Whap! Whap!

“The Surge is working!”, the debate moderators, reporters and pundits keep telling us. Apparently it has worked so well the press doesn’t even have to cover Iraq any longer.

The Surge has worked so well that the press doesn’t even have to ask John McCain what his strategy for the war is. It’s enough to just print his speeches attacking Barack Obama.

The Surge has worked so well that most papers have ignored inconvenient facts such as the ones The Washington Post uncovered here.

The Surge has worked so well that the McCain campaign, through its shadow arm “Vets for Freedom,” can have the press uncritically report on its preposterous ad, claiming that “the Surge worked,” and that the civil war, which conservatives have heretofore insisted never existed, is now “Over!” (The ad, if you haven’t already seen it a dozen times on the news shows, is here.)

So let’s have a surge of news coverage about the surge. Let’s examine all this wonderful progress, all the political reconciliation, economic rebirth, etc. etc.

Mostly, let’s ask George Bush and John McCain and Joe Lieberman one simple question: “What’s next?”

Let’s keep asking it until we get an answer.

Online revenue accounts for about 10 percent of revenue at The New York Times, we keep reading. Classifieds for roughly 30 percent.

But many classified advertisers view the web component as equal to (or in some cases greater than) the print component. So why not evenly split the revenue between print and online or, if you want to be arbitrary, apply it to online? Suddenly, ‘online revenue’ is one third to one half of total revenue.

Changing the accounting method is more than semantics. Doing so focuses strategy where it belongs: On the future, instead of the past. We know people are willing to buy online-only classifieds, but where’s the evidence people would buy print-only ads now, or certainly in the future?

In the final analysis, accounting probably doesn’t matter. Survival of newspaper classifieds is far from certain, and the more time and money papers sink into them, the less time and money they have for preserving news. If papers don’t start to choose one over the other, they might end up with neither.

One of my theories for this site is that conservative politics and conservative use of technology go hand in hand. But here’s a technology kudo for that ultimate right-wing train wreck, The Washington Times.

The re-design of the print edition (see details here) is one of the best I’ve seen at integrating the print and online offerings. The print product in many ways becomes a jumping-off point and guide to the meat of the company, the website.

There are caveats attached to this kudo. The big one is that the digital edition the print product plugs is, well, not very good. washtimes.com makes the same mistake almost every newspaper website makes, leading with the print offerings. It does, however, include more-prominent links to online tools than many sites. The big problem is that the online tools tend to be as skimpy as the print product. There’s just not much there considering the market and budget of the paper, regardless of your politics.

(BTW … where are the email addresses for editors? Phone numbers are great, but email is a better option for everyone.)

Critics no doubt will argue that these changes are being made out of desperation, to save a rapidly sinking ship. I won’t argue that point, but I would remind other papers that the Times is sort of the canary in the coal mine. Its problems are worse than most papers, but only by degrees. Many of the rest of you are headed down the same path.

The early posters on the site hate the changes. Then again, the most vocal newspaper readers tend to hate any change (”Don’t mess with my ‘Nancy’ strip! It’s the best!”).

But don’t dismiss the blue tab gimmick and some of the other changes designed to help guide you to fuller coverage online. If implemented at a paper with more robust content, some of these ideas just might work …

Despite all the talk of newspapers as information companies, the current round of cost cutting makes it clear what publishers think their real business is: Running factories to turn out paper products.

I’m picking on Ottaway, but we’ve heard the same line from every publisher in the country. Classified revenue is tanking, so what to do? Lay off newsroom employees, of course. Here’s a graph from a Cape Cod Times story:

The Standard-Times newsroom absorbed more cuts than any other department, losing three full-time and three part-time employees. The other full-time employees are from the advertising and marketing departments. Two other positions, currently vacant, also were eliminated.

Why not instead try shedding the albatross that is dragging down the industry? Why not instead try beefing up what brings people to the paper in the first place?

