The Sporting News is going to charge for online access.

If nothing else, I admire their courage. There are a few big names out there who are willing to test the waters. They will either blaze a trail or prove that online consumers aren’t ready for this sort of thing. This concept is constantly evolving and no one is sure where it’s going to end up. Perhaps in a couple of years even us community newspapers will be behind a pay wall as publishers universally continue to struggle with the balance of making content available online vs. the need to turn a profit.

But in the meantime, why should I pay to access the Sporting News’ content when I can already get much better news from ESPN.com for free?

Michael Silence brings our attention to this AP story about Copenhagen.

With “news” stories like that, is it any wonder the MSM needs bailing out?

Jackson Sun editorial page editor Tom Bohs is catching some minor cyberspace criticism for this piece in the Sun. In part:

This is where we begin to get into trouble with citizen journalism. It’s one thing to send in a photo of a fire, holdup or other criminal act. But when citizen journalists begin interpreting what they are reporting, or they report what they think happened, the citizen journalism pool they are swimming in gets a little cloudy. You can post such information, to be sure, but who is going to check it out? And who is responsible if the citizen journalist is wrong?

I can’t tell you how many blind alleys I have gone down in my years at The Jackson Sun based on tips from sources I trusted. It happens. The other thing I know is that if I write about something and it is wrong, I am responsible, held accountable and perhaps even liable; if it is seriously wrong, so is The Jackson Sun. Trust me, this is not somewhere you want to go.

Michael Silence opines:

I know a great many people who are involved in online discussions. I know of very, very few who have any desire to be a “citizen journalist.” What most do want, though, is to be part of the conversation. Most folks I know who are active online never did want to be citizen journalists. And many more recognized years ago even if they did, they couldn’t possibly devote the time and resources necessary to regularly produce news content. So get over the us vs. them myth. They are your neighbors.

First, what Silence said. Plus, citizen journalists are here to stay, like it or not. The blog and Twitter fads may pass, but citizen journalism is permanent. Before Al Gore creating the Internet, citizen journalism was limited to the guy with access to a Xerox machine and a convenience store willing to place a few of his papers on the counter. But isn’t cyberspace wonderful?

Second, while Bohs makes some worthy points, the bit highlighted above caught my eye. When citizen journalists begin to “interpret” what they’re reporting, they’ll be no different than their counterparts who are paid to call themselves journalists. The only difference between a citizen journalist and a journalist journalist is the “layers of editorial oversight” we so often hear about. (Stop snickering.) Someday I’ll tell a story about a citizen journalist I know.

And who will be responsible for the mistake for the citizen journalist when he gets it wrong? He will, of course; just as Bohs is responsible for when he gets something wrong. The guy posting in the comments section of his favorite newspaper website, a discussion forum, a blog, or wherever, is subject to the same libel penalties as the guy who has a byline in the newspaper.

Drawing a paycheck from a credentialed media outlet may give a journalist a little more credibility, but readers will ultimately decide for themselves whether a blog, commentor, etc. is credible, just as they decide which newspapers are credentialed newspapers and websites are credible and which aren’t. And that is exactly who will “check out” the facts the citizen journalist reports/interprets. If there are no readers who find him credible, he isn’t a citizen journalist for very long.

I hate to pile on a guy, but Bohs’s column seems to represent a bit of the elitist attitude that has become all too prominent among old media types.

This is hilarious:

N.J. Paper Endorses Governor, But Admits He’s Not The Best Candidate

This is just another example of why newspapers shouldn’t be in the business of endorsing political candidates. That puts me in a minority in this business, but I firmly believe that newspapers should concern themselves with providing candidates’ views, stances and records for readers, and letting readers decide for themselves which candidate deserves their vote. There is little in this world as unimportant as a journalist’s opinion. (Who is going to be the first to ask, “Well, then, why do you have this blog?” It would be a good question to ask, you know.)

Michael Silence points out this bit of good news for the newspaper industry. Adds Michael:

People are tired of all the noise out there, the online Opinions R Us. Instead, they want, as I’ve said before, “just the facts, ma’am”.

I remain unconvinced that newspapers are ready to present news with facts alone, but I am eternally hopeful.

After months (years?) of inner-industry bickering over pay-to-play or free-for-all business models for online content, media mogul Rupert Murdoch stepped out onto a limb all by himself when he declared yesterday that his corporation would begin charging for all its online content — which would presumably include that of FoxNews.Com, the NY Post, The Sun, The Australian and a number of others.

Suffice it to say that Murdoch is going to find himself mighty lonely on that limb in the short-term, but if his endeavor churns up new revenue and reverse the recent downward trend (financially speaking) of his News Corp., he will probably enjoy himself out there (of course, in that scenario, he wouldn’t be alone very long).

Although the most recent trend had been away from the paid access model for some newspapers that had tried it and backed away from it (including the New York Times and, closer to home, the Chattanooga Times Free Press), the inclusion of FoxNews.Com and other News Corp. flagships with a heavy-hitter like the Wall Street Journal, which is already charging for some content (and is also owned by Murdoch’s outfit), certainly leads to an interesting movement towards the paid subscriber side of the spectrum.

