Is the Standard Examiner failing?

Over the past few days I have had two experiences with the Standard Examiner that have made me incredibly worried.  These events happened right in Northern Utah and should have been shining moments for the Standard Examiner, but instead it became the "Standard Re-Examiner" because of it's failure to report the news before everyone else.

On Tuesday at 12:50 pm, teachers at Dee Elementary reported seeing a young man shooting a gun on top of his roof.  By 2:30 pm, KSL and the Salt Lake Tribune both had articles posted on their websites. News agencies were tweeting live updates and giving us links to their stories. While reading the breaking news as it unfolded, I noticed absent from the excitement was our very own Standard Examiner, who's offices are only a five minutes away.  Their website had nothing about the story and nothing on twitter.  Finally at 3:40 pm they had a story posted, a whole hour after everyone else.  After some prodding, Mark Shenefelt. Standard Examiner's Online General Manager and board member, tweeted about the incident at 4:09 pm.  By 6:15 pm KSL had a full story plus photos posted online.

A couple of us online junkies began to ask questions to the Standard as to how such an event could take place in Ogden, only blocks from your main office, and then be completely scooped by all the other news agencies.  They replied that they are in a transition period and are hoping to get things back up and running soon.

Through some research, apparently their twitter person went on maternity leave and is now working in a different area, leaving their Police Beat reporter to do some early am tweeting.  But that doesn't explain the inability to get a story filed and up on the website quickly.  This was serious breaking news and we all had to learn about from the Salt Lake papers.

The Standard assured me things were moving and were going to change.  Then last night a lady is arrested for the murder of her two children in Layton.  I found out about this breaking news from Ben Winslow, FOX 13 and the Tribune posting tweets around 10 pm.  I then checked out the KSL and the Tribune website to learn more about the story.  Unfortunately the Standard Examiner didn't have an article posted until after midnight buried under a couple of links.  Way after my bedtime. The Standard's tweets went out around 6:45 am and 7 am, well after the story had been tweeted and reported by the rest of Utah.  Once again, out worked by the competition.

Say what you may about the Standard Examiner, but they our paper!  I want them to survive and we need to have a paper in Northern Utah to balance out the news from Salt Lake.  But they will need to be more on the ball; they will need to work harder than ever to keep us.  If all of the other news agencies are willing to report LIVE news about what happens in our own backyard, the Standard will need to do the same.

Here are couple humble suggestions from an outside reader:

1. Please make the website readable.  Yes, it is a huge update from your last website, but it still loads slow (I am on a T1 line) and the color choice and font size are hard to read.  Breaking News doesn't even make it to the front page and often the stories can be two or three days old (or longer) in the picture viewer.
2. Tweet!  Say what you may about twitter and the overkill convergence ideas of Deseret News and KSL.  But Tweet!  I loved it when Carlos Mayorga worked at the paper, he would do his best to keep us up to date on stories.  Ben Winslow with Fox News does this now, he does an amazing job.
3. Report around the clock, not just 9 to 5.  I have already given you examples of this.

The Standard Examiner is doing some great things. But if we can't even report what is going on in our own town before the other news agencies, then I am worried the Standard is on it's way out.  I hope this is not the case and I am over-exaggerating the seriousness of this.  But please, Standard Examiner do better.

Standard Examiner and SB 208 - Editorial

This mornings Standard Examiner editorial attempts to explain why newspapers should be the distributors of the coveted Legal Notices. (See Here)  They lay out a set of unorganized scare tactics to encourage older readers to write their legislators and vote against this money saving piece of legislation.  Where many cities will be savings $10,000 to $50,000, the Standard Examiner would ask you keep the money flowing to them because "newspapers are the best, most efficient place to publish these notices."  

Std-X claims more people than ever read the newspaper:  - True nearly 70 percent of Internet users in America go online to read the news (See Pew Research Center).  Their next claim is they already recognize legal notices need to go online, so they publish their notices online to the Standard Examiner Website.  They failed to mention they charge you a subscription fee to go online and read them. If legal notices are on their free site, I did a search and couldn't find them.  

