U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 23, 2009 09:44 AM UTC
18 Comments
It was worth a try and I’m sorry to see them pull the plug so early.
The biggest problem, as I see it, will be that “news” will become dominated by partisans in a way that is only now starting to rear its head. People may say they can wade through the propaganda to get to the truth, whatever that may be, but most won’t want to.
And many more sites will be “reporting” based solely on speculation or anonymous sources (which I admit the MSM does, but not to the degree you see it online).
I think it was Garrison Keillor who said people don’t want an unbiased press; they want it biased in their direction.
Love or hate the MSM, it usually made an effort to track down sources and be fair. That keeps a level of civility that’s getting lost, which means substantive cooperation between the different sides on issues will be discouraged.
Our country was founded having a press so biased that they would have viewed FOX as fair and balanced. Yet they managed to pull off one of the greatest political accomplishments in the history of the human race.
What we end up with will be different. And it will have negatives. But I think it will become a system that works well.
It’s hard to disagree there.
The number 30 was probably considered the minimum needed to provide a credible journalistic work product. Obviously, as David implied, that was a legacy of their RMN “old-think”.
It’s always tough to be the first to try a new model. Apparently, the 50k online subscribers at $5/month in a down enconomy in a market that expects free content isn’t meant to be. And I would guess they didn’t get anywhere near that number (sorry, I don’t have 49,999 friends), as the backers didn’t even give a hint of a second chance.
If they do find “other sources”, I think it would be more likely from an advocacy organization. But there aren’t many of those sitting on a pile of cash, either.
Wonder if the Independence Institute needs a vanity rag for Caldera?
I am disappointed that Ed Stein won’t get a chance to come back in general print.
which isn’t bad for something people are used to getting for free, but falls way short when you say you need 50,000 to get off the ground.
Isn’t the Independence Institute itself a vanity rag for Caldera? I thought they already had a Web site, radio program and the occasional newspaper that picks up his press release, er, column.
That’s even worse than I would have guessed.
Until someone comes up with a compelling reason to pay something for news (cripes, even iTunes gets 99 cents per downloaded song!), I guess we’ll just have to endure the slow, painful death of the MSM, at the risk of having only lower quality substitutes to read.
Maybe Google will come up with a way of analyzing content to get a bias and accuracy rating.
Gee, I’d love to see all our numbers — you could filter out anything below a certain accuracy rating, or limit content in either one bias direction or the other — sorry, Tadpole, you probably wouldn’t make the cut with either measure 😉
Look at TV, it’s doing quite well by giving it away for free. And you do have premium channels from Comedy Central to HBO but those came after the free part. And not just free news, but free news that’s profitable.
News will remain free. The trick will be figuring out how to provide that profitably.
David, comparing the evolution of the cable menu 35 years ago with the media market today doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. But that pretty much was INDT’s model — give away the basics and charge for premium content.
Who knows whether there’s a market for it here, as there definitely is with a similar product in San Diego?
INDT’s “backers” were unwilling to sink any money into it and the Rocky staffers could afford to work for free through April because Scripps was still paying their salaries. So it’s not as though the site did any serious marketing or anyone had anything on the line.
It was the “if we build it, they will come” brand of entrepreneurism, and that only works for ballfields in cornfields.
I had an individual at one paper complaining about how a single person had to interview every major candidate and both sides of each ballot issue. How that was just way too much for 1 person.
I pointed out I did about half that on my own, in my spare time. It’s a very different mindset.
Respectfully, I disagree. I enjoy and appreciate your interviews with the state pols, but you do it on your schedule, not on a deadline, and (until the last post) without worrying about an editor looking over your shoulder ;-). Big difference.
And, you make my point re: charging for premium content. Free TV is a miniscule part of the market. Consumers have been more than willing to pay for crap and “Premium” crap for 30 years (me included).
Tim Berners-Lee and Linus Torvalds established the free internet model, so for better or worse, the cable subscription/content-provider royalty model didn’t take hold for the web.
It will take a tectonic shift to alter this model. Many people don’t like upfront charges, or being nickel-and-dimed to death. So the revenue to the providers will have to be indirectly collected.
There are a few current models that could be attempted, but more likely, we won’t see the successful one coming until after it is already here.
You’re absolutely right that I could do it on my schedule (or actually on a mutually workable time). Although I think candidates go to the papers while I was driving down to Denver weekly for awhile just for the interviews. So my time hit might have been more.
And yes, I have it easier in terms of what I write, how I do it, etc.
But still, I think the time I had to put in was within a factor of 2 and I did this on top of a job where I work 60+ hours/week.
I think there is a very big difference in something – process, efficiency, system, ??? – between a newspaper and a high tech company.
So I think what delivers news in the future will need to make use of the approach/systems/efficiencies/??? we have developed. In many ways news reporting has not evolved since 1900. The technology may be newer, but the underlying system for gathering and writing the news – not much change.