A good place to start is with classifieds. Classifieds always have been the sacred cow because they were the cash cow. But lately they have started to look more like the lame, diseased cows we see being prodded into slaughterhouses.

Yet instead of intentionally shedding print classifieds to cut production costs, publishers shed newshole and the reporters who fill it.

And no, I’m not forgetting classifieds’ other contribution to newspapers: Drawing readers, especially younger readers. But the cold, hard fact is that they’re really not doing a very good job of that anymore, either.

So here’s the plan:

• Make private-party classifieds free. Slash the cost for contract advertisers.
• Charge for ads that require human intervention, for priority placement and other enhancements. Many Craigslist ads are poorly written. Maybe charge for expert advice on wording, which also then buys priority placement.
• Stop running daily classifieds as they exist today. Run all car ads one day a week, all real estate another, all garage sales another (or at least all that pay a small upcharge). That helps give the ads the bulk to compare to Auto Trader and other publications and gives readers a call to action to buy the paper on a specific day. It also slashes costs. (All ads would be available at all times online.)
• Instead of a big, gray page of liners, publish the ads on letter-sized paper inserted into the paper. That makes the ads more attractive and easier to carry while driving around to garage sales, open houses, etc. It also eliminated the need to balance sections, artificially fill the classified section, etc.

That’s a start. It’s a good way to break the obsession with the manufacturing process. It’s a way to start viewing classifieds as information, not a section. It reduces revenue, but that revenue is disappearing anyway; this at least helps preserve the bulk of information to draw eyeballs.

It’s a crazy plan, I know, but it might just help pull papers out of the death spiral so many are in right now.

Update: Somehow until today I have missed a new site called reinventingclassifieds.com. It’s run by Steve Outing, so most of you probably already know about it. If not, take a look.

If you read the actual report, the “negative” storyline on McCain was that he isn’t conservative enough…. A study by journalism.org says that the press has published far more negative stories about John McCain than about either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Conservatives will have a heyday with this one, citing it as one more example of The Liberal Media.

Only problem is that it’s a crock.

If you read the actual report, the primary “negative” storyline on McCain was that he isn’t conservative enough.

That’s hardly negative. In fact, it reinforces his campaign’s central message, that he is a maverick and hence more worthy of being elected, not less. In primary after primary, that “moderate” image served him well in the big battleground states he needed for the nomination.

Negative indeed.

Update: Mark Jurkowitz from journalism.org responded promptly with this reply:

Thanks very much for your note about our new campaign study. As this paragraph from our overview indicates, the idea of someone not being a reliable conservative could certainly be problematic in the context of a Republican primary race. But in a general election, it surely has more nuanced and complex implications—and would likely broaden his appeal to certain voters.

“For McCain, one master narrative stands out above all in the coverage—that he is not a true or reliable conservative. More than five in 10 of all the assertions studied about McCain conveyed that idea, about six times as many as the number of assertions rebutting it. While this narrative—not conservative enough—might have been a problem for him in the primary race, it is harder to evaluate its implications for the general election. If McCain is seen as a maverick, someone not tied to President Bush, it will likely enhance his standing among independents and moderate swing Democrats. Yet lack of conservative credentials could also dampen turnout among some of the GOP base.”

So reporter Jessica Yellin says ABC News execs told her to go easy on President Bush when his approval ratings were high (here from Politico). No surprise there.

Ironic, though, isn’t it? These same ABC execs defended their attack on Barack Obama during the debate by saying it was justified because he was the frontrunner … i.e. most popular.

Here’s a guarantee. If Obama wins in November, the mainstream media will attack his every hiccup, regardless of how high his approval ratings are.

Glenn Greenwald suggests that Scott McClellan’s new book should once and for all put to rest complaints of a liberal media. It should. It won’t. In fact, expect the cries of “liberal media!” to get louder than ever this summer and fall.

