The moved sparked a heated discussion about whether this is the best thing the venerable paper could have done to ensure its viability – or the silliest.

The way Foremski sees it, how you respond to the NYT’s decision to charge non-subscribers for access to its Web site comes down to whether you’re interested in “supporting quality journalism” – or not.

“It seems that the Geekorati believe that once something is free then it should be free forever,” he says. “I disagree… there has to be a mechanism to pay for the good stuff, otherwise we will be overrun with mediocre and poor quality content.”

Foremski lists the various reasons serious journalism still has value in the Internet age and should be paid for, despite all the cries for news and information to be free: challenging governments and corporations; helping society to think about things etc.

“We are facing a media landscape that is becoming ever more dominated by garbage media and that means that we, as a society, will be making bad decisions,” he writes.

Foremski isn’t saying everyone should pay for the New York Times in particular; though of all papers, NYT is certainly among the ones I would pay to view online. He’s saying that people need to get used to paying to support quality journalism, wherever it may be.

Is that even possible/plausible anymore? All eyes are on the New York Times to find out.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

IN HIS FINAL

Rich said his decision was “no reflection on The Times. This paper remains a nonpareil platform for writing a column” – though he did acknowledge the NYT’s recent shortcomings, specifically regarding coverage of WMDs and Iraq.

He said that his “latest bout of restlessness” had to do with his growing weary of “opinion writing within the constraints of newspaper deadlines and formats.”

…after 17 years I didn’t like what the relentless production of a newspaper column was doing to my writing. That routine can push you to have stronger opinions than you actually have, or contrived opinions about subjects you may not care deeply about, or to run roughshod over nuance to reach an unambiguous conclusion. Believe it or not, an opinion writer can sometimes get sick of his own voice.

You have to appreciate and respect Rich’s frankness here (wait, was that a pun?) – and you sort of wish more columnists would be as honest with themselves and their readers about the challenges of doing their job responsibly and effectively (versus just spewing crap and talking out of their asses).

Rich goes on:

I found myself hungering to write with more reflection, at greater length at times, in a wider and perhaps experimental variety of forms (whether in print or online), and without feeling at the mercy of the often hysterical exigencies of the 24/7 modern news cycle. While some columnists are adept at keeping their literary bearings over long careers … those who stay too long risk turning bland or shrill. I wanted to quit before I succumbed.

Jumping ship from the New York Times was no doubt one of the toughest decision Rich ever had to make, career-wise. But New York magazine isn’t exactly a hard landing, either.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

UPDATE | March 25: Rich’s fellow NYT columnist Bob Herbert gave similar reasons for his decision to leave the newspaper, which he announced Friday.

“The deadlines and demands were a useful discipline, but for some time now I have grown eager to move beyond the constriction of the column format, with its rigid 800-word limit, in favor of broader and more versatile efforts,” he said. “So I am leaving The New York Times and the rewards and rigors of daily journalism with the intent of writing more expansively and more aggressively about the injustices visited on working people, the poor and the many others in our society who find themselves on the wrong side of power.”

A COUPLE OF

The first is for the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, which – apparently based on the single complaint of a hyper-sensitive Newfie – has deemed the original version of Dire Straits’ 1985 smash hit “Money for Nothing” unacceptable for radio play, because it contains the offensive term “faggot” in its lyrics.

Never mind the context: Dire Straits’ frontman Mark Knopfler said he wrote the song from the perspective of a working-class dude and his take on the girly-men he sees in 80s rock videos (“See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup” etc.)

The CBSC’s silliness — way to take action 25 years late, guys – has triggered a tsunami of criticism here in the Great White North.

Paul Wells of Macleans magazine captures the essence of the absurdity: “It’s kind of cute, because it is so futile, that there’s an organization dedicated to protecting me from the danger of hearing this song, by accident, once every several months. Meanwhile I can hear it on Youtube, Myspace, iTunes, XM radio or … even college radio.”