… each deserving of separate discussions:
The newsgathering process: labor-intensive, thus a good candidate for new, efficient methods. But any newsperson will tell you there is no substitute for personal contacts and lots of shoe leather.
Bias in the news: How bad is the problem? Is it getting better/worse/no difference — this is where we honestly disagree.
Funding: Rapidly running out of dead tree factories, and electrons want to be free!
If you can’t get more than a few thousand people to sign up for a measly $5 for ad-free news content (if in fact that was the plan), then do we start legislating the revenue model, as in the bad old days before we broke up AT&T in 1984?
But, we’re trying to avoid a monopoly, not create another one. Maybe a publicly funded news cartel (sort of a JOA on steroids, with separate editorial staffs)?
Periodicals and newspapers usually take many months and often years to build a track record of consistency and good service before paid subscriptions and advertising catch up. Subscribers want to know that their copy will arrive for the length of their subscription; advertisers want proven audiences.
This has to be delivered either via a graduate build up, or via venture capital funding of some sort.
For example, 5280’s core group of loyal subscribers and circulation numbers were so low that it almost died and bankrupted its founders with it, until it was saved by its popular Best Of and Lists components, and more than one year of fairly consistent quality.
You didn’t even get ad-free content by subscribing, all the regular content is free, you just get the ability to have ‘real time conversations’, I can see why that wasn’t a big seller.
the Denver Daily News — Denver’s free daily AP rag with a smattering a local content.
There are lots of potential business models, and nothing prevents people who want more news sources from trying until they find one that works.
* The commercial TV/radio/Denver Daily News ad financed, daily, low news content, high entertainment content, ad financed model.
* The Science News/Roll Call model with a weekly/biweekly paper copy; daily internet pre-print model with paid subscription for a niche audience supplemented by ads and foundation support model;
* The PBS/NPR donation and underwriting and grant and government funding mix model;
* The Economist/Newsweek/Time/Denver Business Journal/WSJ niche professional periodical with large ad and subscription;
* The 5280 monthly general audience periodical with a blog model;
* The proto-newspaper small circulation newsletter from correspondents by pure subscription model;
* The 19th century partisan newspaper/Colorado Independent/Huffington Post opinion and news from particular perspectives often with a strong small number of patrons model;
* The Wiki/Daily Kos open, mostly unpaid group blog with advertising model;
* The book publishing straight royalty with advances model and ads that track per story;
* The webcomic tip/extra merchandise model;
* The Lefty Blogs/Denver Public Library/Colorado Index Ad Free RSS feed model;
* The Literary Journal/New Republic premium content only, infrequent publication, primarily subscription paid model;
* The SCOTUS Blog Stanford SCOTUS Clinic era/Student Newspaper/Your Hub model as an annex to an academic program with supervisory paid staff and citizen journalist/journalist-in-training rank and file staff model;
* The law firm/accounting firm/PR firm/politician sponsored/product placement/utility company client/constitutent newsletter/loss leader model;
* The Craig’s List/Legal Notice oriented small circulation paper oriented classified ad model;
* The Daily Kos premium pay to not have ads model;
* The WSJ/Washington Post/old Science News/NYT/Detroit Free Press/Google Books mix of paid and free content model;
* The professional association journal/brokerage newsletter customer advocate bundle of benefits component model (partnering with some dues paying organization with wide membership like AARP or AAA);
* The syndication stable model with content sold wholesale to retail content delivery companies;
* The AP/UPI producer cooperative model;
* The professional firm pure equity active partner partnership model with ads/tips;
* The academic grant/polling firm/CPA/Urban Institute commissioned investigation on a case by case basis model supplemented with loss leadership to build reputation;
Big issues include:
* Local reporting or national/world reporting too;
* All subject matter in one publication or only some;
* Third party content or no third party content;
* Real time v. periodical;
* Ads v. Subscriber v. Small Donor v. Big Donor v. Grant funding;
* Career v. supplemental income v. free content;
* Revenue independent v. revenue impacted content;
* The mass publication v. limited circulation v. purely online;
* The subcontract model (serving as an outsourced multi-media TV newsroom, e.g.);
* The physical v. virtual newsroom;
The upside of Internet only, or primarily, is that it cuts the delivery, which trims the cost down to less than $14 million a year from the much greater total cost of putting out a large circulation daily.
If ad sales are straight commission, the newsroom is virtual, and contributing journalists are all paid on a freelance basis, fixed overhead can get pretty low, but that makes it hard for ex-newspaper reporting to make a living on.
Any model that works is going to have to find some way to engage in price discrimination (i.e. getting more from people willing to pay more a higher price to have the news source exist, and getting less from those not willing and able to pay much to simply have a news source exist, probably along the lines of an 80-20 rule with 20% of the funders providing 80% of the revenue, and 80% of the funders providingn 20% of the revenue).
for delivery to devices other than the web, like the kindle and iPhone. If you do a good job delivering for the specific form factors and price it low enough (like $1.99/mo) then people will pay for that.