It's 4:15 a.m. and we've just wrapped up the Sunday early sections and have a head start on The Zapata Times. We're tired but pleased with the results. We hope you are, too.
This Sunday's Focus features an interesting series of photographs taken at Goodwill by LMT Photographer Ricardo Segovia. You just never know what you'll find there!
And check out the Art of Living cover. In addition to Gabriel Castillo's popular Surfing the City (sneak peek: he talks about dancing with your honey this week), there's a story about local fashionistas Chainé Leyendecker and Scarlet Moreno and their latest line, Penny’s Trip. And let me tell you, it's a trip all right. The cover has an incredible eye-catching design by Tanya Ramirez. Segovia also took these photos.
For those who enjoy local opinions, we have an LMT editorial on page 3D of Focus and two good letters to the editor. Rolando Lopez has an insightful view on testing of our public school students, while Carlos Rene Ramirez, chairman of the Laredo Diocesan Columbian Squires, which is the youth organization of the Knights of Columbus, gives us details about the little-publicized spiritual group designed for boys and young men.
That's just a quick preview of our Sunday feature sections. Let us know what you think.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
I've been spending time the last few days responding to comments about things I never said, but which were disseminated across the World Wide Web as gospel. Some bloggers tend to exaggerate and use the bits that fit their argument, which can make for really interesting entries, if inaccurate ones.
That's a major difference between what you'll read in Laredo Morning Times Web and what you'll read on many blogs. Good journalism is based on accuracy and verification. We do make mistakes, much to my chagrin and as many of you have pointed out repeatedly, but the staff-written information that we print and post online has been verified with at least two sources. That's why sometimes you'll read something or hear something somewhere else and you won't see it in Laredo Morning Times at the same time. We want to break stories -- that means having them first -- but factual accuracy and verification are our priorities. We want to assure our readers that what they see in Laredo Morning Times is true.
That's a major difference between what you'll read in Laredo Morning Times Web and what you'll read on many blogs. Good journalism is based on accuracy and verification. We do make mistakes, much to my chagrin and as many of you have pointed out repeatedly, but the staff-written information that we print and post online has been verified with at least two sources. That's why sometimes you'll read something or hear something somewhere else and you won't see it in Laredo Morning Times at the same time. We want to break stories -- that means having them first -- but factual accuracy and verification are our priorities. We want to assure our readers that what they see in Laredo Morning Times is true.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Thank you, Single X, for taking the time to comment.
I brought up The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal because several previous posts have claimed that they do not charge for online content. That's not true. As I've posted in the past, in response to other posts, if you want full online access to all their content, you have to pay for the e-Edition. I also wrote that they have a lot more content, both free and paid, and that they have much larger staffs, too. I certainly wasn't trying to deceive anyone. I don't think anyone would confuse our papers!
We do run national and state columnists and opinion pieces in our daily opinion page (two pages on Sundays), but if you're not an e-Edition or print subscriber, you don't see those. We run Maureen Dowd frequently, as a matter of fact. And Paul Krugman, George Will, David Broder, Kathleen Parker and more. If you're referring to local commentary, however, you're right, we don't have nearly as much as The New York Times. We do have lots of strong letters to the editor on local topics, Odie Arambula writes his weekly Monday Wash that covers a wide range of topics and we run occasional local columns from local experts on issues of the day. I write editorials as often as I have the opportunity, usually on Sundays. It's a matter of time and staffing. I will try to write more often.
As for "dumbing down" by printing more photos, I disagree. We are a visual community, and those photo pages have some of the highest number of page views and receive numerous positive comments.
You ask why we don't compare ourselves to Texas papers in terms of charging for online content; as I said, I believe you'll be seeing more papers charging in the future. You ask, "why now?" As I wrote, the industry is facing financial difficulties and we must have revenue to continue providing content, online and in print. We're all trying different avenues. An earlier post quoted a story by Wendy Davis from the Daily Online Examiner about the folly of charging, but there are plenty of other stories that say the time is long overdue.
Papers across the country have been increasing the number of unique visitors and page views significantly, but there hasn't been a corresponding increase in advertising. It's true The New York Times backed off its Times Select paid model two years ago, but it has been quietly, successfully charging for its e-Edition for some time now. They are charging for what people really want and can't get anywhere else. That's what we're doing. We provide quality local content that you can't get anywhere else. Yes, there are other Laredo online sources, blogs and other media sites, and some of the stories are the same but we have a great deal of exclusive content. Thousands of people pay 50 cents for the daily edition and $2 for the Sunday edition. We believe people are willing to pay to get that content online, too.
I also disagree with your view that we will appear to be "insular and provincial." I think you'll find quite the contrary in a few months. But I guess we'll see.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I know we don't agree, but I'm glad to hear your views.
I brought up The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal because several previous posts have claimed that they do not charge for online content. That's not true. As I've posted in the past, in response to other posts, if you want full online access to all their content, you have to pay for the e-Edition. I also wrote that they have a lot more content, both free and paid, and that they have much larger staffs, too. I certainly wasn't trying to deceive anyone. I don't think anyone would confuse our papers!
