Another newspaper post (with bad statistics!)
I thought this would make a good follow-up to my last newspaper post.
An interesting entry on the Nieman Jornalism Lab blog suggests that online newspaper readership is less significant than most people assume. Martin Langveld runs some back-of-the-envelope numbers to suggest that only 3% of reading occurs online.
Color me skeptical. First, I question some of his assumptions. He uses data suggesting that there are 116.8 million readers Monday-Saturday, and 134.1 million on Sunday. This assumes 2.1 readers per paper on weekdays, and almost 2.5 readers per paper on Sunday. I don’t know if I buy it. I’d like to know if that figure includes only home subscribers, or if it includes higher-volume subscribers like universities and hotels. I expect the number of readers/paper is lower in these settings, but that’s just my gut feeling.
Even if we accept these figures, Langveld makes an “educated guess” that each reader views 24 pages per day, which seems quite high. As far as I can tell, he has no basis for this guess. He also assumes that readers spend an average of 25 minutes with their papers Monday-Saturday, and 35 minutes on Sunday. Again, I’m guessing this figure is too high.
He goes on to argue that online advertising is overvalued, and that it’s not surprising that online revenue is less than 10% of total newspaper revenue.
His post was prompted by another writer who suggested that online metrics overstate the number of internet readers. This is probably true. A precursory glance at page views and unique visitors would likely indicate an inaccurately high rate of online readership. That doesn’t make Langveld’s statistics any more believable, however. When pressed, he states that halving the number of pages read or the amount of time spent would give online readership 7% of the page views, and 6% of the total viewing time. Langveld seems to assume this is an insignificant difference, but I disagree.
Surprisingly, I agree with one of his final points:
The fact remains, of course, that not only is online revenue alone insufficient to sustain news operations, but the print operations of our larger newspapers, having lost most monopoly pricing power, are not sustainable either, recession or no recession.
Neither online ad revenue nor print circulation will cover the cost of a traditional newsroom. As newspapers cut back on the “expensive” reporting in favor of cheaper content, I expect they’ll continue to lose readers. I don’t have data on the demographics of newspaper readers, but I’m certain that younger readers favor online content. I expect they’re more apt to use non-traditional news sources as well, rather than the big names in the newspaper business. It’s no surprise that the big picture is an ugly one for newspaper companies.
The question remains: How will journalism be funded in the 21st century? Maybe the traditional approach of ad revenue and subscriptions isn’t totally broken, but newsrooms would have to get a lot cheaper. Perhaps jettisoning the overhead of the print operations would help, but I don’t really know. I’m certainly no expert on the intricacies of the newspaper business. Anyone have any thoughts?
Bad news for the newspaper business (but don’t look so worried)
Newspapers are in serious trouble. This shouldn’t be a shocker to anyone, and the bad news just keeps coming. On Monday, March 16, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer announced that it was done publishing paper editions, shifting to internet-only content delievery. The New York Times covered the story here. In addition to shutting down the printing presses, the P-I news staff is being cut from 165 to 20. The site will consist of “mostly commentary, advice and links to other news sites, along with some original reporting.”
On March 23, the NYTimes reported that four newspapers in Michigan were ending daily publications. In Flint, Saginaw and Bay City, papers would be printed only three days per week. In Ann Arbor, publication will be cut to two days per week. The Ann Arbor News is laying off its entire staff of 272, and will re-form as two companies. One will release printed papers, while AnnArbor.com will provide web-based news. The site will provide “some original reporting, and an emphasis on reader input and community forums.” No word on how many people will be re-hired, but it will certainly be less than 272. (See the story here for more information.) The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press are cutting home delivery to three days per week. Newspapers in Philadelphia and Minneapolis have declared bankruptcy.
If you’re a newspaper junkie, this sounds pretty crappy, but one person’s crappy is another’s revolution. Clay Shirky has written a fantastic essay on the problems facing the newspaper business. He writes that the digital revolution parallels another revolution, brought on by the printing press.
The Bible was translated into local languages; was this an educational boon or the work of the devil? Erotic novels appeared, prompting the same set of questions. Copies of Aristotle and Galen circulated widely, but direct encounter with the relevant texts revealed that the two sources clashed, tarnishing faith in the Ancients. As novelty spread, old institutions seemed exhausted while new ones seemed untrustworthy; as a result, people almost literally didn’t know what to think. If you can’t trust Aristotle, who can you trust?
and:
That is what real revolutions are like. The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place.
