the roll of news in the ecosystem and the role the community has to play.

Is there room for a Preston City Chronicle?

Much of the tone of the debate around the ‘death of the traditional media’ is framed by the general consensus that we need to know what is going on in the community around us – it’s our democratic duty. That may not be the fun stuff. It may be the hard stuff, when the community fails. It may be the dull stuff like the endless council meetings.

The argument goes that, whatever it is, we need it and as newspapers die the gap needs to be filled. It’s in that context that many of the best examples of hyperlocal journalism seem to exist. The oft cited Ann Arbour Chronicle is a great example. The frontpage is all politics and metro news and the civic watchdog roll is one that is part of their daily routine.

But that brings me back to my comment and few (of many, many) questions.

• If sites like the Ann Arbour Chronicle are the model for a successful hyperlocal news service, will the model travel? Does it work in Ann Arbour because of the city and the way the public administration work in the US?
• What would need to change in the UK for it to work? More open government, less ‘big media’ or a more politically motivated electorate?
• Should we be trying to make it work at all?

Open09 seems like the perfect opportunity to ask those questions.

This article first appeared on the Open09 blog.

Take a look at this list

• Deals in the real, the tangible, the directly imaginable
• Speaks the language of collective action, in contrast to the disempowered individualism of ‘small actions’ at the national level
• Addresses the individual as a member of a community, as opposed to a citizen of the planet
• Speaks peer-to-peer rather than from the standpoint of authority
• Pragmatic, descriptive and inviting (we are doing this – come and join in!)

Now considering what I blog about here you could think that it’s a list of ideals local journalism should stand for. Perhaps a manifesto of community journalism.

It’s actually a list of some of the defining features of an “energetic local discourse” in green issues that Alex Lockwood identifies in post about green issues and local journalism – why local journalism is better for green issues

Picking up on the subject I proposed for the last carnival of journalism, Alex thinks that local is exactly where the green issue is best discussed and developed. The national level of debate just isnt hitting home.

One of the biggest disjuncts in climate change has been between the size of the problem (global, system-changing) and the dominant ’small actions’ communications set (let’s change the lightbulbs; ‘do your bit’). The size and threat of climate change is communicated too effectively, and many people have felt overwhelmed or that the problem must be exaggerated.They feel their actions are too small to matter.

Citing research from the IPPR Alex points out that locally focused initiatives has been more effective at getting people to engage:

“what has emerged through these initiatives is a powerful repertoire of ‘communal address’ that differs from the campaigning or top-down national communications of government, NGOs and the national press.”

I like the idea of a “repertoire of communal address” as appose to the national line. Local rather than national.

The directly imaginable, communal address, community, peer-to-peer, and importantly, the ability to join in with activities… The digital/local combination is a powerful way of providing people with agency and positive local messages, so they can see how they can make a difference in tackling climate change in their local areas.

Makes sense doesn’t it. And according to the research, its a “potentially useful positioning for organisations promoting climate-friendly behaviour”. But despite the possibilities Alex points out that many in the media are missing a trick or worse ignoring an opportunity.

It’s a shame but not suprising. Take green out of the thing and you could apply the logic for engaging in the way that Alex describes to any issue. But it’s clear that it isnt happening on any level or with any issue.

Sarah Hartley from the Manchester Evening News left a nice comment on my post about parking stories.

We’ve had exactly the same experience this week with a story about police parking.
More of a universal than parochial issue perhaps!

I especially like the headline on this story

I commented back that I wasn’t using parochial in a negative sense here. Perhaps its a better word than hyperlocal (please, god, anything must be better than that and its new bed fellow ‘reverse publishing’) to describe those things close to home but, as Sarah says, universal

Now, local newsapaper editors in particular no all too well that this is the kind of content that is ‘bread and butter’ for local coverage. But its always worth reminding people (and i count myself in this) that in the shiny world of digital the best stuff is often the closest and the most familiar.

It’s something I’m trying to find interesting ways of getting across to the students as the term local story fills them with dread. For them, in the words of the song – “nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all”.

Parochial content

So I thought about other areas that fit that bill. These aren’t necessarily magnets for multimedia – although it seems that they do lend themselves well to maps. But they are stories that generate a lot of interest.

• Parking – The MEN story woks well here. But there is obviously a wealth of info out there. Croydon council will let you report a parking violation using a map via their website – great info if you could get it.
• Traffic – parking may be tricky but spare a though for those trying to get moving. My local paper (at work anyway) the LEP loves traffic chaos, rant lines, roadworks and speed cameras. It’s all good stuff.