One thing is for sure: Murdoch will either be a trend-setter who revolutionizes the industry (it wouldn’t be the first time he has been described as such, of course) or he will fail miserably. Either way, newspapers and others around the world will be watching his endeavor very, very carefully.

This is going to be quite interesting.

This weekend’s trip to Franklin, N.C., was productive in more ways than one. As a fan of community newspapers and journalism (for obvious reasons), I always pick up the local newspaper at whichever town I happen to stop in, whether it be on the side of the interstate for a bathroom break or for an extended stay (no comments from the peanut gallery about how some of my bathroom visits are extended stays, please).

Not only do I like to see what’s happening in that particular town, but I like to see what the latest trends are in community journalism. Although even most community weeklies have websites these days, you don’t get a true feel for most of their newspapers unless you physically pick them up and leaf through them. And, I admit, I’m always on the lookout for creative ideas that they craft into their paper that might spark an idea for new features in ours. It’s true that community newspapers seldom look anywhere near as good as the nearest metro paper, but it’s unfair to most to assume that the community guys are simply less creative. On the contrary, many metro and regional dailies look good because they have the staff and resources to devote to the layout and design of their product, while the guy at the community newspaper is often having to run to the elementary school to take a photo of Mrs. Jones’ 3rd grade class science project, stop at the furniture store on the way back to sell an ad, peck out a story about the school board meeting when he gets back to the office, and then try to layout page one before deadline. In the resource-strapped newsrooms-front offices of community weeklies (hyphenated because they’re usually one and the same), there’s unfortunately little time to devote to design, in too many instances. That doesn’t stop it from being a detriment, but it also doesn’t mean that there are a lot of community newspapers that are at the forefront of ingenuity in the modern newspaper market (see Tennessee’s Erwin Record as an example).

Anyway, I’ve digressed big time, but the point I set out to make is this: The news may be filled with stories of the demise of old media, but this weekend’s trip through a number of small towns in far East Tennessee and western North Carolina reminded me of something I’m sure I knew but had probably forgotten: There’s still a lot of creative thinking going into these community newspapers and even though there may be a generation of cynics who are cheering for the hurried demise of the printed page, these small newspapers are still serving their communities well. The hat is off to them.

(And, yes, I did find a couple of outstanding ideas that I hope to implement in our product in the future. I was also able to stop in a town where I had a managing editor job offer once upon a yesterday and pick up their newspaper to see how they’re plugging along these days. All in all, I picked up some good reading material for those “extended stays” in the john, if nothing else.)

Claims of bias in the press can be a funny thing. It isn’t that I think it doesn’t exist. Quite the contrary. But I don’t think it’s some sort of concentrated, orchestrated effort on the part of the old media to be biased. Rather, I think it’s because it’s human nature to allow one’s bias to shine through (and we all have our biases, whether we’ll admit it or not), and fewer and fewer reporters are exercising the once revered practice of objectivity. Since, for whatever reason, the pool of journalists in this country tends to be heavily weighted with Democrats, we have more cries of bias that way than the other. But Fox News Channel is just as biased (even though they’re a little less vulgar about it) as MSNBC.

Anyone who works in this business knows that at no point can you escape being labeled “biased,” despite your best efforts. Generally speaking, people don’t want to see the opposing point of view. Human nature is to be closed-minded. In 2007, our newspaper was accused of being biased in its coverage of Lori Yancey v. Scott County, et al, the civil trial of former Scott County Sheriff’s Department Chief Deputy Marty Carson in federal court. The reasoning? We were presenting the Carson legal team’s opinions as well as that of the plaintiffs. Those select few lobbing the bias charges were convinced that Carson was guilty and were convinced that the testimony at trial clearly showed that Carson was guilty and, therefore (I suppose), we shouldn’t present Carson’s point of view. Ironically, but not surprising in the least, was there were also a few folks on the Carson side who thought we were being biased in the opposite direction.

And that’s how it goes. One of my favorite things that gets people riled are political cartoons. Politicians are easy targets for humor, and the best political cartoons are those that take a satirical look at the double-standards, transgressions and everyday, common partasan bickering that politicians are always in long supply of. We, like most community newspapers, use the work of a syndicated cartoonist. Ours, like most, is an equal opportunity cartoonist.

This weekend, I received an email from a reader that included the following excerts:

Your cartoon was totally onesided biased political propaganda trying to make Republicans look like clowns while trying to justify and apologize for the new Democrat senator and fool Al Franken.  You put a Republican in a clown suit and refer to him as “wife-cheating, cover-upping, airport-bathroom-toe-tapping, bribe-taking, seat-selling, escort-calling, love-child-father”…

You Democrats are too desperate to cover your own illicit criminal behaviors…

In a free democracy with a 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech, you have the inalienable God given right to publish any cartoon you like…and this 1st Amendment also gives me the freedom to point out your political biasness…and we also have the 5th and 14th Amendment guarantees to spend, or not spend, our money as we choose…

The writer was referring to this cartoon we published recently:

First of all, the writer totally missed the point. The clown is the Senate in general. He laments the Republican transgressions alluded to in the text under the clown, but conveniently overlooks the parts about bribe-taking and seat-selling, which involved Democrats rather than Republicans.