That’s the real kicker. The newspaper business is broken, and we don’t have a replacement for it. Digital media has challenged every form of print, recorded or broadcast media, but newspapers are really getting the worst of it. At the very least, they’re getting it first. File-sharing has put serious pressure on the movie and music industries. Stop-gap measures like prosecution and digital sales aren’t really picking up the slack, but people still want recorded albums. They still want to watch movies. The physical medium and distribution method have changed, but the idea of an album or a movie has been (fairly) resilient. The same is true of books. The Amazon Kindle is making in-roads, but digital books haven’t really caught on. For most people, even the best e-readers don’t match the appeal of a “real” book.
Newspapers are a different story. Shirky says that the newspaper industry was fairly forward-thinking. They recognized the potential of computers and networks and attempted to plan for the future. The extent of the revolution wasn’t clear, however.
The curious thing about the various plans hatched in the ’90s is that they were, at base, all the same plan: “Here’s how we’re going to preserve the old forms of organization in a world of cheap perfect copies!” The details differed, but the core assumption behind all imagined outcomes (save the unthinkable one) was that the organizational form of the newspaper, as a general-purpose vehicle for publishing a variety of news and opinion, was basically sound, and only needed a digital facelift.
This isn’t panning out. Advertisements and circulation aren’t generating enough revenue to cover the costs of maintaining a newsroom and printing papers. And when a staff is cut from 165 to 20, it’s pretty clear that the end product won’t be the same. “Mostly commentary, advice and links to other news sites, along with some original reporting” is not a newspaper.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Shirky argues that journalism has become so entwined with the print media that we consider them one. But here’s the bottom line:
Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism.
This is an essential point to remember. We’ve come to think of the newspaper as a social institution. The newspaper isn’t the institution; the news is. We’re going through a chaotic time. New outlets are springing up, old outlets are appearing less relevant or less sustainable, and it’s impossible to predict how things will settle out. I’ll attempt one impossible prediction, however. The newspaper (as we know it) isn’t long for this world, and that’s not a bad thing.
As the venerable old mediums struggle, technology has drastically lowered the cost of media production, creating millions of new competitors. Again, this is an old story. Between YouTube videos, self-produced music, self-published books, blogs, podcasts, there is no shortage of diversions available to consumers. Did I mention it’s cheap? This blog is hosted for $5 per month, plus a few bucks to register the domain. I might not be as trustworthy as the New York Times, but I am certain that a new order will emerge. People still need journalism, and someone will provide it. There may just be a few (million) more contributors.
I don’t have any answers. As Shirkey says, this stuff is brand-new. Nobody can predict how this will shake out. People are quick to point out how technology threatens social institions. I don’t buy it. Art, music, literature, journalism…these things are institions, and they aren’t in any danger. The medium almost certainly will change, but the the medium is secondary to the true purpose. Just relax, and remember that you’re living in a revolution. It’s bound to be unnerving.
A surprising source of collective intelligence
I’m a bit late in writing about this, but it’s too cool to pass up. Last week, Google launched a new service, Google Flu Trends, that really demonstrates the power of new sources of information in the digital age. Flu Trends attempts to warn users of regional outbreaks of the flu. This enables hospitals, medical practitioners, and individuals to prepare. It’s not exactly a new idea. The C.D.C. publishes reports on outbreaks of influenza, based on data compiled from heath care providers. Another web service, whoissick.org, combines user-reported illnesses with Google maps to show you the various bugs circulating in your area. But Google Flu Trends may identify outbreaks more quickly because of the unique data source that it uses.
A Google team noticed that certain search terms, like “flu symptoms”, are much more common during flu season. Only logical, right? Google employees created a list of these types of searches, and compared the date/location of past searches with C.D.C. data on influenza trends. It turns out that the number of people with the flu and the number of these types of searches are closely related. This means that analyzing the numbers of influenza-related searches on Google should provide an estimate of the number of flu cases. By looking at IP addresses, specific regions can be isolated. This is a very nifty sort of collective intelligence based on data that is simply a by-product of Google’s primary function.