Then there’s this business about the U.S. English professor who has produced a new edition of the Mark Twain classic “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn“ that sanitizes the original text by replacing the word “nigger” with “slave,” apparently in an effort to get the seminal work of American literature taken off school-reading blacklists.

Great idea, if by doing so he wasn’t completely disregarding Twain’s stated intention to reproduce what he described as “the Missouri negro dialect.”

As the New York Times noted in a recent editorial, “What makes “Huckleberry Finn” so important in American literature isn’t just the story, it’s the richness, the detail, the unprecedented accuracy of its spoken language. There is no way to “clean up” Twain without doing irreparable harm to the truth of his work.”

It’s all enough to drive you batty, which is why I got a big kick out of this:

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

It’s pretty amazing the transformation these sites have undergone through the years. Take the Toronto Star from June 1998, for example:

And compare it to now:

I’d never heard of the Internet Archive: Wayback Machine. Blog TO wasn’t kidding when it said the site offered a “fun way to waste a few minutes.” Indeed, I spent more than a few minutes checking out other newspaper sites from way back when.

I was bowled over at how much things have changed in a little over 10 years. Back then websites were merely a place to post the contents of that day’s paper, and maybe once or twice a day a breaking news story. Forget SEO, “user experience” and social media – that stuff was still years away.

I’ve always enjoyed digging up old TV clips on the Web; never thought it was possible to have that same experience with Internet pages. Now, thanks to the Wayback Machine, it is. A few more….

Check out the old school New York Times website:

And the Guardian, which even back then looked pretty decent – heck, better than many sites out there today (note the ‘Saddam near death’ story):

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

At this point I’ve already ripped most of my Beatles music from CDs and put it on my iPod, but this is great news for younger generations who’ve never heard of the Beatles – or CDs.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

NEW YORK TIMES standards editor Philip Corbett recently issued a memo to NYT’s reporters and editors concerning the use /abuse of anonymous sources.

The document, posted on Gawker, is interesting reading for media watchers. I can’t speak to what’s going with most other papers, but I read the NYT a fair bit, and now that I think about it, it does seem like they use nameless sources liberally.

Corbett – who maintains one of my favourite news-nerd blogs, After Deadline – says the most common problem involves “the question of what explanation, if any, we offer the reader for why a source wants to be anonymous.”

“Saying that a source insisted on anonymity because he was ‘not authorized’ to speak is usually stating the obvious, and is of little or no help to a reader. Yet we’ve used that formulation nearly 300 times in the past year.”

Writers and editors should be providing readers with more information, says Corbett (seen at left), “a thoughtful sentence or paragraph, describing the pressures or concerns of the people involved in a situation, may give readers greater insight than a terse phrase.”

Some examples he offers: ”out of fear for his safety;” “out of fear of retaliation from X;” “because the company has threatened to fire workers who speak to the press;” “to avoid antagonizing Official X.”

Would be interesting to know how many of those 300 aforementioned uses of nameless source would’ve been thwarted by this requirement.

The crucial concern for the reader, Corbett says, “is how to judge the source’s credibility.”

With this in mind, he suggests reporters and editors try and say as much as possible about how a source knows what it knows (“Was he at the meeting?” / “Have they seen the document?”), and account for any motivation, bias or interest the source might have (“Does she favor/oppose the bill?” / ”Was he fired by the company?”)

He warns NYT staffers about the potential damage overuse of anonymous sources can cause: “While anonymous sources are sometimes crucial to our journalism, every time we rely on anonymity, we put some strain on our credibility with readers.”

Yeah, kind of like cable news shows labeling everything “Breaking News,” or print products slapping “Exclusive” on even the most mundane stories – eventually the audience can grow weary and wary.

Nameless sources should be used to provide “newsworthy information that we can’t report any other way … not for trivial, obvious or tangential information, or for quotes that add little of substance,” Corbett says. “And it should not be used as a mask for personal attacks.”

It really makes you wonder whether NYT’s overuse of nameless sources has been out of necessity, or if –  as Corbett’s memo kind of implies –  it’s simply an issue of lazy reporting.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

THE COVER

The magazine’s front features a disturbing image of an 18-year-old Afghan woman who had her nose and ears cut off as punishment for fleeing an arranged marriage with a member of the Taliban (fucking savages).

