Notebook in the NY Times Magazine
by Erika Owens on Aug 07 2009
In the August 9 New York Times Magazine, an article about the newspaper industry in Philadelphia highlights the Notebook as one of the emerging new media in the city and compliments the quality of its coverage. Times reporter Michael Sokolove writes that the Notebook "breaks stories and is notably well written."
Two fellow Knight-funded projects and partners in the local alternative media universe - the Media Mobilizing Project and Plan Philly - also get shout outs.
Here is an excerpt:
"In January, the Knight Foundation awarded a $200,000 grant to The Philadelphia Public School Notebook. Its editor, Paul Socolar, may be something like the journalist of the future. He is earnest, dedicated to a cause, foundation-financed and, to this point, read by a narrow audience. I accompanied him to a press briefing for the rollout of the Philadelphia school district’s $3.2 billion budget. He quickly imbibed a thick handout filled with charts and long columns of numbers and jotted down questions, which seemed a bit sharper and harder to answer than those asked by the reporters from the city’s two dailies.
The Notebook actually started publishing in 1994, and Socolar, who had two children in the public schools, became its editor five years later. During his tenure, Socolar told me, The Public School Notebook refined its mission: its editors and contributors still consider themselves advocates for change, he said, “but it became equally clear to us that we have to do reporting, have journalistic standards and publish real news stories.”
It has largely achieved that. The Notebook, a five-times-a-year print publication, breaks stories and is notably well written. The grant was to improve its Web site and, as Socolar put it, start a “two-way conversation” with readers. But a broad audience and impact, two goals of traditional journalism, have been hard to attain. Socolar acknowledged that The Notebook’s core readers are insiders — principals, teachers, district administrators and highly engaged parents. “There is a jolt you can get out of an Inquirer story that I know we don’t,” Socolar said.
The new money helped energize The Notebook’s Web site, but it will take time before it generates more traffic and hosts a dynamic dialogue. “It’s still pretty modest,” Socolar said. “About 400 visitors a day — 500 or 600 on really good days. And some of those folks are stumbling upon it because they’re looking for the movie ‘The Notebook.’ ”
In Philadelphia, the Knight Foundation has also supported the Web site Plan Philly, a nonprofit affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania that reports on planning and zoning at a level of detail never approached by the city’s newspapers, as well as the city’s version of EveryBlock.org, a “hyperlocal” that provides microscopic, data-driven information on segments of the city — home sales, crime, health-code violations at restaurants and so forth. A proliferation of blogs and Web sites cover the arts, sports and food scenes in Philadelphia. A Web site called the Media Mobilizing Project, also underwritten by the Knight Foundation, seeks out the stories of immigrants and other minorities, which newspapers, even at their best, rarely did a good job of telling."
Check back soon for more about the Notebook and its role in this evolving newspaper industry.
Comments (5)
Submitted by Helen Gym on Tue, 08/11/2009 - 12:32.
One of the things I am interested in watching is whether there is an improvement to the quality of journalism of non-profits vs mainstream media. For example, the Notebook has been doing great investigative work on school privatization from contracts, to EMOs to disciplinary providers like Community Education Partners. As the Times reports, questions from Notebook staffers at least rival if not surpass others. The Notebook's new staff members, managing editor Wendy Harris, business manager Corey Mark, and contributing editor Dale Mezzacappa all have impressive backgrounds in diverse media efforts, emphasizing the Notebook determination to improve its journalistic content.
Recently, this non-profit journalism been explored by more and more groups as traditional media slowly sacrifices key areas through corporate restructuring efforts. ProPublica was founded by former top editors and reporters to conduct investigatative journalism pieces "in the public interest." Last month, the Associated Press also announced it's working to develop a non-profit supported investigative journalism arm.
Time will only tell to what extent the quality of journalism - and more important, representation of the public interest will improve - but, for now, non-profit supported efforts are, once again, providing possible options for a new path ahead.
Submitted by Erika Owens on Tue, 08/11/2009 - 16:31.
Something I'm interested in learning more about with nonprofit journalism is in how you manage the different funding model.
