A new global study of women in their 30s found they don’t leave jobs because they’re worried about family obligations. They leave because employers won’t pay and promote them.
The barriers to entry are famously low—indeed, I podcast from my closet, using a high-quality microphone I bought for $119 and software I downloaded for $49. But even though our producer has years of radio producing and editing experience, our podcast is, admittedly, still rather amateurish. The equipment and editing talent required to make more professional shows is significantly pricier. To cover production costs, most podcasts rely on a combination of listener donations, ad sales, and, increasingly, premium or bonus content that’s available only to paying subscribers. (In the tech world, this last model is referred to as “freemium.”) They’ve also organized into networks of shows with similar styles or subject matter so they can sell ads, share resources, and cross-promote to each other’s audiences.
Ann Friedman digs into the economics of the podcast boom on Columbia Journalism Review.
(Source: cjr.org)
Instead, being a journalism incubator means spending time and money developing writers who then take their readership to other publications, then starting to develop new voices, new beats and new audiences all over again.
In an interesting take on the magazine-as-incubator, Alyssa Rosenberg reacts to the recent news that the (very-loved liberal policy magazine) American Prospect is cutting down its staff and scaling back to a quarterly publishing schedule. Rosenberg points to the long list of all-star journalists who started their writing careers at the Prospect and how—though their careers were essentially incubated at the magazine—their growth did nothing to save the Prospect itself:
Vox.com co-founders Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias may be among the most prominent Prospect alumni, but they are hardly alone. Former Prospect editor Ann Friedman (who gave me my start in culture criticism with an assignment about movie superheroines) is now a columnist for New York magazine. Education journalist Dana Goldstein, Alaska Public Media reporter Alexandra Gutierrez, MSNBC’s Adam Serwer, Slate writer Jamelle Bouie, UN Dispatch’s Mark Goldberg and the Huffington Post’s Kate Sheppard are just some of the many, many journalists who have done stints there.
As wonderful as that roster is, being an incubator publication is a difficult place to occupy in the journalism ecosystem. Unlike Silicon Valley incubators, which stake young developers for a share of their future profits, the Prospect does not get part of what its alumni earn in the future. An excellent reputation and ongoing goodwill do not necessarily translate into piles of cash.
But we can also come at this argument from a long-term and slightly more optimistic view of the value of incubating young writers as Ezra Klein does in his reflection on his own career that began the Prospect’s blog, Tapped:
The combination of TAP’s culture and Tapped’s medium created a place where young journalists could go and experiment with policy journalism on the web. And some of those experiments worked. It turned out health-care policy could really appeal to readers. It turned out the internet loved charts. It turned out that policy writing could be short, or even just a link. It turned out that a conversational tone didn’t destroy the writer’s authority. It turned out that blogs benefitted at least as much from diligent reporting as magazine articles. Those experiments now inform journalism in places ranging from the Washington Post and the New York Times to Buzzfeed and Business Insider. Tapped’s style of policy journalism is everywhere now.
As for Vox, well, two of the three founders are Tapped alumnus. Without Tapped, there would certainly be no Vox.
And in so doing, we realize that when journalism is viewed as a community of public informants (rather than a battle between publishers) the legacy of one publication can and does lead to incredible value.
(via futurejournalismproject)
Reblogged from The FJP
While many editors claim to want more pitches and applications from a more diverse group of journalists, it’s hard to take them seriously when they don’t make such information easy to find and share. If you’re an editor who has complained (or even noticed) a paucity of pitches from women and people of color, ask yourself: Do we make clear how to pitch us? To outsiders, not just those who’ve already met us? Is that information public and shareable? Because when it comes to finding the best journalists with the most diverse set of ideas, a public posting is a lot more useful than a private query.
Yes, women are still underrepresented and underappreciated in the media startup world, but the truth is women are founding their own digital media companies. The problem is that they are largely absent from the buzzy narrative about entrepreneurs leaving the confines of traditional journalism.
