Levy to Globe: copy Boston Now!

Published Jun 18 2007, 06:51 PM by Adam Reilly

OK, I admit it--that's not completely fair. Paul Levy, the blogger and Beth Israel Deaconness honcho, has some other suggested tweaks for the Boston Globe, including allowing unmoderated comments on stories and cultivating a 24/7 news operation.

I like those ideas. But I'm not wild about Levy's suggestion that the Globe devote a page or more every day to locally grown blog content. Here's the heart of Levy's pitch:

So, let's say that one or more pages of the Globe daily edition (and of course, the online version, too) were devoted to excerpts from blogs of people who had given permission to be excerpted. Let's say that the Globe paid those people a nominal fee every time an excerpt was used....

Now, let's say that people would be paid in scrip -- let's call it "GlobeCash" -- that could be used for on-line purchasers with advertisers who had either advertised on the online or paper version of the newspaper. Or, let's say people could donate their payment to a charity of their choice. Or maybe advertisers announce that a portion of the proceeds received through GlobeCash will be donated to the Boys and Girls club or -- better yet, to the charity of your choice in your neighborhood....

Imagine the flow of bloggers who would vie to be seen by several hundred thousand viewers every day. Only the Globe has the potential to offer this exposure. Imagine the buzz when you pick my blog excerpt today. What do I do? I immediately post the fact that I have been excerpted, and I direct even more traffic to the Globe. Other bloggers try to write more and more interesting stuff so they can be chosen. An intensely powerful set of positive feedback loops is created. As a blogger, I'm happy. Readers are happy because they are getting the latest news and commentary from a variety of sources. Advertisers are happy because they are getting eyes, clicks, and feel-good PR because of their charitable contributions.

[W]hat is really happening here? All of sudden, regardless of actual ownership, this is now our newspaper. You have given me a reason to check in, to participate, to feel pride, and to feel a sense that you are relevant to our community in a variety of ways.

Maybe my mistake is thinking like a journalist instead of a reader--but I really question the notion that people read newspapers to get a warm, fuzzy, participatory glow. They read them (at least I do) because they want a timely, authoritative, skilfully packaged mix of information and analysis.

If I could read only one paper every day, it would be the New York Times--not because the Times makes me feel valued or relevant or connected to my local community, but because the content is so good. No direspect to the Globe, but I think I'd feel that way even if the paper implemented Levy's plan.

Dan Kennedy has a very different take.

Two new Globe columnists, two good calls

WGBH nixes Open Source

2 Comments

Paul Levy said:

I read for those reasons, too, Adam, but there is a growing market segment that apparently looks for some other hook. I'm positing that this kind of community involvement could bring in that segment. I see it as additive, nor replacing, and if it brings in revenues without undermining the basic mission, it might work. Also, setting up ecommerce can be done quickly and at a relatively low cost, so it can be tested and then kept or disposed of. On the hand, this might be a totally dumb idea! (By the way, I did not mean to suggest they don't have 24/7 news coverage. They clearly do, as seen on boston.com, and it is quite good. Sorry if that was not clearly written. I was referring to the lack of updates after hours on their blogs.)

June 19, 2007 9:39 AM
chris connor said:

Who can trust outlets like the Times? Media Nation ran a story about the liberal media bias in the system. Political contributions by journalists went 9 to 1 to democrats. One journalist actually compared Hitler to GW Bush. I suggest we all take every story with a grain of salt until we know if the reporter is biased or not? Bush, Hitler and political contributions MSNBC.com's Bill Dedman, a former Globe reporter and the creator of this gift to journalism, has weighed in with a piece identifying 144 journalists who've made political contributions since 2004. Here's the most amazing paragraph: "Probably there should be a rule against it," said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine's profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. "But there's a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don't regret it." Wow. In case you're wondering, there's not much exciting to report locally. The biggest name is Liz Walker, a former anchor for WBZ-TV (Channel 4), who donated to Hillary Clinton and a couple of other Democratic women. Though most observers will probably focus on the fact that the vast majority of the contributions tilted liberal/ Democratic (or, in Singer's imagination, anti-Nazi), what amazes me is that journalists would make political contributions to anyone. There are two reasons not to do this: (1) you shouldn't; (2) therefore you can always tell people that you can't. For my, uh, money, Rule #2 is one of the few perks we enjoy. Labels: media criticism

June 23, 2007 2:28 PM