Tag Archives: giornalismo web

giornalismo

What does it mean for a magazine to “transition away from publishing” / part 2

As some of you might know, in the last days Condé Nast communicated the intention to “transition away from publishing” Wired Italia. Whether this is true or just a negotiation tactic, it triggered a lot of considerations about the state of today’s journalism in our relatively small bubble of avid news readers. Being personally involved, moreover, as a long-time contributor pushed me towards doing the effort of getting in depth both in public and private chats.

In a previous post, I considered the possibility of Condé Nast turning the now-magazine in an event-first editorial product.

Someone, like Matteo Cerri (an Italian publisher, not involved in the matter) fundamentally agrees with this vision, based on a classic corporate economic concept. It was unavoidable (I summarize) given the editorial market and the fact that the Ai allows to make a newsmagazine with a tiny fraction of the personnel. That, moreover, can be rerouted on other projects (like live interviews) in which the human role is still fundamental. A sort of Ted X under Wired’s brand. In the end, who the hell would accept being interviewed by an avatar?

This would probably still be journalism (being a good interviewer is not easy; and the price for impreparation is irrelevance), but of another kind. And, maybe, less valuable for the society itself. We’d loose our “boots on the ground” approach, in favor of a “drone approach” (Sun Tzu’s Art of war is still base to a number of marketing courses: so, I’m not inventing anything with this comparison).

***

Consequentially, and that’s another topic I often discussed in private chats and public conversations, we fatally get to a question: can we really treat the press just like any other industry? Sure, it has more or less always been like this for publishers; but the role of democracies’ watchdog is too important to be underrated or equalized to beauty farms or pet food.

Acting as a devil’ lawyer, I used to answer that nobody has found the recipe to conjugate business and social impact, yet. But, in reality, there’s already someone who’s trying to make business differently: the so-called B-Corps.

Which (with some limits I’m not going to discuss here) have a community-oriented approach.

But what is a B-Corp? Briefly put, these companies consciounsly renounce to a part of their profits – or, to say it in another way, to the maximum optimization and efficiency – to pursue an impact on the people and the planet.

So, if a publisher like Condé Nast considers closing Wired Italia for economic reasons, and we had to find a reason to ask them to think again about it, we could say that it already has a number of other incredibly performing outlets in its bouquet.

Like, for example, Vogue Italia; and – with all due respect to fashion and pop culture – we’re not talking of the same impact in terms of democracy.

I explain: Wired Italia started talking about digital surveillance, algorithms’ ethic, Big Tech’s malpractices, and even climate tech and renewables when these topics just deserved a small article at the bottom of traditional media: it shaped the debate, paving the way to others. And there’s no need to further underline the importance of these topics in today’s world. Vogue Italia can well sustain the burden of a less profitable (but, as far as I know, not unprofitable) news outlet like Wired Italia.

Even companies operating on average economic sectors are considering the switch towards a B-Corp minded way of doing business. Why in the world can’t a liberal publisher like Condé do the same?

***

Here comes another consideration.

In this “transitioning away from publishing process” involving artificial intelligence, what’s happening to the content already published? Will it be sold with some sort of agreeements to actors like Open AI? Stop guessing. It already happened.

You can find here Open AI’s version, and here Condé Nast’s. I quote from the latter.

“I’m pleased to share with you that we are entering a multi-year partnership with OpenAI to expand the reach of Condé Nast’s content”, wrote ceo Roger Lynch in August 2024.

“As we all know, generative AI is rapidly changing ways audiences are discovering information. It’s crucial that we meet audiences where they are and embrace new technologies while also ensuring proper attribution and compensation for use of our intellectual property. This is exactly what we have found with OpenAI. 

Over the last decade, news and digital media have faced steep challenges as many technology companies eroded publishers’ ability to monetize content, most recently with traditional search. Our partnership with OpenAI begins to make up for some of that revenue, allowing us to continue to protect and invest in our journalism and creative endeavors.

Throughout the process OpenAI has shown that they too are very committed to this mission. They have been transparent and willing to productively work with publishers like us so that the public can receive reliable information and news through their platforms. 

This partnership recognizes that the exceptional content produced by Condé Nast and our many titles cannot be replaced, and is a step toward making sure our technology-enabled future is one that is created responsibly. It is just the beginning [….]”

So the incredibly valuable content written by Wired journalists’ over the course of the years might be already used to train those very AI systems cannibalizing them.

Condé is not alone. Stated Open AI: it joined “a growing list of publishers including Associated Press, Axel Springer, The Atlantic, Dotdash Meredith, Financial Times, LeMonde, NewsCorp, Prisa Media, TIME, Vox Media and others, in our mission to integrate journalism more deeply with AI services”. “We’re committed to working with Condé Nast and other news publishers to ensure that as AI plays a larger role in news discovery and delivery, it maintains accuracy, integrity, and respect for quality reporting“, added Brad Lightcap (COO at OpenAI).