Greenwald’s Salon piece cites McClellan’s criticism of the press for its complicity in the run-up to war:

“In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

Notice, however, that McClellan doesn’t say media people aren’t liberal. They just failed to do their job. That’s not the same as my view, for example, that many large media outlets are little more than propaganda machines for the conservative establishment that did their jobs extremely well.

Nope. Now there’s a new talking point. The disaster was caused by the failure of the liberal media. Liberals are to blame for the war, just like they’re responsible for every other problem in the view of conservatives.

For a glimpse into the future, look no further than the concerted effort of the Republican Party and Fox News to discredit NBC. Ed Gillespie, George Bush’s counselor, is busy whining about MSNBC’s news division blurring with its liberal commentators. We’ve seen many examples of this, such as MSNBC’s almost non-stop bashing of Jeremiah Wright, and of Barack Obama for not repudiating him soon enough. How liberal! Chris Matthews is far left, according to Mr. Gillespie. You remember Chris Matthews, they guy whose gushing adoration for George Bush in his Mission Accomplished costume would have made Bill O’Reilly blush? Yep, that liberal Chris Matthews.

Soon, coverage of McClellan’s book will be further proof of liberal bias in the media, just as coverage of economic problems is dismissed as a partisan attack. The failure of reporters to expose conservatives’ version of The Truth About Barack Obama is another obvious example of liberal bias.

The myth ain’t dead. It’s just getting started.

p.s.: Scott, thanks for the compliment. We always knew that being fair and balanced was the hallmark of a liberal media …

We learn from Romenesko that the Record of Hackensack is “taking seriously” charges of liberal bias, and is requiring editors to seek out evidence of this left-wing plot.

So … will editors be required to look for incidents of conservative bias while they’re weeding out all this evil liberal bias?

Liberal bias is a meaningless phrase. For example, when the Virginian-Pilot refused to honor a high school artist because she sculpted a nude, the forums contained charges of “liberal bias.”

It’s an empty, meaningless phrase, yet publishers use it as an excuse to become ever more conservative at the same time the populace is becoming more liberal.

Papers get more conservative, liberal readers leave for the digital media, papers become even more conservative, so moderate readers leave …

I’m a sample of one, and this isn’t scientific. Yet every one of my conservative friends who complain about liberal bias subscribes to their local paper. My liberal friends complain just as loudly about conservative bias.

The difference is many of them have given up on newspapers, seeking out alternative newsweeklies and digital sources instead.

Getting even more conservative is only going to make it harder to attract young readers. It’s a suicidal business decision, yet publishers drink the Kool-Aid every day. And we wonder why papers are dying …

Editor and Publisher tackles an idea too often ignored among newspapers: Blowing up the newsroom.

E and P calls it Mobile Journalism, or MoJo. I think putting reporter and editors out in the field will result in better journalism, better morale and better employee health. Not to mention it could save big bucks for publishers. How many papers are struggling to finance fancy new buildings while laying off the people they built the buildings for? The two papers where I spent the bulk of my career (the Dayton Daily News and The Columbian) are both in that situation right now.

Some editors lament the loss of comradery such a move would create, and I’m sensitive to that. On the other hand, no one suggests that staffers never get together, and with technology it’s becoming easy to share tips and humor without being in the same room together. Frankly, I think not being cooped up together might have benefits, tearing down some of the GroupThink that plagues the industry.

I wouldn’t stop with the newsroom. In fact, Advertising and Circulation probably would be easier to disperse. I wouldn’t stop there, either. I would work toward distributing production to small plants or even to on-demand printers in kiosks and stores.

“Impossible!,” publishers will say, “We can’t have people spread out all over town!”

Then again, many of these same publishers are merging copy desks and outsourcing work to India …

Crosscut Seattle has a series of suggestions from former staffers on how to transform The Seattle Times. And folks, these people are out of their minds.

They must be, because so many of their suggestions for newspapers echo mine (of course, maybe that’s why most of us are former newspaper people …). Anyway, it’s good reading.