We do run national and state columnists and opinion pieces in our daily opinion page (two pages on Sundays), but if you're not an e-Edition or print subscriber, you don't see those. We run Maureen Dowd frequently, as a matter of fact. And Paul Krugman, George Will, David Broder, Kathleen Parker and more. If you're referring to local commentary, however, you're right, we don't have nearly as much as The New York Times. We do have lots of strong letters to the editor on local topics, Odie Arambula writes his weekly Monday Wash that covers a wide range of topics and we run occasional local columns from local experts on issues of the day. I write editorials as often as I have the opportunity, usually on Sundays. It's a matter of time and staffing. I will try to write more often.
As for "dumbing down" by printing more photos, I disagree. We are a visual community, and those photo pages have some of the highest number of page views and receive numerous positive comments.
You ask why we don't compare ourselves to Texas papers in terms of charging for online content; as I said, I believe you'll be seeing more papers charging in the future. You ask, "why now?" As I wrote, the industry is facing financial difficulties and we must have revenue to continue providing content, online and in print. We're all trying different avenues. An earlier post quoted a story by Wendy Davis from the Daily Online Examiner about the folly of charging, but there are plenty of other stories that say the time is long overdue.
Papers across the country have been increasing the number of unique visitors and page views significantly, but there hasn't been a corresponding increase in advertising. It's true The New York Times backed off its Times Select paid model two years ago, but it has been quietly, successfully charging for its e-Edition for some time now. They are charging for what people really want and can't get anywhere else. That's what we're doing. We provide quality local content that you can't get anywhere else. Yes, there are other Laredo online sources, blogs and other media sites, and some of the stories are the same but we have a great deal of exclusive content. Thousands of people pay 50 cents for the daily edition and $2 for the Sunday edition. We believe people are willing to pay to get that content online, too.
I also disagree with your view that we will appear to be "insular and provincial." I think you'll find quite the contrary in a few months. But I guess we'll see.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I know we don't agree, but I'm glad to hear your views.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
In response to comments about our decision to charge for online content, I want to assure all our readers that we did not take this decision lightly.
We believe we are providing quality content that can't be found anywhere else and is worth the money. For that matter, we're charging just $1 a week -- less than a cup of coffee! For some time, our print subscribers were subsidizing all those people who were getting the same content free online. That just wasn't fair.
Also, we want to count all our readers, whether online or in print, as subscribers. That's what ad revenue is really based on. The comment by some readers that charging for content will reduce the number of users is based on old thinking that hasn't proven true all the time. In fact, there are plenty of Web sites with millions of page views that aren't making any money in advertising.
What we are now able to offer advertisers is a committed audience: people who paid to visit the site. Just as advertisers in the print edition can be assured that their ads will be seen by people who really want to read the paper because they paid for it, we believe advertisers will see a significant advantage in buying ads online because the readers will be people who really want to visit the Web site.
It should be noted that we still feature a good quantity of online content at no charge. Headlines, breaking news, staff-written blogs, the Lucha Libre public forum, ¿Que Pasa? Online, Business Journal Online and all our magazines, including Dvino and the Visitors Guide, are all available at no cost.
As for talk about other newspapers, here's the truth. While you can get free access to some of The New York Times online, the paper does charge for its e-Edition - about $175 per year. No less than the Wall Street Journal charges for full access to its online content. We believe you will soon see more and more newspapers charging for their content online, too.
Many of you have already chosen to subscribe to LMT's e-Edition. Thank you for your vote of confidence. We will continue to strive to provide you with the best coverage of Laredo and the area. For those of you who haven't subscribed yet, give it a whirl. We believe you'll like what you see.
We believe we are providing quality content that can't be found anywhere else and is worth the money. For that matter, we're charging just $1 a week -- less than a cup of coffee! For some time, our print subscribers were subsidizing all those people who were getting the same content free online. That just wasn't fair.
Also, we want to count all our readers, whether online or in print, as subscribers. That's what ad revenue is really based on. The comment by some readers that charging for content will reduce the number of users is based on old thinking that hasn't proven true all the time. In fact, there are plenty of Web sites with millions of page views that aren't making any money in advertising.
What we are now able to offer advertisers is a committed audience: people who paid to visit the site. Just as advertisers in the print edition can be assured that their ads will be seen by people who really want to read the paper because they paid for it, we believe advertisers will see a significant advantage in buying ads online because the readers will be people who really want to visit the Web site.
It should be noted that we still feature a good quantity of online content at no charge. Headlines, breaking news, staff-written blogs, the Lucha Libre public forum, ¿Que Pasa? Online, Business Journal Online and all our magazines, including Dvino and the Visitors Guide, are all available at no cost.
As for talk about other newspapers, here's the truth. While you can get free access to some of The New York Times online, the paper does charge for its e-Edition - about $175 per year. No less than the Wall Street Journal charges for full access to its online content. We believe you will soon see more and more newspapers charging for their content online, too.
Many of you have already chosen to subscribe to LMT's e-Edition. Thank you for your vote of confidence. We will continue to strive to provide you with the best coverage of Laredo and the area. For those of you who haven't subscribed yet, give it a whirl. We believe you'll like what you see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
