The Washington Post Company and washingtonpost.com are continually engaged in product innovation -- using technology to redefine "news" as dynamic, conversational, contextual content which is networked with related content across the internet (especially the blogosphere, but also including their other properties, Slate and Newsweek), and linked with their other media properties -- now including their new radio station. By contrast, the NYTimes is focusing on production/distribution innovation of their existing product -- using technology to improve the timeliness, relevance to the customer, and revenues from their traditional product, tweaked for online capabilities such as video. As I explained in September:
The overall impression from [washingtonpost.com's] changes is that content is growing more dynamic -- no longer simply the electronic publication of a series of static stories, or photos or graphics. Each Post page becomes the center of, or portal to, a constantly changing network of relevant linky goodness.
The changes are also increasingly reflected in the approach reporters are taking to their respective "beats." Certainly, the "stories for publication" remain fixed by the size, form and flow that are dictated by the conventions of newsprint distribution. In that domain, the Post competes with other news outlets in its attempts to tell news stories better and, in its particular government-related specialties, with greater coverage. But the news stories are being enriched with complementary content by those same reporters, who are bringing more than simply extra information.
[...]
If the printed news story is history's first draft, a permanent record however partial of "what happened," the new types of complementary content implicitly acknowledge the limits of that permanent printed record. The stories are shown to have added layers. The complementary content also celebrates the fact that the stories are constantly evolving -- evolving not simply in the sense that tomorrow's events will overtake today's or that we will have more information about those events in the future, but that their context and meaning are always in the process of morphing as they become part of broader conversations.
Washingtonpost.com has now introduced another example of precisely the sort of product innovation I described, called PostGlobal. It's potentially very good news for those of us who focus on US foreign relations.
David Ignatius (WashPost) and Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek and his TV show, Foreign Exchange) will host roundtables on various timely issues. The responses will come from their stable of about thirty editors and journalists from around the world, their "PostGlobalBloggers." Readers have a thread for their own comments. And Ignatius and Zakaria will provide some sidebar notes and roundups in their "Editor's Inbox" blog. Here's how the site describes what they're trying to do:
PostGlobal is an experiment in global, collaborative journalism, a running discussion of important issues among dozens of the world's best-known editors and writers. It aims to create a truly global dialogue, drawing on independent journalists in the countries where news is happening -- from China to Iran, from South Africa to Saudi Arabia, from Mexico to India.
At least twice a week, we'll post a question then solicit responses from members of our diverse network of experts, whose combined views, we believe, will reflect what the world thinks about important issues more quickly and completely than would those of any single commentator. We will also post comments on the question from readers around the world, highlighting the most interesting.
As news breaks, PostGlobal will ask leading journalists to offer quick insights in our "Editor's Inbox" area. Look here for assessments of the latest stories and for links to useful resources for making sense of what's happening. We're also talking with potential partners about additional features that will allow PostGlobal to pull together and analyze information from around the world.
The first question, posted on Wednesday, was "If Iran becomes the dominant regional power in the Middle East, the region will be safer and more stable. True or false?" The True/False framing isn't all that interesting -- not surprisingly, it produced more "false" than "true" responses from the journalists. Far more interesting were the varied perspectives about the dynamics of the Middle East from journalists from around the world -- including Japan, India, Mexico. They had distinctive views on the prospects for Iran becoming "the dominant regional power," and just what that might mean. Good exercise in revisiting unstated assumptions that underpin a lot of what passes for debate in the US.
The readers' comments were also interesting and, as Ignatius noted in his roundup post today, "in many cases adding a dimension you would not find sitting around a discussion table in Washington." Readers who don't parrot the conventional wisdom of Washington foreign policy elites -- who woulda thunk?
As a further example of the potential for enriching content and conversation, Ignatius' first "editor's inbox" post broadened the discussion by asking "what would Kissinger do"? -- and linked to two documents detailing Henry Kissinger's secret diplomacy with China, which have just been released by The National Security Archive. A lovely reminder of just what a piece of work was Henry the K. And just how far the Bush Admin has moved away from anything resembling strategic thinking and effective diplomacy, even after its supposed return under Rice.
Today's question is: "Should the U.S. and other countries send representatives to the G-8 counter-summit?" (being held by some Russian "liberal dissidents" such as Gary Kasparov at the same time as the G-8 summit in St Petersburg in July). Wonder of wonders, Masha Lipman actually provides a thoughtful response with considerable context for understanding the issue. Wish she'd bring the same nuance to the stuff she produces for Fred Hiatt and the WashPost op-ed pages! That suggests that this more conversational format -- with Ignatius and Zakaria as sponsors -- may actually be as liberating for the opinion-peddlars as for readers and commenters.
One of the reasons why the Post's "global view" experiment may work is that, rare for American pundits, Ignatius and Zakaria both can put themselves in the shoes of non-Americans when looking at US policy and actions. Admittedly, neither has positioned himself as a contrarian, but rather as a mainstream observer whose insights don't fit neatly within the conventional wisdom. I fault both of them for timidity -- for sometimes not extending the logic of their observations to more forcefully challenge US policy. But it's refreshing that they aren't simply a part of the echo chamber on either side of the US political debates. And here's hoping that the voices they assemble will expand the views available to those debates.
So back to the difference in business models between the WashPost and the NYTimes, and what that may mean for redefining the relation between traditional print and online media. Here's my speculation from nine months ago.
I expect the difference in the two approaches will in the long run have an impact on the content of the two newspapers and ultimately their philosophy of what it means to be a news organization. The NYT proposes to continue to "deliver" its "product." The Post, by contrast, is becoming a portal to a dynamic network of content, only a portion of which is home-grown. But by placing its own content at the heart of the portal and letting its home-grown content interact both with other Post-produced content and with content produced by others, the Post is pursuing a far different model than a classic portal, which aggregates content produced by others. In the process of distributing that home-grown content via the portal, the Post's own way of producing content, and the content itself, will continually be changed or enriched by the interaction with other content and content producers. Maybe, if Eric Nelson is right, the process may even produce added insight from Post reporters on their blogs, or from the commenters or trackbackers or Technorati-linkers, even if they're not named Friedman, Dowd, Brooks, Tierney, Kristoff or Krugman.
Very, very different bets. The NYT's business model is easier to discern than the Post Company's business model -- which clearly incorporates not just the Post but its other media properties. But then again, the NYT's model is easier to understand because it's basically defensive -- do better, whether in terms of quality vis a vis competitors, advertising revenues or satisfying their existing customer base, with their current newspaper business. The Post is, bit by bit, devising a new type of multi-media news business.
The new Ignatius/Zakaria joint venture appears to fit squarely within that prediction. I wish it great success!
P.S. -- While we're on the topic of media, the Huffington Post (NOT my favorite site) has a new section/portal that's devoted to the media, Eat the Press. It's an aggregator, blog and linkroll that's a bit of cross in style/content between Romenesko, Media Matters, CJR Daily, Jeff Jarvis and the Guardian's media section. If you like tracking the nexus of media as a business, politics, and tech, it looks promising.
[cross-posted at american footprints]
The first afoe European weblog awards