Guest post: National Times offers nothing new
Fairfax’s National Times has launched, heralding itself as the best in Australian journalism. Not so, argues Jason Whittaker in this guest posting.
Enough already. I just can’t take it anymore. Whether it’s the precious blogging world, or the desperately precious newspaper sector, I’m sick to death of being told partial ranting is the very essence of quality journalism. Or that aggregating copy produced for newspapers is the future of online media.
The talk from News Limited on The Punch was nauseating enough – a “celebration of journalism”, editor David Penberthy told Mumbrella on launching the glorified blog in June. As I wrote at the time, celebrating journalism without actually doing any.
Now Fairfax wants us to believe the e-relaunch of The National Times masthead – which justifies no real comparison with the lamented print product of decades ago, long forgotten by a new generation of readers anyway – will “deliver the best in Australian journalism”, editor Darren Goodsir writes for mUmbrella today.
Enough spin, from publications that also boast their commitment to cutting through it. Let’s call these websites what they really are: another cheap web platform for advertising. (Cleverly, Fairfax has set up The Times on its existing news sites, localising and maximising advertising revenue.) Any suggestion of a contribution to journalism from either The Punch or The National Times is bunkum.
Just to be clear (and to pre-empt the expected rebuttal), The Times will, indeed, feature very fine writing from some very fine journalists. It’s an impressive line-up. And good op-ed – the well-researched, insider-type material that many of these journalists are capable of – is absolutely an important contribution to national affairs comprehension.
Analytical writing can be worthy and wonderful journalism.
But this new website won’t be doing it. It will draw on already over-stretched writers who work for, and are paid by, printed newspapers with fast-declining readerships. Almost all of the “original” content comes from existing Fairfax writers and bloggers, or unpaid contributions (read: uncensored soapboxes for politicians).
There is nothing new to see here.
Fairfax Digital – an entirely profitable division with many of the most-trafficed news websites in Australia – employs just a handful of journalists, and most of these are simply assigned to repurposing print content. Revenue won’t go to more journalists, only to a sick group bottom line.
At Fairfax, online props up declining print revenues, while print props up the dearth of original content online.
In the digital age, it’s a breathtakingly backwards business model.
- Jason Whittaker edits industry business magazines and channels his frustration on the direction of new media into blogging at Importance Of Ideas
nice partial rant jason..
offer some alternatives please?
i cant stress enough, the importance of ideas.
User ID not verified.
From an ad placement POV these sites / environments are likely to only really deliver performance campaigns in reality (meaning little revenue at low CPM’s)
Premium placement advertisers unless they have “irreverence” as a brand equity tend to steer clear of polarising or opinion simply due to wanting to keep criticism at arms length from their brands…
Editorially this might be argued to impact the journalism discussed.
User ID not verified.
LOL @ Ben. My thoughts exactly.
User ID not verified.
I’ve got a bunch of ideas, Ben and Danu. I think we all do. I’ve blogged some of them and commentated for others on some of them at length previously. This wasn’t a forum for trying to solve the incredibly complex puzzle of new journalism business models, which much smarter people with much more at stake are trying to figure out. I don’t envy them.
This was about the hypocrisy of how these opinion sites are promoted. Which is either spin from marketing people who don’t know any better, or a genuine belief within the highest echelons of these companies that, as they claim, they are making serious investments in journalism with these websites. If it’s genuine, then I really do worry about the bigger decisions facing them in the months and years ahead.
User ID not verified.
i concur
User ID not verified.
Jason, I can feel your envy from here. What these websites (blogs, whatever) have going for them is BRAND.
And while I’m not likely to look at your blog (which I’m sure is very good), I am likely to check out the new National Times site, because they’ve got the power of brand from the SMH/Age sites.
I think they’ve got good models – you’re right, they need some more investment, but I reckon they’ll still be around, and making money, in five years’ time.
And in 15 or 20 years when their newsprint parents are finally gone.
User ID not verified.
@Jason – I was going to make this comment Monday when the post went up, but didn’t feel witty enough at the time. I still don’t, but will push on regardless….along the lines of the partial rant, I was disappointed by the brevity of the post. The end came all too soon. I expected wide, sweeping scythes through the upper levels of journalism managers, and their marketers, but it ended abruptly. It was brief and to the point. Well done, this time for not over-indulging in the macabre navel-gazing about the “future of journalism” that I just.can’t.help.devouring.
@Matt – and in 15 or 20 years’ time, when you say their newsprint parents are finally gone, will they still embody in themselves “the power of brand from the SMH/Age”?
User ID not verified.