Posts tagged Wall Street Journal

Pushy Notifications

AdAge reports that the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are using more push notifications on their mobile and tablet apps than they did in the past.

The move reflects a strategy to increase user engagement with the apps that while downloaded, sometimes sit dormant on people’s devices. Specifically, each newsroom is using notifications for breaking news.

Via AdAge:

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal — No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, in terms of U.S. digital circulation, according to the Alliance for Audited Media — are putting more emphasis on using mobile alerts to distribute breaking news stories and promote their mobile apps.

News publishers have long considered push notifications, which pop up on phone and tablet screens, too intrusive to use more than sparingly. In recent months, however, The Journal and Times have reconsidered that stance and started using them more often.

"We felt comfortable that our breaking news alerts have been well-received by readers and that we may have been a little too stringent about what alerts we should have been sending," said Jonathan Ellis, deputy editor of digital platforms at The Times, which has revised its guidelines on the subject. "More frequently, we’re asking ourselves the question ‘Should this be a mobile push alert?’"

FJP: The strategy is similar to one used by app developers and their frequent updates, no matter how small. It’s a reminder to the User that the app exists and hopefully prods him or her to use it again.

AdAge reports that those that opt in to push notifications are five times more likely to use an app but does take this warning from Brent Hieggelke, CMO at Urban Airship, “Push is not a channel to nag your customer. That’s a terrible experience.”

Information is an existential threat to these regimes.

James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert, to the Wall Street Journal. Chinese Hackers Hit U.S. Media.

Yesterday we noted that the hackers in China have infiltrated the New York Times’ computer systems.

Today, the Wall Street Journal reports that it — along with Reuters and Bloomberg among others — has also been hacked:

Chinese hackers for years have targeted major U.S. media companies with hacking that has penetrated inside newsgathering systems, several people familiar with the response to the cyberattacks said. Tapping reporters’ computers could allow Beijing to identify sources on articles and information about pending stories. Chinese authorities in the past have penalized Chinese nationals who have passed information to foreign reporters.

Journal sources on occasion have become hard to reach after information identifying them was included in emails. However, Western reporters in China long have assumed that authorities are monitoring their communications and act accordingly in sensitive cases…

…Among the targets were a handful of journalists in the Beijing bureau, including Jeremy Page, who wrote articles about the murder of British businessman Neil Heywood in a scandal that helped bring down Chinese politician Bo Xilai, people familiar with the matter said. Beijing Bureau Chief Andrew Browne also was a target, they said.

For its part, a spokesperson for the Chinese government rejects the allegation that it is behind the attacks.

UPDATE: Add the Washington Post to the list.

The Wall Street Journal’s Smart Phone Video Network
Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal launched WorldStream, a video feed of short, raw clips taken by its reporters with their smartphones.
Each video comes in under a minute and, as Poynter reports, the goal is to create a type of reporter “status update” of where they are and what they’re reporting on.
Audiences have shown that they like short form, raw video — especially if it’s of the breaking news variety — and WorldStream will create a large library of it. For quality control, only WSJ reporters submit to the site (unlike, say, CNN’s iReport) and even then editors vet the submissions.
While individual videos can be linked to, right now there doesn’t appear to be a way for third parties to embed them on their own sites.
A future, interesting move could be for in-house editors to start mixing and matching submitted videos to create larger packaged stories.
On the business side, video commands much larger ad dollars than display advertising against article content but I’m not sure how or where you’d integrate pre, post or overlay advertising on videos that run so short. Still, publications such as the WSJ sell out of their video inventory and here’s a relatively quick and easy way to expand their offerings while also providing audiences a more intimate look at a news story. — Michael
Image: Screenshot of WorldStream’s GOP2012 convention tag with Gov. Chris Christie’s appearance on stage before his speech. The video can be watched here.

The Wall Street Journal’s Smart Phone Video Network

Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal launched WorldStream, a video feed of short, raw clips taken by its reporters with their smartphones.

Each video comes in under a minute and, as Poynter reports, the goal is to create a type of reporter “status update” of where they are and what they’re reporting on.