But let’s assume that the cartoon had been aimed at Republicans. I can’t help but note that this gentleman has been conspicuously silent about our political bias whenever we publish cartoons poking fun at Democrats. But that’s okay, because there are some Democrats who are more than happy to complain that we’re biased when we publish those cartoons.

Which proves the point: People see only what they want to see.

I have at times criticized The Politico, but credit should be given where credit is due. And credit is certainly due Roger Simon for the best take, hands down, I have seen from the mainstream news media on Sarah Palin’s resignation:

When you do what the media have predicted, you are “savvy.” You are a “skilled” and “adept” politician.

If you surprise the media, however, you are “out of control” and “bizarre” and even “egotistical.” (Though I have always believed that accusing politicians of being egotistical is like accusing ballerinas of dancing on their toes.)

I believe it’s worth reading because whether you agree or disagree with Palin’s ideology, the way she has been treated by the MSM is completely unfair. The only politician in recent times who has been treated similarly is Hillary Clinton. (Which, I suppose, could lead to the question: Is the MSM sexist? Edit: I had no sooner than posed and published this question than I found this article on RealClearPolitics.)

As struggling newspapers continue searching for ways to survive, a variety of what would once have been considered radical ideas are under the microscope. The (well-documented) problem for newspapers is that readership is gravitating towards the online and digital world. But even as many newspapers’ websites are reporting increased traffic, revenues slump. Online advertising simply doesn’t rake in the revenue as print advertising (the recession has severely hurt online advertising, but the rest of newspapers’ problems were obvious for years before the recession began). The Washington Post Co. lost nearly $54 million the first quarter of 2009, while the New York Times Co. lost more than $74 million. Several significant newspapers have stopped the presses, including the Denver-based Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Community-based, most metro and regional newspapers aren’t in the same dire straits as their larger counterparts — not yet anyway — but it’s safe to say that virtually every newspaper is struggling. A good chunk of that was doubtlessly brought on by the recession, but the key there will be how much of the advertising dollars comes back once the economy has recovered.

So, what to do? It seems that the newspapers of today will still be around as news-gathering organizations tomorrow. It’s hard to imagine the New York Times not existing, even if the printed page were to become obsolete. As the medium for delivering news shifts from the press to the web, the key for newspapers’ survival is finding a business model that works. And therein lies the problem. So far, it’s been a tough find. Several newspapers have throttled online content because it didn’t work. Others have moved strictly to the Internet, but have found the going rough. To this point, at least, advertising alone doesn’t seem to cut it. Which leaves the dreaded pay-to-play option.

To be fair, online subscriptions have also been tried and failed. The Chattanooga Times Free Press is just one example of a newspaper that attempted to charge for its online content and it didn’t work out. But, by the same token, there are specialty sites — Brent Hubbs’ VolQuest.Com, for example — where thousands of viewers happily pay their monthly dues to read what is said. The secret seems to be offering readers in-depth, unique perspective on their communities that they cannot find anywhere else. That can be just as true of the hometown weekly as it can of the big city daily.

Or, something new could be tried. But no matter what, it would seem that if newspapers are going to remain financially viable, giving away content for free has to end at some point.

My father, who is always tossing out ideas, suggested several months ago a subscription-sharing model: Charge for online content, but a subscription to one newspaper’s online version would give readers access to other online versions in the area. I stored that one away for later consideration. Then, in the June-July issue of the American Journalism Review, I read a letter from Bill Will of the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, who is advocating something similar.

“Subscribe to your daily newspaper,” says Will. “That subscription also buys you online access to the Web site of every other daily newspaper; your user ID tags you to your “home” newspaper. If you visit other newspaper sites, that can be tracked and the host newspaper gets a tiny cut of the ad revenue from the page views it produces.”

Would it work? Who knows. It’s probably worth a shot, though, and someone undoubtedly will try it. Another idea that has been floated around is the iTunes model — just as iTunes allows customers to pay 99 cents for a single song rather than purchasing an entire album, this newspaper model would charge readers for each article they read — say 5 cents or 10 cents. Their credit card would be on file with their log-in information, and they would be billed after their session ends, as iTunes does, or even on a monthly basis.

It’s going to be interesting to see where newspapers go in the years ahead. There are a lot of things that I like about newspapers, but I don’t know that I’ll regret the day when delivery of news goes completely to the Internet. There are a lot of benefits to newspapers that a webpage cannot replicate, but there’s also a limitations that don’t exist online. On the web, the sky is literally the limit for news coverage and delivery of that news in multimedia packages. It’s going to be fun. As long as we can make enough money to pay the bills.