Quite every editorial group had to come to terms with AI. And it’s not clear if anyone’s found yet a way to maintain the journalists employed giving them an additional tool or it’s simply impossible.

Yes, it’s just the beginning.

Ps You can sign this petition to save Wired Italia, if you want.

Standard
giornalismo

What does it mean for a magazine to “transition away from publishing”

So Wired Italia is “transitioning away from publishing”. The decision was communicated all of a sudden to the editorial staff a couple of days ago.  Whatever that means – and to anyone covering climate this wording has a deep resonance – it’s sad news. These days have been full of calls, whatsapps and comments. It’s been like an earthquake in our relatively small bubble of journalists and passionate news readers.

It’s unprofitable, says ceo Roger Lynch; or, at least, it can’t keep the same pace as other editions globally. I’m not sure that’s totally true, but we must take it as it is.

Surely enough, it’s easier to cut a newsroom in Italy when you’re in New York, and there’s no tie to the people: just figures count.

Anyways, much of the conversations I held contained interesting perspectives. I’ll try to share them.

It’s thinkable that this could be a Trump-style negotiation tactic to get to a smaller reduction of the operations, for example cutting just the printed quarterly edition: “We were about to obliterate you, so be thankful you survived. But now you have to accept we’re changing our business model”. So journalists, for example, – and this is strictly my  opinion -, can be put on events. It’d be suicidal to completely delete the brand: so why don’t use it to create a sort of TedX? A Wired X, with a dedicated editorial staff to make interviews and all the writing parts.

Is is still journalism? I don’t know. Journalism’s definition is so vague, nowadays, that, given the doubt, the answer might easily be yes or no depending on who you ask. Not likely that a court can condemn the publisher, in this case: at least, Conde would have given the staff the opportunity to go on, though with another project.

Events may moreover help collecting sponsors, and are cheaper than publishing a magazine: the videos of the talks can be spread all around on the social media, thus making money. And, obviously, like it happens with Ted, you can always invite people not just on a relevance basis, but on their will to contribute to the cause. Simply put: you pay, and you get there, so you can add it to your resume and Linkedin profile.

Events are pivotal in todays’s journalism. Two years ago Orson Francescone of the Financial Times (he’s managing diretor of FT Live) told me these kind of fireplace chats are central in their strategy: and, with a good interviewer, you can even find relevant news to be spread (particularly if you add a good press office).

Whether this would give the society the same benefits as a magazine like Wired Italia, it’s arguable. No inquiries, no study of the documents, no boots on the ground: in the best case, just desk journalism. But this is a global trend.

Let’s move on.

In Lynch’s note he talks about the role of AI (artificial intelligence) in the future of the company. This leads to another consideration: publishers have always made cuts to the personnel. But once the limit was that you still needed humans to make the magazine. Today that limit has dropped: with AI you can easily get the job done quite without any human help. You can keep the Italian brand alive, for example, just translating contents from the others editions, with little supervision. And, by doing so, you can still sell advertising and benefit from the SEO. This is, once again, strictly my opinion: I have no elements other the Lynch’s public note to confirm it.

On a more personal side, another thing I noticed is that this sad event boosted cooperation between us colleagues. It’s always true we need a crisis to remove (a part of ) our self defences. Lots of colleagues called me, and I’ve done the same. Yes, it enhanced our will to cooperate, not resigning ourselves to be monads. Which, by the way, helps the publishers: atomized work means you have the same problems of a hundred colleagues, but you don’t know it, and therefore you can’t join forces. Well, that’s a lesson.

I’ll add a couple of things. Wired Italia’s probable stop to publications also showed me how much our job has been appreciated over the course of the years. That’s heart-warming, and thought-provoking: because people don’t usually spend their days praising you, and sometimes the risk is to forget it.

And finally, another consideration: a former press officer told me “I can’t stop thinking over it, Wired’s journalists were among the fews that almost always replied to my pitches, and motivated a denial”. I won’t add a word, but thanks.

Standard
internet

Sparire dal web: Google e il diritto all’oblio

Fino a pochi anni fa, quando l’informazione era  solo cartacea, televisiva o radiofonica, ci pensava il tempo a sfumare i ricordi. Oggi le cose sono cambiate: tutto passa per la rete e le possibilità di archiviazione sono praticamente infinite. Sul web resta traccia di tutto.

Si chiama diritto all’oblio, e in sostanza significa poter  richiedere la rimozione  dal web dei contenuti che vi riguardano se ritenuti non aggiornati, non pertinenti o lesivi della dignità. Se ne è parlato in un recente convegno a Roma, alla presenza dei massimi vertici di Google, il motore di ricerca più noto del mondo. Non è un mistero che per molti si tratti ormai ormai della vera porta d’accesso al web. Il colosso di Mountain View è parso interessato alla questione, che sta cominciando a proporsi con insistenza nel dibattito pubblico.

Continua a leggere →

Standard