THIS POST WAS UPDATED TO ADD A MISSING LINK
Noted New York University media critic Jay Rosen wrote me yesterday to point out this unscientific survey of Canadian newspapers that blog. It's by Mark Hamilton, who teaches journalism at Kwantlen University College in Richmond, BC.
With a couple of exceptions, big Canadian dailies haven't jumped on blogging to extend their storytelling, or to bring voice to their web sites. None that I can find have tapped into their local blogosphere to increase their coverage or spread the local conversation.
Anyway, it turns out that WE'RE NO. 1!, followed by the Edmonton Journal.
The thing is, there is still much resistance to e-journalism in these here parts. Too many journos feel we're giving away content for free and jeopardizing our longterm viability in the process. There's a sense that it's hurting our single copy/newsstand sales.
Others see it differently: that our websites are a brand extension, that our readers expect to come to us for value added, that news should be 24/7.
As I said, Hamilton's survey is not really comprehensive. Hamilton, for example, missed our Sports guys' blogs from the Turin Olympics. As for tapping into the local blogosphere, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Marc! He blogs under our aegis.
Still, we're all behind the blog ball in Canada compared with some of the papers in the USA. Speaking of which, here's an interview with John Robinson, the Greensboro News & Record editor who is leading the way. Speaking of blog balls ...
congrats.
Posted by: JDot | March 09, 2006 at 03:10 PM
But the idiotic thing in the Edmonton Journal's case is they're still looking at blogs and breaking news as "pilot projects" and "experiments."
Newsflash, Edmonton: These aren't cutting-edge concepts any more.
Posted by: Bill Doskoch | March 09, 2006 at 05:01 PM
No. 1 in a field of... two? How depressing.
Posted by: James Mirtle | March 09, 2006 at 06:13 PM
No, in a field of all newspapers in Canada.
YAY!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!
:-)
Posted by: Antonia | March 09, 2006 at 06:17 PM
"Too many journos feel we're giving away content for free and jeopardizing our longterm viability in the process."
Can't agree with this thought. The e-content complements the treeware version with all its smaller stories and new digests, not to mention photographs. Anyway, can't curl up in bed or on the couch with coffee and computer!
And congratulations on #1; shows there are forward thinking people at the Star, nudge nudge, wink wink, ... ;)
Posted by: Diana Marie | March 09, 2006 at 07:12 PM
hehehe - i usually skip the blog entry and go straight to posting a comment. it's amazing how often it almost makes sense.
Posted by: sooey | March 10, 2006 at 03:26 PM
"Too many journos feel we're giving away content for free and jeopardizing our longterm viability in the process."
This may be true. However, as it is being experienced time and again, those who hold steadfast to an obsolesced business model in the face of structural changes in any industry will go out of business faster than those who learn through adaptation.
Many cases in point, but here's one that's obvious: The largest photo finishing company in Canada held on to the old ways, until it went out of business. Those that embraced the reality of digital photography (even though people could print pics out on their home printers), have found new business niches and have survived.
Newspapers are essentially in the advertising business - the journalistic content is the excuse that brings people to see the ads. Blogging journalists increase both the visibility and reputation of the "paper" and thereby increase the value for the advertisers.
However, seeing as how the Globe and Mail has turned its entire online presence into one big blog, enabling user conversation on every article, the Star may be number one in terms of journalists blogging, but it is severely lagging in understanding that the Internet is a social medium (and what that really means).
Posted by: Mark Federman | March 10, 2006 at 06:49 PM
The comment by Bill Doskotch, above, is the very reason blogs and bloggers have credibility troubles. He does not know what he is talking about. Newsflash, Bill: you're factually incorrect.
Posted by: Anna | March 11, 2006 at 04:38 PM
Anna,
Could you please be more specific?
Posted by: Antonia | March 11, 2006 at 05:46 PM
The G&M lost me as an online reader when they recently changed their website to a registered user only accessible site. I liked them, but not enough to give away my private information to a corporate snooper, likewise with many others.
As to the ads. I NEVER read them because if I need something I know where to get it at the best price. I shop, order, and purchase online or in person.
Guess I am old fashioned, eh? I like doing business with people I know, trust, and can depend on. The barkers never get my business, especially one's like 'The Brick' and 'Bad Boys'!
Oh, yes, and do people really get impressed with the bearded guy from Idomo? I can bet he is really into leather alright! LOL!
The end point is: ANTONIA has made the Star Numero Uno because she is...ANTONIA!
Posted by: Bill-Muskoka | March 11, 2006 at 06:10 PM
Stephen Harper has a long way to go if he is to project our country in a leading role. In Afganistan he looked like a big yokel with his beer belly hanging over his pants. All the other party leaders project a far better image than he.
Posted by: John E. Milnes | March 13, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Harper is a C-130 pilot like I am a seagull! NOT!
Where are the real photogs on these trips? You know, the ones who take the candid shots, show the real person, etc. Sorry, but that shot was so posed, and such an obvious photo-op it was sickening!
I want pics of Harper flinching when there is a loud explosion, like normal people do! Oh darn, does Darth Vader flich?
Posted by: Bill-Muskoka | March 13, 2006 at 12:39 PM