• Graffiti – have you seen graffiti? – in the US people sites like Bakersfield.com want to know. Their interactive graffiti map is great.

• Litter - Sites like the Halifax Courier naming their Top Ten Grot spots , and the myriad of letters to the editor prove a big draw.
• Potholes – It was the must have map of last year but it’s still a popular story. When they aren’t reporting graffiti, the residents of Bakersfield can report potholes. In the UK the Daventry Express uses Google maps to do the same (embed it in the site please.)Like the parking problem, others are on the case. Potholes.co.uk and fillthathole are two good example.

I can think of a few more but does anyone want suggest any more or better still suggest stories from their own publications that have got the comments rolling in?

Yesterday a colleague asked me what crowdsourcing was. So I chattered on about pothole maps, and crowdsource maps, pertrol and CD prices. As I was talking I realised that on the surface a lot of the subject areas seemed pretty mundane. Not the kind of thing you would win a pulitzer for.

Later on in the day Justin McLachlan, a US journalist (blogger and superhero), stopped by to leave a comment on my ‘something for the weekend’ ireport post. So I popped over to his site – which is very nice – and came across a great post about a parking violation:

Downtown this morning, I saw a 12 News truck parked outside the courthouse. In front of a red curb. Illegally.

So, I did what any good digital journalist would do: I snapped a picture with my iPhone and ran back to my office to blog about it.

After listening to a panel discussion on local journalism Jay Rosen says that the UK is two years behind the US when it comes to collaborative journalism.

It got me thinking about why.

Jay was one of the panel at the 7th Journalism Leaders Forum held at the Department of Journalism. The topic for discussion was Local Turf Wars, a look at how different media where tackling the hyperlocal problem and where the people formally known as the audience fitted in to making this happen. (you can see a webcast of the discussion here)

Jay kicked off the discussion with some insight on his collaborative journalism project Assignment Zero. For Jay it was as much an exercise in working out how elements of complex stories can be distributed to groups of experts to make better content as it was the end result. It was a proof of concept.

BBC angle

Emma Hemmingway, academic, broadcaster and author of Into the Newsroom gave us a peak inside the BBC’s efforts to get hyperlocal broadcasting off the blocks with a pilot study for LocalTV in the Midlands.

The BBC are presenting it as a success but the evidence suggested otherwise. In working out how to ‘use’ the audience , the BBC had divided them in to

• Can’s - Those with the kit and the know how
• Could’s – Those with the know how and no kit
• Cant’s. – Those with no know how and no kit

Over nine months producers battled with content and in apparent frustration with some of the communities ability to live up to BBC standards many producers ended up shooting and editing content themselves. It seems that in dividing up the audience there was one category they all fell in to – Not BBC!

Another panelist Neil Benson, Editorial Director for regionals for Trinity Mirror, thought this was the typical BBC “imposing their own standards and pomposity” on the project. Along with Darren Thwaites of the award-winning Evening Gazette in Teesside, he talked about some of their hyperlocal adventures.

He also took the opportunity to announce a new project called ‘Make the news’. Although he was light on detail (commercial reasons, darling) he says he was heavily influenced by Jay Rosen’s assignment zero.

According to Neil, journalists needed to start thinking like radio producers.

It was a point that wasn’t expanded on but one that I really liked.

Thinking like a producer

Coming from a broadcast background I’m comfortable with the idea of a producer. They are the ones driving the project, managing the team and pulling everything together to tell the story. Even though they have a firm hand on the editorial tiller, they rely on experienced researchers, expert advisers and experienced technical crew to bring the programme together.

I think Jay’s idea of collaboration is a lot like that. He said that the biggest challenge for journalists is controlling the division of labour. Working out who is best to handle that element of the story whilst keeping an editorial line.

That team effort is recognized in the credits that role at the end of a programme. The producer, director and Executive producer get to go last in the list- in UK TV that denotes that they are the most important – but everyones contribution is noted.

That’s in sharp contrast to the way things are done in newspapers.

Credit your sources?

One question from the floor wondered how we can get the specialist correspondent with 30 years experience to engage with citizen journalists to help tell stories. I responded that perhaps that was a case of the journalist recognizing that some of those ‘citizens’ where actually more experienced and knowledgeable than they where.

That wasn’t a criticism. What I meant was perhaps they needed to see their relationship with some of the audience differently and recognize a level of ‘professional equity’. They need to say, ‘we are both great at what we do. Working together we can produce something fantastic’(one of the driving aims of Rosen’s Assignment Zero) and then credit that relationship to reflect the level of collaboration.

