A Brave New World of Micropayments?

First, a quick note about why it's been exactly one month since I've posted here. Basically, I've caught the blogging bug and it's taken me elsewhere for the time being. My new blog, called "The Feed," about people in the 18-to-35 demographic is up and running on the St. Louis Beacon Web site. But I'll try to keep up my posting here as well.

Now back to your regularly scheduled blog topic. Micropayments. Need I say more? Actually, probably yeah, because six months ago I wouldn't have known what that term meant for journalism -- and still many don't.

The basic idea is that the free model of online journalism isn't sustainable and that readers will come around to paying small amounts of money to read content, just as iPhone owners will happy fork out a tiny sum for new apps.

News Corp is reportedly planning to introduce such a payment plan for individual articles and premium subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal's Web site, according to Financial Times. Rupe Murdoch has done a nice 180-degree turn on the issue of charging for content. Readers historically have been open to paying for some financial news, perhaps because of the importance of getting the most up-to-date information about market trends. A new study shows that readers would be willing to pay for sports, as well.

As for the other traditional sections of the paper, well, the best advice would be this: Think of ways to add value to typical news packages. Is there supplimentary video? Can you direct readers to a landing page where similar stories around the Web are culled? Things like this that can convince an audience that publications aren't just putting up a paywall for nothing in return might be the best bet.

Covering an Historic Election

I'm recovering from what can only be described as a post-election hangover. This being the first presidential election I've covered in earnest (I had the much-dreaded man-on-the-street assignment in 2004), I was very excited to learn that I'd be appearing on St. Louis' PBS station, KETC, to talk about my reporting on youth voter turnout.

Throughout the day I checked in with the St. Louis City Board of Elections to see if the projected record turnout was coming to fruition (The jury's still out). I did do some interviewing of voters at the polls, including a trip to Washington University, where the Obama t-shirts and buttons outnumbered McCain apparel about 15-1.

The TV interview went well -- I'm far from an experienced pundit but I got my points across, even if I only got to use two of the many stats I'd memorized. Three minutes on TV goes really fast. My segment was part of an hourlong local broadcast of the election. There were no beamed-in reporters or magic touch screen monitors, but the program was well-conceived and executed.

I spent the rest of the evening at a party for a Republican Missouri state senator who was running for attorney general. It was a surreal scene. Fox News was on every TV set, and the crowd's mood soured little by little as it became apparent that Barack Obama was going to take the big prize.

Finally, at around 10:45, the state senator concedeed, and the place cleared out real quickly. I drove home equally as quickly, rewound the DVR to MSNBC and relived the later part of the evening. History was being made, and I didn't want my lasting memory to be from a party that resembled a funeral.

It's hard to fully appreciate the magnitude of the story I was able to cover this Election Day. Years from now, when I share the story with my children, maybe then it will hit me.

P.S. - Yes, I realize my hair looks kinda ridiculous in this photo. Too much hair gel + closeup profile shot = oh boy.

Waiting to Exhale

That collective sigh you're hearing on TV is coming from the pundits, anchors and reporters who are nearing the end of Campaign 07-08 (think it's really just been a one-year process?). The collective mood you're sensing from reading political blogs and last-minute MSM election coverage is one of, say, exausted elation.

Speaking of exausted... having covered pretty much every angle of the presidential race, journalists are down to talking about how they're ready for it all to be over. Understandable. Months and months on a bus with campaign aides will do that to you.

Funny thing, though, is they are probably the only ones in the industry who feel that way. It goes without saying that readership and ratings are way up when political races steal the headlines. News editors love it. And TV ad managers will be crying once political spots go off the air -- they've been propping up a struggling industry for months.

Programming note: I'll be blogging for the St. Louis Beacon all day tomorrow, and making a brief appearance on KETC, the St. Louis PBS station to talk about youth voting, which I wrote about for the Web site recently. More on covering the Big Day later in the week...

Debate Wrap

Spent most of VP debate night watching live tapings of "Hardball" (got a brief cameo on TV and the fiancee almost got interviewed by Chris Matthews), and blogging for the St. Louis Beacon on student reaction to Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

As I had predicted, the event ended up being more theater than news. It was odd hearing pundits more or less agree that the night was a push. No major flubs for Palin; a solid performance from Biden. C'mon, media elites, can't we find anyone to take a contrarian point of view?

Moderator Gwen Ifill put to rest any concern about her ability to be a fair referee -- 90 percent of undecided voters polled at the Washington U. law school said they thought Ifill was evenhanded in her questioning. That same group, for the record, found Palin to be likeable but not substantive. Biden got generally high marks.

It was noteworthy, too, that MSNBC was the only station to have a real presence on campus (or at least the part of campus where those without press passes could wander.) Hardball had several tapings from the quad; CNN and FOX were nowhere to be found. That's curious, given the build up to this debate.

In fact, I saw more of Matthews and John Oliver from The Daily Show than reporters from the major networks and newspapers combined. Guess that's a matter of those programs playing to their base.