KosmoReporter

In the aftermath of Apple's January announcement of the iPad, people dished on the iPad name and pundits debated whether a tablet that didn't have a camera, multitasking, or Flash support could compete. But book publishers zeroed in on a different set of questions.

These included how the iPad's iBooks app and accompanying bookstore might shake up e-book pricing and the competitive landscape; whether the iPad launch will give e-books the boost they need to break into the mainstream; and how the features of the iPad's iBooks reader stack up against expectations.

I spoke with several e-book and book publishing pros after Apple's announcement to get their impressions of what they saw and their thoughts on what the iPad might mean to electronic book publishing.

Many in the industry are excited to welcome a new big e-book retailer to the market. There's little question that Amazon and its Kindle have dominated the scene, with more than 3 million units sold so far.

Angela James, executive editor, Carina Press

"The Kindle sells books," said Angela James, executive editor of Carina Press, Harlequin's new digital-first imprint. "I've seen the royalty statements and the digital units move."

But while there is appreciation for what Amazon has done to launch the e-book market, there are also concerns and some complaints. Many publishers hope the iPad will shake up the field. This desire for change was borne out just two days after the iPad announcement, when Amazon and Macmillan engaged in a brief, wild, and unusually public test of wills. The backstory of this dust-up highlights some of the key factors retailers and publishers are wrestling with.

We often talk about the new news ecosystem — the network of traditional outlets, new startups, nonprofits, and individuals who are creating and filtering the news. But how is the work of reporting divvied up among the members of that ecosystem?

To try to build a datapoint on that question, I chose a single big story and read every single version listed on Google News to see who was doing the work. Out of the 121 distinct versions of last week’s story about tracing Google’s recent attackers to two schools in China, 13 (11 percent) included at least some original reporting. And just seven organizations (six percent) really got the full story independently.

But as usual, things are a little more subtle than that. I chose the Google-China story because it’s complex, international, sensitive, and important. It’s the sort of big story that requires substantial investigative effort, perhaps including inside sources and foreign-language reporting. Call it a stress test for our reporting infrastructure, a real-life worst case.

The New York Times broke the story last Thursday, writing that unnamed sources involved in the investigation of last year’s hacking of a number of American companies had traced the attacks to a prestigious technical university and a vocational college in mainland China. The article included comment from representatives of the schools and, while it had a San Francisco dateline, credited contributions from Shanghai staff. Immediately, the story was everywhere. Just about every major American newspaper and all the wires covered it.

The Web is sparking with news that Apple has banned, without advance notice, many thousands of apps that contain nudity or suggest sexual themes. If you are a newspaper or magazine publisher, this action by Apple might make you rethink your mobile media strategy;
Even for publishers who’s most racy content is the odd photo of people wearing swimsuits.

The New York Times’s David Pogue dismisses this new content ban by Apple.
But think about it for a second: Hasn’t The New York Times been known to publish photos of people in swimwear, too? Hmmm. Yeah - where is that line exactly, Apple?

Would fashion swimwear or fitness instructor photos be enough to get an app banned from the iTunes store or will there be different rules in place for legacy media publishers making the leap?

This summer the Associated Press made a surprise announcement at the Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in Baltimore. As part of a six-month pilot project, the wire service was going to begin distributing content from four top nonprofit news outlets: ProPublica, Center for Public Integrity, Center for Investigative Reporting, and the Investigative Reporting Workshop. It looked like a win all around: Newspapers could run in-depth content from well respected outlets, and nonprofits could broaden their audience.

“This pathbreaking agreement will make an enormous difference in helping us reach the largest possible audience and maximizing the impact of our work,” Robert Rosenthal, the Center for Investigative Reporting’s executive director, said in a statement at the time. “We are deeply appreciative of AP’s commitment to public interest journalism.”

So how did AP’s experiment go? In conversations with some of the nonprofit participants and the AP, it appears that AP members have used little if any nonprofit content.

Not so long ago, some Western governments and private donors decided that investing in the media was a good way to support the development of democracy in other countries. Over the years, media development has become a vast enterprise, responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars of investment every year.

The paradigm was straightforward enough: provide training, equipment, and management support to foreign publishers and broadcasters to improve their journalism and, in the process, spur political and economic progress.

But that paradigm no longer meets the demands of today's media environment.

To start with, the U.S. journalism industry is facing significant business challenges, making it difficult to offer as a template to other countries. But even if the problems associated with revenue and audience fragmentation were solved tomorrow, the media development community would still face a host of urgent new questions: How do you integrate new communications technologies, such as cell phone and Internet platforms, into a development model? How do you expand your vision to parts of the world that have been "media dark" (or where government or private monopolies limit speech)? How do you coordinate efforts from multiple actors with differing approaches and agendas?

• Does the media tell your story fairly, if at all?
• Are you happy with the coverage of issues you care about?
• Does mainstream media inform you or distract you?
• How do we use the media to bring about change?
• Do you want to make a difference?

If you are as concerned that our democracy is being usurped by today’s media, communities are being harmed by the absence of local issues covered by mainstream media, and diverse groups lack access to the media, now is the time to act:

Add your content to the L.A. Media Reform Summit on March 27!

Social Media and Blogging Guidelines

Social media and blogs are important elements of journalism. They narrow the distance between journalists and the public. They encourage lively, immediate and spirited discussion. They can be vital news-gathering and news-delivery tools. As a journalist you should uphold the same professional and ethical standards of fairness, accuracy, truthfulness, transparency and independence when using social media as you do on air and on all digital news platforms.

Truth and Fairness

• Social media comments and postings should meet the same standards of fairness, accuracy and attribution that you apply to your on-air or digital platforms.

•Information gleaned online should be confirmed just as you must confirm scanner traffic or phone tips before reporting them. If you cannot independently confirm critical information, reveal your sources; tell the public how you know what you know and what you cannot confirm. Don’t stop there. Keep seeking confirmation. This guideline is the same for covering breaking news on station websites as on the air. You should not leave the public “hanging.” Lead the public to completeness and understanding.

• Twitter’s character limits and immediacy are not excuses for inaccuracy and unfairness.

•Remember that social media postings live on as online archives. Correct and clarify mistakes, whether they are factual mistakes or mistakes of omission.