Next, the editorial staff makes an interesting claim regarding Internet usage: 

"A third of all people will lose access to the notices"

Where did this statistic come from?  Did they really just make this up?  This argument makes no sense. Yes, nearly a third of Americans do not log on to the Internet for news.  But does that mean they read the newspaper too.  The Deseret News has report only 12 out 100 residents receive the print newspaper.  That is 202,000 people.  Moving notices online would give access to a lot more people nearly 498,000 people. (See Here)

One of my favorite lines was in reference to the future state website:

 If by legislative fiat, legal notices are relegated to a clunky, non-user friendly government Web site, fewer Utahns will have access to the notices.

I am sorry, have you seen UtahLegalNotices.Com.  If this isn't a clunky, non-user friendly website, I don't know what is.  They website isn't even formatted right for regular browsers and some of the info on it is from 2005.  There is a six step guide on how to log on, which was last updated in 2006.  I will admit they are working on a new beta site which is supposed to be much better, but they have been trying to use their web technology for nearly four years and all they have come up with is a clunky, non-user friendly website.    The infrastructure for a legal notices website is already in place and to get a good idea of what the state-run website would look like check out Utah Public Meeting Notices. Then feel free to compare the two websites.

The Standard calls SB 208 a loser because it will not reach enough people, but by their own statements people go online to read the news. If we can make the comparison of 498,000 Internet users in Utah and 70 percent go online for the news, that is 348,000 people. In comparison to 202,000 newspaper subscribers, I am not worried about reaching everyone.  The real worry is people who only subscribe for legal notices possibly will leave stop subscribing, but don't worry that Standard will still charge you for their website.  

They call SB 208 a loser because there will now be political influence on legal notices. I can see it now, Sen. Urquhart is looking for a good foreclosure because he will soon have the power to hold up the publishing of a notice so he can get his hands on it.  Seriously, is this really an argument.  

SB 208 is a loser because it will cost the state money to house these notices.  Lets not forget the $100,000 SLC will SAVE in the first year.  Lets not forget hundreds of thousands of dollars local cities will save or the hundreds of dollars local residents will save by this effort.  

Finally the Standard claims media is - free of bias.  To believe any of us are free of bias is absurd and ignorant.  The Standard Editorials are always the bias of the editorial staff, how can one claim they are free of bias.  That is like saying Fox News caters to republicans and democrats alike.

I thoroughly enjoy reading Standard Editorials; however not only was this the worst written editorial, but they are completely wrong.

To see more posts and actually facts read the following:

• Internet Usage vs. Newspaper Subscriptions - From Where I Sit
  
• Online Legal Notice Posting - Lincolns Legislative Blog
  
• SB 208
  

Oh and here is the editorial:

• The Standard Editorial 
  

Internet Usage vs. Newspaper Subscribers

Since the announcement of SB 208 there have been a lot of statistics thrown around about who uses the internet and who doesn't. The newspaper's argument is not enough people use the internet in Utah, especially the 65 and older. They also believe the control should stay in a third parties hands. SB 208 supporters say lots of people use the internet and the legislature can stay neutral on the publishing of legal notices. Since facts have been called into question on both sides of the isle, we thought it would be interesting to research this information and find some real answers.
Lets begin our research using the medium in question--the newspaper:
According to the Deseret News (Dec 17, 2008, See Here), Utah is the 2nd highest state in the nation for internet usage. In 2007 we hit 82 percent of households using the internet, this is up from 63 percent two years previous (Oct, 31, 2005, See Here). Now according the United States Census, in 2005 there were 791,929 households in Utah. (2005, See Here). Now let's assume we are still in 2005 and only 63 percent of the households use the internet. 63 percent of our 791,929 households in Utah gives us 498,915 households are internet users. Still how many people use the internet? The average household size is 3.07 giving us nearly 1,531,669 potential internet users in the state of Utah. Even if there is only one person in the household who uses the internet, this would be 498,915 people.
Now for newspaper subscribers: In the same article from Dec 17, 2008 Utah was the 6th lowest state in newspaper subscriptions. The 2007 data reported we had 12 subscribers for over 100 residents. With a population of 2,427,350 this equals 202,279 people.
The difference shows at least 296,000 more people use the internet than subscribe to the print newspaper.
Now for demographics. Over the age of 65, the Salt Lake tribune reported, 70 percent of this demographic do not have the internet. (See Here) The Pew Research Center & American Life Project (same place the D-News got some of their 2005 data) actually shows 41 percent of people over the age of 65 use the internet. Interestingly between the ages of 50-64 - 72 percent use the internet. (See Here) Als, their 2009 Generations Report states:

"While just over one-fourth (26%) of 70-75 year olds were online in 2005, 45% of that age group is currently online (2009)." (See Here, Page 2)

Since the introduction of broadband, the report has found older generation usage of the internet has tripled, with 37 percent going online for the purpose of reading the news. (Page 5)
We have now established more people are using the internet than reading the print newspaper. We have also established more of the older generation is using the internet for news than believed and this is increasing very fast. What you didn't know is 70 percent of internet users go online to read the news. (Page 5); by this rational we can assume a lot of people read newspapers, either online or in print. The newspapers have all ready recognized this, they know legal notices needed to go online; therefore they have created a website to do so (See Here). Now the legislature wants create a website to do the same and now we have an argument.
What is this argument really about? Not internet usage and demographics.
It is about two things:
1. Money
Both entities will charge you to publish your legal notices. It is going to come down to who will do it cheaper and save tax payers money. If the newspapers new legal notices web page charges the same rates or higher, they lose. If the Utah website charges higher rates than newspapers, they lose. SB 208 has shed light on an issue that cuts into the pockets of Utahns. Supporting SB 208 means we want the cheapest and most efficient way of getting this done. If the bill fails and pushes newspapers to give the best and cheapest service possible, then so be it.
2. Power
Newspapers like being the distributors of information. Joel Campbell in a recent comment to this blog made mention I want you all to believe bloggers are the only ones who can communicate online. He would in turn want you to believe only newspapers can distribute legal notices and the possibility of another entity (government or not) could even attempt to do so would be preposterous. Newspapers are not the only medium to receive information and to believe legal notices BELONG in newspapers is misguided. Will removal of the these legal notices bring down newspapers? No. It will take away some of the power newspapers have been used to as distributors of information.
This is not an anti-media bill, nor are my comments. However I feel passionate about finding ways to ensure people save money. Publishing of legal notices costs people money, in some cases a lot of money. If we can easy that burden, that fee, that tax, I say lets do it.

MediaOne and their E-Edition Scam – It is All About the Money

I am a reader of the both the Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune and the Standard Examiner. Fortunately, since the creation of the Internet I have been able to read all three via their respective websites. I use their free editions and have been very happy with their websites. I learned today that MediaOne is charging people for the E-edition of the newspaper regardless if you have a compute or not. In fact the cost is higher than their Sunday only Print Editions. If you get the Sunday Only paper you are being overcharged for their electronic edition of the paper. Today—I canceled my subscriptions.

In my renewal notice for the newspaper and I noticed next to each line item on the bill it says I was receiving the E-Edition of the paper. Not knowing what this was, I went to the Tribune website and found their e-edition at the top. I remember now deciding never to purchase it since the majority if the information is in their free edition. Am I getting charged for an e-edition I do not need? I called MediaOne to ask if I was being charged. The conversation went like this:

{BenJoe} Hello, I have been getting three Sunday papers for the last few months so my wife can clip coupons. I was wondering if you could tell me if I am being charged for the E-editions of the paper since it is included in my bill.

{Vanessa} Yes you are it is required to have the e-edition if you get the Sunday paper.

{BenJoe} Really, well how much is the e-edition?

{Vanessa} [Approximately] $6.00 a month per paper.

{BenJoe} So each month you are charging me $18 for an e-edition that I don't use. I just get the Sunday paper for the coupons.

