NewsTilt Offers New Approach to Online Journalism

I think the important thing here is that someone is trying to montenize content.

Michael:
I liken writing to batting in baseball.

I agree with your analogy. But here's an interesting thought. You still like to watch the man at bat, even if he might strike out. But if the player doesn't have some kind of team, how are you going to watch him play?

NewsTilt may be trying to make another news team, and they're hoping you'll come back to see them at bat.

Plus, how many other news teams let you talk directly to the reporter after he struck out? Not many...

mnt.code:

I think it will be about NewsTilt's own brand.

That's what I thought too, but Biggar insisted that they wanted to push the reporter's brand before their own. I feel that they need to do both, and maybe push all the brand names in order to succeed.

That way, they can fill the news source gap left by failing national or international papers.

But straight from the founder's mouth, he wants it to be about the journalists, not about NewsTilt.

I see it a little more of a three-way conversation. If what they say is true, they want to see the users of NewsTilt start discussions with the journalist about what they write, and engage directly.

But the plus is that this way, the journalist can go out and monetize as well. But you've got an organizaton behind you helping you, unlike a citizen journalist or blogger, who's basically fending for himself.

It does sound "New" but it's a little more of a new spin on some old tricks. Plus they don't pay to print like the newspapers do.

I don't think anyone has brought this up, but doesn't this NewsTilt site mark more of a two-way relationship between journalists and publishers than has existed in newspapers?  The site gathers up ad revenue, and the ability to syndicate the works of journalists it brings into the fold, but journalists in turn have power to syndicate on their own as well?

Not being in the media industry, I'm not even sure that it's all that new.  It *sounds* new.  As I understand it, the journalist was (more or less) tied to the paper, and the paper was the one who distributed (or didn't) the work that was produced.  A journalist might get syndicated, but that, too, was through the paper for which the journalist worked.

With some freelance exceptions.

That doesn't mean this will work, but I *do* think it's a great attempt at bringing journalism into the 21st century, and more in tune with the Internet "way of doing business."  This one looks to be worth watching.

Mary - I think it will be about NewsTilts own brand. Once you find a journalist you like like on the site, you may be more willing to read other articles there. As for the money-making side, who knows.

I'm with Mary on this one... and not because I am a professional journalist.

I have always had an issue with revenue-sharing sites. For example, some major brands structure their blog payments based on the number of hits a particular story has. This is flawed for two reasons:

1) Web traffic does not always equal conversion of ad spend to product buy.

2) The creative process is not a grist mill. I liken writing to batting in baseball. Every time you come to the plate, you have the opportunity to hit a home run. But even the best batter will strike out or hit into an out two out of three times. Repeat: two out of every three things you swing at will end in your sitting on the bench holding your head in your hands, crying like a baby on the inside, and asking what could be done to improve on this next time.

So to say that NewsTilt could help some unknown, thoughtful writers get more recognition is all well and good. But the majority won't be able to fully monetize the system.

Besides, good writing is like cream. The best stuff always floats to the top.

"Innovative, but I'm skeptical about its real contribution to journalism."

This is a way for journalists to survive in this digital world, not an attempt to contribute something new to journalism, I guess.

Thanks for the report, Matthew.

Dr. Lacy is right -- that journalism has forever had some brands.. John McCutcheon was a huge brand with the Chicago Tribune a hundred years ago. But the news media like to control who in the stable gets to be a brand and, of course, it is best if the brand is the name of the company.

But times have changed. And in a world of content farms and reverse auctions, it does not pay to be a generalist. Being a brand can get you better work and the brands travel with the journalist.

NewsTilt is an interstng mashup of community and individual brands and of sharing content. costs and compensation. I'll be watching to see how it grows.

I'm not sure about this model for a number of reasons. I find it kind of like vanity publishing on the journalistic level. The main benefit seems to be aggregating blogs that otherwise you'd have to click around to get on individual sites.

And of course, the benefit to the writers and the platform provider is there.

Innovative, but I'm skeptical about its real contribution to journalism.

Hey Matthew I think this is both a noble and novel experiment in online journalism that disserves some recognition, thanks for bringing it to our IE reader’s attention.

I think NewsTilt is doing a commendable job by providing a platform to seasonsed journalists, and a launching pad for young journalists from around the globe, to interact with their readers.This model i think will encourage self censorship and responsible reporting without creating sensationalism and promoting yellow journalism.

I believe this model will clearly demarcate where journalism begins and blogging ends(or vice versa)