Audiences have shown that they like short form, raw video — especially if it’s of the breaking news variety — and WorldStream will create a large library of it. For quality control, only WSJ reporters submit to the site (unlike, say, CNN’s iReport) and even then editors vet the submissions.

While individual videos can be linked to, right now there doesn’t appear to be a way for third parties to embed them on their own sites.

A future, interesting move could be for in-house editors to start mixing and matching submitted videos to create larger packaged stories.

On the business side, video commands much larger ad dollars than display advertising against article content but I’m not sure how or where you’d integrate pre, post or overlay advertising on videos that run so short. Still, publications such as the WSJ sell out of their video inventory and here’s a relatively quick and easy way to expand their offerings while also providing audiences a more intimate look at a news story. — Michael

Image: Screenshot of WorldStream’s GOP2012 convention tag with Gov. Chris Christie’s appearance on stage before his speech. The video can be watched here.

Murder in America
The Wall Street Journal takes FBI data from 2000 to 2010 to analyze the who, what, where, why, how and when murders take place across America.
All 165,068 in the decade analyzed.
The interactive they’ve created lets users sort and explore “why” a murder occurred (eg., Lover’s Triangle, Gang Killing and a large bucket of “Other”), who was killed and by whom (by race, sex and relationship), what weapon was used (eg., gun, knife, blunt object, etc.), when murders occurred (by year) and where they occurred (by state).
Needless to say, guns top the weapons category. While unlikely, getting pushed or thrown out a window  has occurred 35 times.
Most often the relationship between the victim and killer is unknown (in over 70,000 cases). How or why this doesn’t become known goes unexplained but acquaintances accounted for over 27,000 murders, strangers for over 25,000.
In the good to know but it goes against our folk history category: the least likely to commit murder are stepmothers with 57 killings attributed to them in the decade analyzed.
The WSJ notes in their methodology that the data they’re working with has many holes in it. For example:

The FBI collects this data from the states, except for Florida. Florida doesn’t use the FBI’s guidelines when reporting additional information about homicides. The FBI data don’t capture all homicides. The states’ reporting is voluntary, and the country’s thousands of police agencies aren’t consistent in how they report. Some states, including New York, reported no justifiable homicides at all for some years. In recording the circumstances of a murder, the information recorded in the FBI data may capture only the relationship of the killer to one of the victims — but not other victims — in a given situation. Because of the unlimited number of scenarios in which a homicide can occur, the coding used in the FBI database may not explain the full set of circumstances involved.

That said, an interesting data set and interactive but view it as a big picture account of murder in America.
Image: Detail, Murder in America, by the Wall Street Journal.

Murder in America

The Wall Street Journal takes FBI data from 2000 to 2010 to analyze the who, what, where, why, how and when murders take place across America.

All 165,068 in the decade analyzed.

The interactive they’ve created lets users sort and explore “why” a murder occurred (eg., Lover’s Triangle, Gang Killing and a large bucket of “Other”), who was killed and by whom (by race, sex and relationship), what weapon was used (eg., gun, knife, blunt object, etc.), when murders occurred (by year) and where they occurred (by state).

Needless to say, guns top the weapons category. While unlikely, getting pushed or thrown out a window  has occurred 35 times.

Most often the relationship between the victim and killer is unknown (in over 70,000 cases). How or why this doesn’t become known goes unexplained but acquaintances accounted for over 27,000 murders, strangers for over 25,000.

In the good to know but it goes against our folk history category: the least likely to commit murder are stepmothers with 57 killings attributed to them in the decade analyzed.

The WSJ notes in their methodology that the data they’re working with has many holes in it. For example:

The FBI collects this data from the states, except for Florida. Florida doesn’t use the FBI’s guidelines when reporting additional information about homicides. The FBI data don’t capture all homicides. The states’ reporting is voluntary, and the country’s thousands of police agencies aren’t consistent in how they report. Some states, including New York, reported no justifiable homicides at all for some years. In recording the circumstances of a murder, the information recorded in the FBI data may capture only the relationship of the killer to one of the victims — but not other victims — in a given situation. Because of the unlimited number of scenarios in which a homicide can occur, the coding used in the FBI database may not explain the full set of circumstances involved.