The sheer number of Google searches makes them an excellent source of collective intelligence. Nielson Online estimated that 4.8 billion searches were made using Google in September 2008 in the US alone. That’s roughly 160 million U.S. searches per day. In addition to the volume of data, search engine results are fascinating sources of information because of their timeliness. As the New York Times wrote:
[...] the data collected by search engines is particularly powerful, because the keywords and phrases that people type into them represent their most immediate intentions. People may search for “Kauai hotel” when they are planning a vacation and for “foreclosure” when they have trouble with their mortgage. Those queries express the world’s collective desires and needs, its wants and likes.
To me, this is a cool usage of data that most people don’t even realize they are generating. However, the implications for privacy are a little bit frightening. If you don’t believe me (and you have a Google account), check your web history. Google saves every search you make, along with any web pages you visit from the search results. A year’s worth of search data can create a surprisingly complete picture of a person’s life. Imagine having access to that data for every single user. I don’t want to be pessimistic about this. For the most part, I think the possibility of exciting and useful projects like Flu Trends greatly outweighs the potential hazards of this data. What do you think?
You can read the New York Times report on Google Flu Trends here. The official Google Blogs also covered it here. Statistics on the number of U.S. Google searches were pulled from the Nielson Online news release available here.
Sometimes Korea is a little strange.
It’s been a while since I’ve posted. I don’t have any excuse, except that not much has happened. Teaching is pretty much the same, the economy still sucks, life marches on.
Last week, however, the Korea Herald reported on two Constitutional Court cases that were too interesting to pass up. A little background might be helpful.
The Constitutional Court is a specialized court that deals primarily with constitutional review. It also handles impeachments, party dissolution and some other odds and ends. Like the US Supreme Court, its decisions cannot be appealed. Judges are appointed differently, however. Three are appointed directly by the President, three are selected from candidates that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court nominates, and three are appointed by the National Assembly (the legislature). It’s an interesting system.
Case 1: A victory for blind masseurs!
In Korea, only the blind can become certified massage therapists. You read that correctly. An entire profession is reserved for the blind. This is Korean law.
This is a fairly contentious issue among the parties involved. In the past, this was a government directive, rather than a law. In 2003, the Constitutional Court upheld the restriction, but a 2006 court declared the directive discriminatory. This upset the blind massage therapists, who protested until the National Assembly passed a law restricting certification to the blind.
In September 2008, a group of sighted therapists appealed this law to the Constitutional Court. The Court upheld the law, and issued the following statement:
It is true that the corresponding clauses restrict the freedom of choosing a career for the non-blind. [...] This restriction, however, is an inevitable one, necessary to secure a minimum level of social support for the blind who have few other career options than massage therapist. It, therefore, does not violate the petitioners’ constitutional freedom on careers and equality.
An interesting footnote to this story is the method of protest that both sides have used. They gather on bridges, and threaten to jump off. Sadly, some of them have followed through. I don’t know why they jump off bridges. It seems like there would be a dozen other ways to protest, but bridge-jumping seems to be the chosen form of civil disobedience.
The New York Times published a good story on this back in September (here’s the link). I can’t link directly to the current Korea Herald story, because of their crummy web page.
I don’t even know what to say about this one. It just seems weird to me. The original policy goes back to the years of Japanese colonization, but I don’t know the reasoning behind it. If it’s a modesty thing, it seems archaic. As a social welfare system, it just seems odd. I guess it guarantees at least one career for the blind, but there there are hundreds of thousands of illegal sighted therapists because of it. I welcome your comments on this one.
Case 2: A setback for adulterers.
Adultery is a criminal offense in Korea, punishable by up to two years in prison. This actually isn’t that uncommon; adultery is still illegal in many US states. Hell, in Michigan, it could get you life in prison. I don’t think these laws generally get prosecuted, however. In Korea, they aren’t often prosecuted, but it still happens. The Korea Herald reported that 47 cases were prosecuted in 2007, down from 103 in 2005.
The Constitutional Court upheld this law, as it has done on three other occasions (1990, 1993, and 2001). Interestingly, 5 of the 9 judges ruled that it was unconstitutional, but it requires six votes to overturn a law.
In its ruling, the Court stated that “[t]he law is intended to safeguard marriage, which is the bedrock of family life. Adultery, thus, cannot be a purely ethical or moral issue which the law cannot meddle in.”
