Meda and I found ourselves at the Civil Beat office late yesterday afternoon for what was advertised as a “beatup”, a small group discussion of news issues to which Civil Beat members and their guests are invited. I was invited to come along by CB member Dave Kozuki of People Bridge and gladly accepted, then hustled another friend to “invite” Meda as his guest.
The draw: editor John Temple discussing “what being a one-newspaper town will mean for Honolulu journalism,” something he’s been writing about recently.
Setting the stage–the gathering was in the Civil Beat offices on the second floor of the Central Pacific Bank building on the corner of Waialae & 10th Avenue in Kaimuki. As we walked in the door, we were greeted by CB staffers, who were prepared with fill-in-the-blank name tags, and a welcoming attitude. The room was pretty spartan. On one side, desks where the “reporter-hosts” do their thing, to the left a table with a few nibbles along with some bottled water, canned ice tea, juice, and a few Cokes. Technology in evidence, equipment to potentially stream John’s talk, although I’m not sure if that’s what they were doing or not.
The group stayed pretty small. Eventually there were perhaps two dozen people in the room, nearly half represented by Civil Beat staff. Did they expect/hope for more? Probably, given the empty chairs, but I don’t really know how to interpret the turnout.
Temple is a smart and experienced journalist and I was looking forward to his take on the local scene in the Star-Advertiser era. John took me somewhat by surprise, beginning with the premise that somewhere in the future, somewhere beyond the next 3-5 years, Honolulu will be a no newspaper city. What will that be like and what can/should we be doing to prepare for it?
In response to a question, this was clarified…a no printed newspaper city.
Lots of ripe implications there to be explored, but unfortunately the discussion got sidetracked by several sharp questions about Civil Beat’s price point, value to readers, comparisons to newspaper subscription costs, etc., which drew extended explanations from John and from Peer News president Randy Ching.
I enjoyed meeting Randy, who was there with his Canon 5D, being the official photographer as well as active participant in the event, a role I know well.
The discussion was still interesting, although it never really get steered back onto its original course.
Several points stood out. John explained that in a typical newspaper, the cost of the newsroom is only 8-12 percent of the total cost of putting out and delivering the newspaper. He also described how the exodus of advertisers to the internet (job ads, real estate, auto, classifieds) translated into a stunning loss of $100 million in revenue at the Rocky Mountain News over a period of seven years beginning around 2000-2001. That sort of takes your breath away.
This prompted several questions–if Civil Beat avoids the other 90 percent of production costs incurred to put out a newspaper, why has it priced subscriptions higher than the daily newspaper?
John had a good explanation. Newspapers, he said, rely primarily on advertisers to pay the bills. Subscriptions are a relatively small share of income, and are kept low in order to capture more eyes to view the ads. In competitive markets, the business community benefits because some profits are left on the table in order to keep advertiser rates a little lower.
Civil Beat, on the other hand, is pursuing a path without advertising. John stressed that this leaves them without the balancing act when there’s a potential clash between hard reporting and sensitive advertisers. If you don’t carry ads, you don’t have any advertisers threatening to pull their ads because of critical reporting.
Meda says she came away with more appreciation for the pay-as-you-go approach. You might quibble with the price point set by Civil Beat for a subscription, but the clear “somebody has to pay” for news we all agree is needed was refreshing, especially as she watches me pour time and money into this blog that doesn’t produce any meaningful monetary support from readers.
Then, with our drive to Kaaawa awaiting, we had to make an unfortunately quick departure just as the discussion was breaking up.
We were given evaluation forms as we were leaving. I responded with generally positive assessments of the evening, and said that, yes, I would return if given the opportunity.
You know, Ian, I would actually be willing to pony up a little something per month for your blog. What you put into it, between the investigative reporting, the heartfelt stories about your dad, and the cats is well worth you seeking some sort of monetary support from us all.
I would like to know who is funding Civil Beat? They sound like they are on the cutting edge of this media issue about the printed news media.
All the more important that citizens become concerned about the source and the accuracy and the motive of ‘newspapers’ and such.
Based on my experiences, the newspapers are no longer purists who believe in true journalism values.
You know, values like objectivity, accuracy, transparency, two sides of the story. LOL.
Pierre Omidyar founded Civil Beat. He’s a Punahou grad who started EBay and is a gazillionaire.
Yes, they were streaming via U Stream, also monitoring/participating in our chat window. The interface was appreciated by this out-of-towner anyway.
N
“Who is funding Civil Beat?”: I think anyone can readily find out. Does the man with the money have an agenda? I think it unlikely since as far as I know, all his business interests lie on the mainland. He is a resident of the Honolulu community, with children. He has an interest in his state, city, and community, just like most of us, and just like most of the people who read the news.
No matter who pays, there is going to be the inevitable influence of bias. With advertisers, that bias is more imposed. Every journalist, every editor, has a bias. The professionals do their best to find and report the truth despite their own biases. The more dependent a news outlet is on their subscribers, as opposed to advertisers, I think the more truthful, thorough, and accurate they can and must be. The People are smart and discerning, and will reject anything less.
Thanks for the post, Ian. I enjoyed it. I hope you do well with your blog; and I hope Civil Beat makes it.
tell them my annonymous talents, assuming I got any … are not for sale
Ummm, maybe their biases are the elites and political hacks who now have an exclusive forum for their spin? Especially since there will be no balancing input from those who don’t pay to play.
Maybe CB should offer “scholarships” or stipends, like the theory behind publicly funded elections, to alleviate too much in-breeding.
I nominate Ian Lind for ombudsman, or at least that stipend or scholarship!
Hmm. I think the advertising model can be effective in reaching more people as long as the bean counters are not given control and there are enough advertisers that losing a few won’t upset the boat.
On the other hand, maybe it is just the price point and interface. If I could buy a subscription for a month and read it on my ipad/iphone, I’d give it a try.
I just noticed there is a donate button on the right beneath the single add on this page.
Maybe more of us should use it.
Thanks for the informative summary of this event. I need to attend one of these.
$20/month is not much, when the quality of journalism and discussion is high as with Civil Beat. I find that I can no longer read through the offensive responses in the Star-Advertiser.