New York Times makes another puzzling move

In the latest questionable use of energy by the New York Times, the paper's online edition has launched Times Skimmer, a page viewer that yet again tries to approximate the experience of reading the hard copy of the paper. While the Times can be rather forward thinking when it comes to multimedia, this latest moves seems like the product of editors who still cling to the idea that the problem is people prefer to read the news in print rather than online. While that may be the line that some people offer up as to why they don't like online newspapers, it's not the real problem and shouldn't be the focus of any time or energy for a paper that's been on the brink of serious financial problems for the past couple years. People don't read the news because they don't read the news, not because they don't like the presentation.

Google Wave: Can it help journalists?

I've had a Google Wave account for about three weeks now. It's still full of bugs. Embedding video is far from easy, and if more than a few people get going on a wave at one time, the whole thing stalls. A lot of folks are saying that there is some potential for wave to be a useful tool for journalists, although I'm not entirely convinced.

There are two main potential uses from which other ideas spring. First, that it can be used as a reporting tool between a group of journalists when covering an event such as Austin's annual SXSW music, interactive and film festival. Second, that it could be used as a new way to connect with readers (there's also the potential use as a newsroom budget tool, but that's less interesting to me).

My main concern is that while these are fine ideas, it all represents yet another skill that needs to be learned in order to be utilized. We're already spending a lot of time learning how to best take advantage of Twitter, etc. Is it really worth it to throw this into the mix as well?

Google to limit some news access

Google announced late Tuesday it was changing its policy on charging users who click through to news sites via its Google News aggregation site. Previously, clicks from there would be regarded as free. Now, after five clicks, users will see a registration wall if the site chooses. The move is seen as a bid to stop Rupert Murdoch from abandoning Google all together. Five clicks still doesn't seem like that good of a deal—nonpaying users will still be able to see quite a bit of content before having to pay. (via New York Times)

San Fransisco news

There is a fight a brewin' in the Bay Area. The San Francisco Chronicle, which has seen steadily declining circulation in recent years, is launching a new and improved glossy edition next week. I won't be the first to say it, but making your paper shiny is not going to solve the problem of decling readership.

Other papers believe they can solve the problem. The Wall Street Journal launches their bay area edition today, and the the New York Times won't be far behind in their collaboration with Berkeley's j-school.

So what does it all mean? It seems that the WSJ and the Times are perhaps trying to broaden their market, which could pay off. Serving a metro area with a large newsroom has shown not to be profitable in the current climate, but if these papers can scale down while simultaneously increase readership, it might prove fruitful.

Some nytimes.com readers say they would pay for site

In response to the announcement of a new round of layoffs, roughly one third of commentors on nytimes.com said they would pay for access to the site if it would help stop the bleeding. There are a ton of factors that play into whether a paywall would actually be effective (how much to charge, whether it would make money, etc.), but this is an interesting look into how at least a portion of readers would react.

Do anonymous comments have any value?

Connie Schultz of the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote an interesting column on the issue of civility and anonymity of online commentors to newspapers. Sadly but predictably, the comment section contains uncivil, anonymous comments.

There seems to be a general belief among those in charge on newspaper web sites that comments are a key part of user generated content that will usher in a new era of news delivery. It's easy to see why most sites allow comments—for a web editor concerned about metrics such as time spent on a page, comments are surely an attractive way to boost output, even if it's only by a small amount.

Like celebrity gossip, comments are not the business of newspapers. Print newspapers do not publish anonymous, racist rants, so why should they be allowed online?

Google Fast Flip leaves plenty of questions

After three days of trying out Google's new Fast Flip reader, there are still some unanswered questions. Krishna Bharat, who developed Google News in 2002, told the New York Times on Monday that the idea was that more people would read news online if it were faster: “When it is fast, people will look at more news and more ads, and that’s something that publishers want to see.”

First, it's not clear how flipping through a set of articles is faster than quickly skimming a list of headlines. Second, the number of people who don't read newspapers online because they prefer print is dwindling. People are reading news online, they just aren't paying for it. Google says that they'll share ad revenue from this new venture with participating newspapers, but why not share revenue from Google News? Isn't that kind of like saying "I'm going to steal your stuff and then make it up to you by experimenting with it and sharing the revenue in the unlikely event there is any?"