Socially, Korea is pretty conservative, so this isn’t really a surprise. In my opinion, no matter what the Court said, this is clearly an ethical/moral issue. Laws governing such things always disappoint me. I suppose my title is incorrect, as this really isn’t strange. Especially after three more US states passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriages. In Korea and the US, social conservatives continue to fight for a government small enough to fit in your bedroom.
Thoughts on the Korean educational system
After a few weeks of teaching here, I’ve noticed some interesting things about the school and the educational system. My experience is limited to one middle school in a rural province, but these observations seem to hold true in other places, according to other teachers.
Korean students work hard.
Our kids are in school by 8:30am. Most of them have classes until 4:30pm. After school, they go home for dinner. Most of them spend the evenings at private academies, learning English, math, science, or music. If you’re on the streets between 9pm and 11pm, there are kids everywhere returning home, still in their school uniforms. They live and breathe school.
This is less than ideal, in my opinion. Erin’s co-teacher has kids, and says that they have no time to learn anything but school. They can’t cook, they don’t work part-time jobs, and they hardly see their family during the week. Hell, a lot of the kids are at academies during the weekend, too. I might be seeing things from an overly American perspective, but in my opinion, it’s hard to call that a childhood.
On the positive side, they take school seriously. Middle school boys are a handful no matter where they’re from, but I can’t help thinking that these kids get a lot more out of school than I ever did.
Grades/test scores matter, and they matter young.
In Korea, high schools are competitive. You don’t simply go to the school in your district. To be admitted to a well-ranked high school, you need good grades and test scores. I think they typically take an entrance examination as well. This means that young kids are seriously worried about their grades. The kids at my school are 14, 15, and 16 years old. (In Western ages, they would be 13, 14, and 15.) Even the 13-year-old kids take midterms that can determine their future. Poor grades in middle school, and you end up at a vocational school. It keeps them focused, but I imagine it’s rough on the late-bloomers.
Rote memorization is still the norm.
This is something that everyone says about Korean education. It’s important to note that I haven’t seen many classes, and this is a pretty broad generalization. However, I think it’s often true, especially with older teachers. Our co-teachers often stress group call-and-repeat exercises, rather than individual efforts. The kids have memorized responses to typical phrases, but often don’t understand them. It’s interesting to see.
As I said, this is often considered a common attribute of Korean education. In my opinion, this is overstated. I certainly can’t say that US middle school and high school stresses critical thinking. Even at university, it was often clear that students learned to fill in the blanks, rather than think. But overstated or not, education here is often a rote processes. I think this is due in part to the emphasis on good test scores. These kids test amazingly well, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate real learning.
Corporal punishment is still common.
Yes, some of the teachers hit the kids. I’d even say that a lot of teachers hit the kids. This one is changing quickly. I’ve heard that it’s illegal in Korea now. I’ve even heard that in the bigger cities, it’s not tolerated. Parents will complain or sue. In Gangneung, especially with older teachers, it happens. Usually it’s a token sort of punishment, a quick rap to get their attention. Sometimes it’s a bit more. I’ve seen a few teachers really smack the kids hard.
I have mixed feelings. I’m sure the educational purists are dead set against it. I’m sure there are other disciplinary measures that work as well or better. But here, it seems to be part of the culture. The kids obviously don’t like it, but they don’t seem traumatized. It seems to be commonly understood that it might happen if you really screw up. After it happens, they’re generally very well-behaved, and even good-natured about it. They don’t seem to hold it against the teacher at all.
As I said, it’s changing rapidly. The younger teachers don’t do it, and the kids know that it isn’t really accepted. If I had to venture a prediction, I’d say that this will completely disappear in the next 10 years.
Things really aren’t that different.
All-in-all, I’ve been more impressed by the similarities than the differences. Boys are boys, no matter where you go, and teachers seem to have a similar outlook. There’s the same sense of community (maybe commiseration) in the teacher’s lounge. Just like teachers back home, there’s always food being shared.
The more places I go, the more they all look the same.
A Victory for the Uighurs, and for US Policy
More than a year ago I wrote about a group of Uighurs (a Chinese ethinic group), that were being held at Guantanamo Bay. The US had released some of them, but they had no place to go. They would be persecuted in China, and few countries would grant them residency. The US sent 5 of them to Albania, but had been unable to find countries willing to accept the other 17.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported on a new ruling the the case. (Story here) Judge Ricardo M. Urbana annouced that the men would be released into the care of supporters living in the US. In my opinion, this is great news for people that have spent years in unjust captivity, and a serious blow to the misguided policies of the Bush administration.