Last year I read that the News Hour with Jim Lehrer got a grant from the Gates Foundation for health reporting. I had never thought about media outlets getting funding for explicit types of reporting like that before. And the funding wasn't even for health reporting in general, but for global health reporting on the types of things that the Gates Foundation funds like malaria and other neglected diseases.
First glance, great! Funding for reporting that probably would not get the support it needs otherwise. But, if you have your pool of money for global health and there are important domestic health issues that need reporting, what then? That's not what the grant funds, and if you can't find grants for domestic health issues? Do those things not get covered?
We've accepted the advertiser/editorial divide in journalism, but this is new. That grant really is dictating coverage in a way that advertisers never (officially) got to. How does that work? I read about a new idea (forget the link) where readers vote on what investigative stories they want to see get funded, and then a nonprofit funds them. Seems cool, but what about the stories that you don't even really know about until you do the investigating? If it's based around votes in that way, won't that slant reporting?
Lots of questions! Definitely curious to see how this all plays out.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 08/14/2009 - 04:00.
The firewall/ethics issues inherent in advertising-supported journalism seems to me more acute in the case of specialized publications, like the Notebook. Fancy-watch companies and (formerly) department stores don't have a very specific interest in how the Inquirer or Times, for example, cover political minutia. In the past, non-glamorous journalism (think the smaller-sized international coverage) as a "product" has been free-riding on the coattails of rich, paternalistic papers, like the Times or W.S.Journal. Since those kinds of stories don't get many 'clicks,' however--especially ones leading directly to watch purchases--they may now be at the mercy of a Darwinian sort of winnowing process, as papers and watch-makers figure out what really generates ad dollars on the web.
This closer tethering of ads to stories may end up splintering formerly-general-interest news outlets. This makes sense from a revenue standpoint (people interested in the education section are hit with education-related ads), but such precision could also have a downside. An undifferentiated paper can sell general-interest news and ads for widgets that just run wherever they fit. Only very rarely will a widget ad accidentally land next to an investigative report on the widget factory. But for specialized publications (which, for this very reason, aren't suffering like the big dailies), such coincidences are bound to occur more often, and it is only a matter of time before one or another widget company threatens to pull advertising, support, or access on account an unflattering story or two.
So my general recommendation for publications like this is to solicit revenue from mainly (or only!) *tangentially* related (to Phila. public education, in this case) sources. For example, Northwest Philadelphians tend to be politically active and therefore follow public education news. They also like organic food. So Weaver's Way makes perfect sense, because--as a business--they don't really care about the latest teachers' contract. That's going back to the tradition of selling watches to rich people in the front section of the Times, but using the proceeds to fund the important, non-glamorous, serious journalism that sneaks into the back.
Submitted by Erika Owens on Fri, 08/14/2009 - 17:39.
The model you describe makes a lot of sense, it's just kind of hard to implement in practice. We don't have many watch companies interested in advertising with us. Weaver's Way is a great example of the type of place that makes more sense for our publication, but it's tough--for places with a limited budget, would it make more sense for Weaver's Way to advertise with us or with say, a newsletter from the Food Trust? Or on a farmers' market banner?
The places with the most investment in our education-focused audience, are also necessarily going to be the ones closest to our coverage. Luckily for the Notebook, we have a diverse array of advertisers so even if one group did pull coverage our advertising income would not collapse. But how does that work with these huge, targeted grants for certain types of coverage? The News Hour agreed to provide certain coverage for over a million dollars. If they didn't want to do that, then no money. Those funding models that are directly tied to content seem trickier.
I'm confident we'll continue to find ways to fund that important, non-glamorous, serious journalism, but it may take the industry a while to figure out how to do that in a sustainable and unbiased way.
Submitted by ushioda (not verified) on Sun, 08/16/2009 - 03:52.
>> "...it's just kind of hard to implement in practice."
I know, I know!
I'm glad to hear what you wrote on diversity of the ad-pool. Keep those interests balanced!
And continued good luck to all involved--
Post new comment