The Canary Proves Online Journalism Pays (If You Give Your Readers What They Want)

/0 Comments/in /by

The left leaning news website set up a just over 12 months ago on an initial investment of just £500 is proving that online journalism can pay if you give you readers what they want.

The Canary turned over £250,000 in its first year of operation, has grown to become a top 100 UK news site and now employs an editorial team of 25 (mainly) part-time workers.

The site is funded, like many other online publications, through a combination of advertising, sponsorship and subscriptions.

Unlike many other publications, The Canary doesn’t feel it needs to offer readers any other incentive to support the title other than their content.

The Canary’s editor-in-chief Kerry-Anne Mendoza told journalists (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/the-canary-from-500-start-up-to-top-100-uk-news-website-in-the-space-of-a-year/): “Paying subscribers for this whole first year don’t get anything. They don’t get a mug, they don’t get a t-shirt, they don’t even get an email from us saying welcome.

“They are paying for content that they could get for free purely because they want our writers to earn more money.”

Highlighting the success of the operation Mendoza said: “What people seem to like us for is breaking open legislation that’s coming through and actually explaining it in a way people understand and can see what the risks are and then take action.”

The Canary operates a unique business model which it explains on its website:

  • First, we pay tax. We are based in the UK and are happy to contribute our share to develop a wonderful country, not without its problems of course.
  • Then we pay costs which we keep below 5% of our gross revenue.
  • What is left is our net profit. We split this simply:
    • 50% to our writers
    • 10% to our section editors
    • 20% to our leadership team
    • 20% goes back into the company for marketing and new projects

Each writer and editor is paid in two ways. Firstly, each article receives a flat rate equal payment from our monthly income from supporters. So with each new supporter the pay per article goes up every month. Secondly, each article receives a top-up payment based directly on the percentage of web traffic, and therefore advertising income, that articles generate during a given calendar month. It’s as simple as that.

While The Canary’s politics might not be everyone’s cup of tea (including many left-wing supporters), their approach to business should be of interest to any writer or publisher that wants to invest in the future of journalism.

Robot reporters and mobile newsrooms – the future of journalism is now

/0 Comments/in , /by

There is little doubt that journalism, as a career, is undergoing more than a little disruption at the hands of technology. The recent news that Press Association are about to start employing robot reporters will do little to elevate fears of job security in newsrooms up and down the country.

Speaking at the Society of Editors conference in Carlisle, Pete Cliffton, PA’s editor-in-chief, said: “This won’t be replacing any of our fantastic journalists, it will be more a case of offering an extra level when it comes to short market reports, election results and football reporting.”

He continued: “Will it take over from proper journalists? Of course it won’t. We won’t have a robot going to a big fire or covering a crown court case.”

Addresses the question of accuracy and potential to be spoofed by pranksters, Cliffton said: “We will be taking very small steps in this area.”

He also suggested that trials in Denmark showed that robot reporters were more accurate than a human trying to write too many short stories on their own.

In other technology-related news from the conference, BBC Academy trainer, Marc Settle, spoke about how smart phone technology was changing the media’s expectations of what a journalist should now be capable of delivering.

Settle said: “When you have got a smartphone in your pocket it is remiss of your employees and you as editors not to know how to take advantage of it and use it to its full capacity.”

Settle suggested that a journalist equipped with the right apps and a small pack of accessories (an external microphone, a light and a small tripod) could transform the way audio and video news coverage is covered.

However, not all attendees at the conference were so welcoming the technological change.

Catherine Houlihan, managing editor of ITV Border, would prefer to exercise a little restraint and said: “We embrace it but I think it’s keeping everything in proportion.”

She continued: “It will be foolhardy to ignore how technology is changing and how that’s changing how we provide news and services but equally we should take comfort in what we do best, which is making regional television and enhancing that with an online edge.”

Does Brexit mean new avenues for lobbying?

/0 Comments/in /by

Despite very little discussion during the referendum of how a pro Brexit vote would actually be translated into Britain leaving the EU, since the outcome of the vote this controversial topic has built considerable momentum, shifting further into the public eye and rising up the government’s agenda. Last week we saw this topic take centre stage when investment banker Gina Miller took legal action against the government in high court, something which could have far broader implications in terms of non-traditional lobbying processes.

Miller made the case in that the Government does not possess the legal authority to wield royal prerogative to enact Brexit without parliamentary approval. The central element of her argument rests on the fact that, legally speaking, ministers cannot use prerogative powers to remove rights established through an act of parliament. The Government enacting Article 50 would violate this and therefore she argues they must seek parliamentary approval.

While this particular news piece is interesting it opens avenues for perhaps a more engrossing debate around circumventing more traditional lobbying routes and using the courts as a means of enacting change within politics.

Recently we have seen the BMA and law organisation ClientEarth launch legal action against the Government with varying success. While the BMA failed in their attempt to block the junior doctors’ contract through the courts, ClientEarth had far more success and the High Court granted their request to pursue a Judicial Review against DEFRA as a result of their inadequate plans to tackle air pollution.

This hearing will take place this week. Regardless of the outcome, ClientEarth has made great strides in bringing public attention to this issue, as well as evoking some fierce media criticism towards the lack on action from the Government.