The accompanying headline is no less provocative: “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan.” No question mark. As in, that’s a fact — at least the way Time sees it.

The New York Times notes:

Reaction to the Time cover has become something of an Internet litmus test about attitudes toward the war, and what America’s responsibility is in Afghanistan. Critics of staying in Afghanistan call it “emotional blackmail” and even “war porn,” while those who fear the consequences of abandoning Afghanistan see it as a powerful appeal to conscience.

Not sure I see the logic this headline implies: that such barbaric violence will be the consequence of the U.S. and its allies – including Canada – finally ending their missions in Afghanistan. Indeed, as some critics have noted, this woman’s heinous mutilation occurred while coalition forces were in the field.

Time managing editor Richard Stengel posted a statement on the magazine’s website explaining his cover decision:

I apologize to readers who find the image too strong … but bad things do happen to people, and it is part of our job to confront and explain them. In the end, I felt that the image is a window into the reality of what is happening — and what can happen — in a war that affects and involves all of us.

I would rather confront readers with the Taliban’s treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the U.S. and its allies should do in Afghanistan.

Shocking as the cover is, I think Time has succeeded in using it effectively to do its journalistic duty. It’s renewed debate about the war at a time when it sometimes seems as if people here in the West would prefer to act like it’s not still raging.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Even if the iPhone4 doesn't work properly, it's still nice to look at.

NEW YORK TIMES media columnist David Carr had an interesting piece in last Sunday’s paper looking at the role Consumer Reports played in the iPhone4-reception debacle.

The magazine said it can’t recommend the phone because of issues with the antenna, which wraps around the outside of the device. If the phone is held a certain way, dropped calls can result.

In an effort to manage this mess – Antennagate – Apple is offering to send iPhone4 buyers free “bumpers,” cases that wrap around the edge of the phone and appear to mitigate the problem. (Consumer Reports had suggested using duct tape.)

Apple CEO Steve Jobs at first denied there was an issue, and blamed the media for blowing the whole thing “so out of proportion that it’s incredible.” But he was forced into addressing the criticism, Carr notes, largely due to the editorial authority of Consumer Reports:

“The iPhone’s antenna problems might have remained a dust-up between Apple fanboys and skeptical bloggers except that Consumer Reports — that stolid, old-media tester of everything from flooring to steam mops for the last 74 years — came out with a report detailing the issue and concluding that ‘due to this problem, we can’t recommend the iPhone 4.’

“The article in Consumer Reports was devastating precisely because the magazine (and its Web site) are not part of the hotheaded digital press. Although Gizmodo and other techie blogs had reached the same conclusions earlier, Consumer Reports made a noise that was heard beyond the Valley because it has a widely respected protocol of testing and old-world credibility.”

Jobs acknowledged the impact of being dissed by the venerable mag: “We were stunned and upset and embarrassed by the Consumer Reports stuff,” he said, “and the reason we didn’t say more is because we didn’t know enough.”

Carr thinks the matter “is a reminder that media that are unsupported by advertising can often have an impact that more traditional publishing, or even the most tech-savvy, enterprises don’t.”

It was a coup for Consumer Reports, to be sure, even though they were simply doing what they always do. But I doubt the wacky-antenna hullabaloo will have much of an impact on this phone phenom’s sales. Apple has already sold more than three million iPhone 4s in the U.S., and on July 30 will begin peddling them in 17 other countries, including Canada.

Even if Apple doesn’t completely solve the reception problem, they can rest assured that Canadians, no strangers to crappy wireless service, likely won’t notice a difference.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Related: Jobs is both a genius and a jerk

Apple CEO Steve Jobs. (Photo: Asa Mathat | All Things Digital)

EARLIER THIS MONTH at the D8 Conference near Los Angeles, Apple CEO Steve Jobs discussed the impact of his company’s latest gadget: the vaunted iPad.