One unresolved problem is that the Uighurs have no legal status in the US. Potentially, they could be picked up by US immigration. Judge Urbana said that no member of the US government should molest the freed men, but they have no real protection beyond the order of a federal district judge.
The White House Press Secretary stated that the administration “disagrees with” the decision, as it could be used as a precedent to free other detainees. We can only hope.
Robotic Monkey Arms
Man I love the title of this post. A couple days ago, the journal Nature published a report about monkeys that have learned to control a robotic arm with their thoughts, via a sensor implanted in their brains. Let me write that again. The monkeys can control robots with their brains. This is seriously cool stuff.
This is not entirely groundbreaking. Scientists have been working with this stuff for a while, and have been able to use brain waves to control simple things, like a cursor on a screen. I could be mistaken, but I think some of the technology started with the Air Force, which was researching thought-controlled computers for aircraft.
It sounds like this experiment was a serious step forward, however. You can read the NY Times article here, but I’ll summarize things quickly. The monkeys first learned to control the mechanical arm with a joystick, to get a feel for its movements. Then a chip was implanted on their their motor cortices , a portion of the brain that controls hand and arm movements. At first, the scientists used the computer to help the monkeys move the arm, but after a couple days, the animals could do it themselves.
Here’s a mental image: The monkey sits with its arms restrained. Using its thoughts, it causes the mechanical arm to reach out and grab food, which it moves to its mouth and eats. The researchers said that the animals even learned to adjust movements to compensate for sticky food.
This has obvious implications for prosthetics, but the long-term implications are so much bigger. Nearly everything humans do depends on our body’s ability to manipulate the world around us. Brain-technology interfaces could change the way we use computers, the way we drive, the way we work. More abstractly, they will change what it means to be human.
My friends will tell you that this is one of my favorite topics of discussion. After a few beers, I just won’t shut up about this stuff. The story of humanity is really the story of technology. From the club to the iPhone, we better ourselves by bettering our technology. A kid with a computer has access to information that people would have killed for only decades earlier.
Things are changing, however. Faster computers, nano- and bio-technology, brain-computer interfaces, better understanding of our our own biology…These things make new technology fundamentally different, in my opinion. We’re approaching a time when our technological potential outweighs our biological potential. When technology really makes us superhuman. Maybe this is the so-called Singularity…I don’t know. What I do know is that the future will bring closer integration between technology and our bodies and minds.
Sign me up for robotic monkey arms of my very own.
The Anthropocene Epoch
I heard an interesting interview on NPR while driving home today. Some scientists are arguing that we are entering a new geological epoch, characterized by human impact on the planet. The proposed name is the Anthropocene Epoch. The last 12,000 years have been classified as the Holocene Epoch.
The scientists interviewed gave some examples of how human actions were recorded geologically. With the widespread cultivation of arable lands, fossil records will show the shift from grasslands and forests to farm fields. Rising ocean temperature and acidity may threaten coral activity, which would also be noticeable in fossil records. Development has drastically changed the ways in which sediments are moved and deposited.
I’m not really writing this with any strong opinion, though some of the changes are clearly problematic. It’s just strange to think that the actions of our species will be recorded in the very geology of our planet. We’ve come a long way (for mostly-hairless monkeys).
Check the interview here.
College Rankings
Time published this story about the college ranking system. Apparently a substantial group of liberal arts colleges (124 schools), will not be participating in the classic U.S. News and World Report rankings, because of concerns about how those rankings are decided.
I didn’t know this, but 25% of a school’s ranking under the U.S. News system is based on a survey of school reputation, filled out by college administrators and presidents. That seems like a poor way to rank schools. Reputation doesn’t necessarily equate to performance, and given the fierce loyalty that some people have to a school (and the equally fierce dislike for rival schools), I have a hard time believing that survey data.
It’s interesting, because the U.S. News rankings are well-known and widely-cited. MSU tells everyone who will listen that we have the highest-rated education program in whatever, and so on. The more people who believe it, the more the reputation persists. [A note to MSU fans -- this is not intended to be a disparaging remark in any way]
I’m guess I’m just not sold on college rankings. It seems like you can get a decent education most places, if you care enough to try. If you’re devoted to half-assing your way through, you can probably do that anywhere.