That said, an interesting data set and interactive but view it as a big picture account of murder in America.

Image: Detail, Murder in America, by the Wall Street Journal.

Networked Donors: Political Moneyball

The Wall Street Journal takes a close look at political contributions in a thorough interactive that pulls data from monthly Federal Elections Commission reports.

Pictured above are overall individual and committee contributions (top); contributions and contributors to Restore Our Future, a PAC created to support Mitt Romney (middle left); the balance between ideological or single issue committees and the Democratic and Republican parties (middle right); and who health services and HMO’s are donating to (bottom). (Select any to embiggen).

It’s all very clicky with a various data points available under various layers so explore through.

Meanwhile, via the Wall Street Journal:

We all know that politics is awash in money, money that is accounted for in disclosures made public through the federal government. But the degree to which we understand this universe is limited by how well we can imagine how the players and the money are interconnected.

To better understand, we used social network software to analyze the universe of money in politics.

All the money in politics starts with donors — either individuals or groups like companies and unions. Their donations go to Political Action Committees (which represent the interests of companies or groups) or candidate or party committees (which finance campaigns and other political spending). These committees often send money to one another, which tells us a lot about who their friends are.

Based on the money sent between the players (and other characteristics like party and home state), our presentation pulls players toward similar players and pushes apart those that have nothing in common. The players who are most interconnected (like industry PACs who try to make alliances with everyone) end up close to the center. Those who are less connected (like a donor who only gives money to Ron Paul) are pushed away from the center. The resulting picture is a first-ever interactive portrait of the universe of money in politics, complete with obvious macro lessons (like the gulf between Democrats and Republicans) and with many micro stories that are still emerging.

The interactive was created using CartoDB, a geospatial platform from Vizzuality.

The Wall Street Journal shows its left wing leanings with this ad juxtaposition. 
Background.
Image via Ryan Chittum.

The Wall Street Journal shows its left wing leanings with this ad juxtaposition. 

Background.

Image via Ryan Chittum.

How the WSJ Covers its Boss

Via Columbia Journalism Review:

Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, unsurprisingly, hasn’t done a whole lot of digging on the News Corp. hacking scandal. Or perhaps it has dug, but it’s been so far behind on the story that it hasn’t been able to advance it.

But today it has a scoop on the hacking scandal—one that implicates a non-News Corp. paper, suggests in the lede that bribing cops may not have been unusual, and raises questions about a man who will help determine the professional and, possibly, the legal fate of James Murdoch, Son of Rupert.

What’s the scoop that “suggests that the practice may not have been unusual,” as the WSJ writes in its lede? That twelve years ago, a Sunday Mirror reporter testified in a libel case that he paid a cop £50 (about $82 at current exchange rates) for a story tip.

To put that in context, which the Journal utterly fails to do, recall that Murdoch’s News of the World paid a minimum £100,000 ($163,000) in bribes to police officials, according to The Guardian. That, of course, and perhaps 4,000 cases of phone hacking—crimes, folks—plus the payment of hush-money settlements and other cover-ups involving figures at the highest levels of News Corp., the Journal’s owner.

The Wall Street Journal turned 122 this month. Its first issue, pictured above and costing all of two cents, was published July 8, 1889.
Its self-declared audience: “operators, bankers and capitalists.”

The Wall Street Journal turned 122 this month. Its first issue, pictured above and costing all of two cents, was published July 8, 1889.

Its self-declared audience: “operators, bankers and capitalists.”

Via nevver:

1984

The way things were… In so many different ways.

Via nevver:

1984

The way things were… In so many different ways.

Crowdsourcing Interviews

The Future Journalism Project will be interviewing Gordon Crovitz this Wednesday for the documentary we’re creating.

Crovitz was publisher of the Wall Street Journal until December 2007 when he stepped down after News Corp purchased WSJ parent company Dow Jones.

Since his departure, Crovitz has joined with Steve Brill and Leo Hindery to tackle the economics of digital journalism with a start-up called Journalism Online. The company’s launched Press+ as a means for publishers to integrate e-commerce solutions onto their Web sites.

We open this up to all of you: What questions should we ask Gordon about the economics of online news, and what his company is trying to accomplish?