In an interview, Jobs was asked whether this new technology – which, among other things, provides print-news organizations with a tool to offer digital content in a more engaging and interactive fashion than through conventional websites – will “save journalism.”

“One of my beliefs very strongly is that any democracy depends on a free healthy press,” Jobs said (a cliche, sure, but always nice to have the notion reinforced). “News gathering and editorial organizations are really important.”

What he said next came as a bit of a surprise to me, though, given how inextricably linked Apple is to the new-media world:

“I don’t want to see us descend into a nation of bloggers, myself. I think we need editorial more than ever right now.”

This triggered an enthusiastic round of applause from the audience, which presumably included more than a few traditional journos (the likely source of most of that clapping).

But then it probably behooves Jobs to side with mainstream news organizations here. His company stands to make a fair bit of dough by partnering with them on developing apps for the iPad, among other pursuits.

“Anything that we can do to help the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and other newsgathering organizations find new ways of expression, so that they can afford to get paid, so they can afford to keep their newsgathering and editorial operations intact – I’m all for,” the Apple CEO said.

“What we have to do is figure out a way to get people to start paying for this hard-earned content. And so this provides us a potential opportunity to provide them even more value than just a web page and to start to charge a little bit for that.

“I’m trying to get these folks to take more aggressive postures than they charge for print because they don’t have the expenses of printing, they don’t have the expenses of delivery – and to charge a reasonable price and go for volume,” he added. ”Because I think people are willing to pay for content.”

Nice one Steve-o. I agree. And I would kill to see Jobs debate new-media guru Clay Shirky — Mr. “Information Wants to be Free” — on the whole pay-for-content thing, and on the future of the news business in general in the Internet age.

It would be an entertaining match-up. As I’ve said before in this space, my money’s on the Apple chief.

>> Here’s the clip from the interview:

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

A RECENT New York Times story looked at how some news organizations have been re-examining whether online commenters should be given anonymity – or a “digital disguise,” as reporter Richard Perez-Pena says.

Anyone who reads comments on news stories (and who doesn’t) knows that the anonymous ones tend to be useless and obnoxious – the kinds of things no one would have the balls to say to another person’s face.

Message boards, especially those not monitored well, can become, as columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. puts it, “havens for a level of crudity, bigotry, meanness and plain nastiness that shocks the tattered remnants of our propriety.”

To improve the situation, the Times reports, news organizations in both the old guard (Washington Post) and the new (Huffington Post) are looking at ways to downplay anonymous comments, and give prominence to those tied to names (real or not), or ones from recognized and trusted commenters.

Many sites require people to register before they post a comment. Some review comments before approving them, or they monitor and remove offensive ones after the fact. When readers submit letters to newspapers, they usually have to give a name and contact info for verification.

What WaPo/HuffPo are looking at sounds like a less over-lordy, more democratic way to deal with anonymous posts: readers rate the comments, and they’re ranked according to popularity. In an ideal world – mine at least – this means well-informed, insightful people are given top billing.

There are potential issues – as the Times notes, “when users help rank things online, sites may have to guard against a concerted campaign by a small group of people voting one way and skewing the results.”

Still, I’m all for taking steps to thwart anonymous commenters – and I don’t think, as some argue, this is anti-free speech.

It’s a beautiful thing when the public is engaged and shares perspectives in an intelligent and relatively civilized manner. (Though I do sometimes wonder if we need to be hearing from what seems like absolutely everybody…)

The problem with anonymity in comment sections: it’s a veil; it gives people cover to spit out venomous, ad hominem attacks against a reporter, or the subject of a story, or often against other commenters.

When anonymity abounds, the “conversation” we’ve been urged by news organizations to join can fast turn into an off-topic sideshow, a forum for nutjobs, half-wits, conspiracy theorists and raging malcontents to spout stupid shit.

I think it makes sense for HuffPo/WaPo to allow readers to vote for comments, presumably on the basis of their overall usefulness, and then to position them appropriately. Hopefully that means anonymous ones get pushed to the bottom.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com