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.
nice partial rant jason..
offer some alternatives please?
i cant stress enough, the importance of ideas.
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.
LOL @ Ben. My thoughts exactly.
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.
i concur
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.
@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”?