Meet Aminatou Sow, one of Forbes.com’s 30 under 30.She’s awesome, and TLM is awesome.
An excellent look at why Aminatou Sow helped start the Tech LadyMafia, which connects women in tech.
Aminatou was a keynote at ONA13, where she spoke with Ann Friedman on what journalists can learn from Shine Theory.
(Source: wearewcc)
Reblogged from Life and Code
Ann Friedman asks, “Why aren’t we studying the digital pipeline?”
While the lack of diversity in cable news, newspaper A-sections, and on talk radio is appalling, it’s not shocking. What is surprising is that so few organizations are tracking the progress of women and other marginalized groups in digital media.
We’re happy to announce that Ann Friedman and Aminatou Sow will bring Shine Theory to the Online News Association Conference in a keynote conversation.
Haven’t registered for ONA13 yet? Register now to ensure your spot in Atlanta.
This was a truly transformational moment in Texas politics. We hadn’t considered the possibility that by the transmission of this livestream it would become the national and international story that it did… We specifically sought permission from the legislature in 2013 to jack into their feed and present the livestream on an ongoing basis for free to people who access our site. The cable companies had permission, but of course you had to pay to watch. We said, we think we can do this better.
Evan Smith, editor in chief and CEO of the Texas Tribune, discusses covering the Wendy Davis filibuster with Ann Friedman.
Read more: Making politics and policy news sexy : Columbia Journalism Review
(Source: cjr.org)
In my ongoing quest for the perfect framework for understanding haters, I created The Disapproval Matrix**. (With a deep bow to its inspiration.) This is one way to separate haterade from productive feedback. Here’s how the quadrants break down:
Critics: These are smart people who know something about your field. They are taking a hard look at your work and are not loving it. You’ll probably want to listen to what they have to say, and make some adjustments to your work based on their thoughtful comments.
Lovers: These people are invested in you and are also giving you negative but rational feedback because they want you to improve. Listen to them, too.
Frenemies: Ooooh, this quadrant is tricky. These people really know how to hurt you, because they know you personally or know your work pretty well. But at the end of the day, their criticism is not actually about your work—it’s about you personally. And they aren’t actually interested in a productive conversation that will result in you becoming better at what you do. They just wanna undermine you. Dishonorable mention goes to The Hater Within, aka the irrational voice inside you that says you suck, which usually falls into this quadrant. Tell all of these fools to sit down and shut up.
Haters: This is your garden-variety, often anonymous troll who wants to tear down everything about you for no rational reason. Folks in this quadrant are easy to write off because they’re counterproductive and you don’t even know them. Ignore! Engaging won’t make you any better at what you do. And then rest easy, because having haters is proof your work is finding a wide audience and is sparking conversation. Own it.
The general rule of thumb? When you receive negative feedback that falls into one of the top two quadrants—from experts or people who care about you who are engaging with and rationally critiquing your work—you should probably take their comments to heart. When you receive negative feedback that falls into the bottom two quadrants, you should just let it roll off your back and just keep doin’ you. If you need to amp yourself up about it, may I suggest this #BYEHATER playlist on Spotify? You’re welcome.
** I presented The Disapproval Matrix to the fine folks at MoxieCon in Chicago yesterday, and they seemed to find it useful, so I figured I’d share with the class. It was originally inspired by a question my friend Channing Kennedy submitted to my #Realtalk column at the Columbia Journalism Review.
Reblogged from Ann Friedman
Loading tweets...
There are any number of pressing media issues in the digital age -- we're sure you can come up with a handful without breaking a sweat. ONA Issues is your platform to define them, share them, explore them and get a better fix on how they impact the work you do. Here we'll look to you for your perspectives and conversations and help jump-start discussions by posting insightful reporting, commentary and analysis from anywhere and everywhere. We're here to listen and learn. Join us.
Email
Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Follow on Tumblr
Mobile version
Random post