But it was clear from the discussion and the insight Emma offered in the BBC approach that we still have a very obvious them and us mentality in journalism. If you are not a journalist, working in our organization, in the way we work, you are the audience. It doesn’t matter that you may be a nobel prize winning scientist, or a ‘person on the street’. Whenever we talk to you, you are all the same.

For me that’s the fundamental reason we are still lagging behind.

Some may see that as an positive, egalitarian approach. But if we want to take full advantage of the opportunities to connect with people that digital affords then we need to move beyond thinking of audience and contacts and seeing those we use to tell our stories, experts or not, on a more equal footing. That doesn’t mean trying to turn them in to journalist or relinquishing that term to all to use.

It simply means that we need to be more transparent, open and honest about the increasingly important role they play. But I’m not holding my breath for the day a list credits appears alongside a print story.

And if you don’t think you we have a way to go on that front, you ask any newspaper journalist if they are prepared to share their byline with any of the people they ‘crowsourced’ or the citizen journalists they used.

Get on board with your audience.

Jay Rosen ended the evening with an analogy.

To him the industry standing on the edge of digital ocean trying to work out how to get to the other side. We know that a lot of the ‘people formally known as the audience’ have already set sail.

But there is a chance that if we get on board and share with the those digital communities about to set sail, we may just get to the other side in one piece.

The problem is that journalists are still only willing to share the boat if they can be the captain. Everyone else has to be satisfied with being crew.

If we get over that then maybe we can make up some of that two years of lost time.

Here is what I’m thinking about today

• Hyperlocal as a type of content not a type of audience
• Hyperpersonal is a method of content collection
• Hyperpersonal as rubbish way for news organisations to serve ‘news’

Why have I been thinking that? Is it just that there is nothing on TV?

No. I’ve been catching up on my reading this week after my hols and it seems that, amongst other things, the demise of AP’s youth orientated content service ASAP, has given many pause for thought about the idea of community/niche/hyperlocal content.

Apparently ASAP was “an editorial success, but not a similar success economically.”

Steve Yelvington  thinks he knows why. He sees ASAP’s split output to a print and online product as a core failing  “as a separate product, neither the print nor the online component stood a chance of success”.

But Juan Antonio Giner  sees the separation of audience rather than output as the problem as he uses ASAP as an example of what can happen when you approach a younger audience with a “Guantanamo mentality”.

AP cropped up again in the news that one of its ‘crowd powered’ collaborators  NowPublic.com has got a $10.6 million injection of cash.  It’s seen as a real confidence boost to the crowdsource/citizen journalism approach given the recent closure of Backfence. 

But, given the limelight for a moment, Now Public CEO Len Brody has put the cat amongst the pigeons in an interview with Gigacom, around just what makes sites like Nowpublic a success.  In particular his comments on Hyperlocal

“I used to think that hyperlocal was what mattered to people, but for 35 and under especially, the concept of local is very different. Like Facebook publishing the news feed… it’s changed from hyperlocal to hyperpersonal.”

It’s generated a lot of comment.

Steve Boriss sees hyperlocal and hyperpersonal as the same thing whilst others, like Jeff Jarvis, don’t like the idea that hyperlocal is somehow only of interest to provincial old farts . Howard Owens wisely observes that the quote is as much a cue to debate what hyperlocal actually means .

I agree And in that sense I think Brody is right especially as I think that the phrase local and hyperlocal are getting mixed up in the debate.

In recent times Hyperlocal has become more a way of talking about a process of monetizing/leveraging the relationship with an audience and the content they produce; synonymous as it is with crowdsourcing and citizen journalism. It’s local news for and by local people. Maybe that’s as a result of the corporate approach gaining the limelight  But in reality all that the approach to hyperlocal really reflects are the limitations of the content produced by traditional media outlets. Restricted by geography and of limited interest in a broader market that their audience browses through everyday.

That’s why I’m thinking of Hyperlocal as a type of content not a type of audience. Hyperlocal is content that suits personal interests defined, as they are, in so many dimensions not just geographical. As a core technology the web means that an individual can browse and collect that content driven by their own (hyper) personal interests. Move to apps like facebook and an individual can refine that to a personal(relationship) level. It is all absorbed in the same way – it’s all news. That’s why I’m thinking that Hyperpersonal is a method of content collection.

What constitutes interesting content is a decision that the individual makes not just the news organisations. That’s why I think Hyperpersonal as rubbish way for news organisations to serve ‘news’.

It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out. Hopefully hyperlocal and hyperpersonal will manage to avoid the “Guantanamo mentality” of trying to define and exploit audiences and give everyone pause for more reflection on just how it helps define our (hyper)personal and (hyper)local relationships