{Vanessa} Yes, that is our policy if you get the Sunday paper only, you must have the E-edition.

{BenJoe} What if I didn't have a computer?

{Vanessa} You would still have to pay for the e-edition.

{BenJoe} So with a 12-week renewal will end up charging me $54 for the E-edition?

{Vanessa} Yes. This is our policy.

{BenJoe} My renewal only costs $82.00 for a 12- week renewal, so th cost difference is $28.00. Are you telling me it is more expensive to get the e-edition of your paper than to just get a Sunday paper?

{Vanessa} Yes, that it is our policy, you must have both. You can avoid this if you went to a daily paper. But the Sunday paper comes with the E-edition.

{BenJoe} Please cancel my subscriptions.

{Vanessa} OK, thanks that is done.

Do you see the scam? They are charging you MORE for Internet usage of a paper than the regular Sunday Print paper. A chunk of my coupon savings have been eradicated due to an e-edition I never use.

This same thing is happening with their legal notices in the paper and will continue to get worse. HB 161 is designed to remove caps on publishing of legal notices, then their NEW website will launch just in time to OVERCHARGE the consumer for things that should be free or at least cheaper! Believe me I am not anti-media. I love the media and enjoy reading multiple newspapers every day, but this is ridicules. The newspapers will try to squeeze every penny out of the consumer as possible; this is all about the money. SB 208 would help elevate some of this cost. Their own argument against SB 208 is not enough people have computers to use the system, is now called into question when they are charging people who don't have a computer and get the Sunday only paper.

Yesterday I spoke with a woman who runs a daycare business, she told me of the hundreds of dollars she spends every year in posting legal notices for their daycare. They are required by law to do this and it is a huge cost to them. A bill like SB 208 would help free up some of the much needed cash flow in her business. I urge the support of SB 206 and cancel your Sunday papers.

Now I need to go tell my wife.

Comments welcome.

SB 208 – Watch out Newspapers!

Today I was introduced to SB 208 – Creating a Legal Notice Online Depository (my title not the bills). In connection with the Senate Site and Senator Steve Urquhart a press conference was held for bloggers regarding this bill. It was a great experience to call in and watch the press conference from South Ogden; however I think I will make an effort to get down there for future ones. Senator Urquhart did a great job moderating the conversation and helping us understand the questions asked. I think this is a unique method of enlisting bloggers behind the cause of a piece of legislation, especially since it is sure to bring heated debate from the newspaper lobby.

This potential legislation would develop a searchable online database for all legal notices in the State. Currently Newspapers have the monopoly on the publishing of legal notices. It is estimated tax payers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on these legal notices alone. Sen. Urquhart mentioned some people have even been forced in to foreclosure because of inability to pay the legal notice publication fees. SB 208 would create a depository for all legal notices and make it cheaper than posting it in the newspaper, saving city government and the regular tax payer thousands of potential dollars. The bill piggy backs on the already popular public meeting notices website (See Here) and would follow a similar format. Citizens could log on and pay a small fee to upload their legal notice, and then it could be searched by topic, city and date.

"We want to create better notice and a bigger pool of people who know what is
going on," Senator Urquhart.

SB 208 could do just that, make it easier for people to find notices and cheaper for those who need to post them. This is a win/win for the consumer and local government. However, look deeper and you will see turbulence on the horizon from the newspapers of Utah. As newspapers see circulation drop, classified ad space has dwindled and ad revenue is disappearing from competition such as KSL.COM and the internet. You know there will be an all out battle to keep legal notices in the newspaper and away from a central website. This is a form of revenue for newspapers and the apparent need for such revenue is demonstrated in legislation being proposed to remove caps on legal notice publishing fees. A quick Google search brought up a website that helps newspapers publish legal notices and has already posted info against such legislation. (See here: http://www.utahlegalnotices.com/) This poorly designed and out of date website attempts to keep a placeholder on the internet to thwart such discussions of central depositories. I am sure this website will be updated quickly as the esteemed Senators bill is prepared.

On the national front, Arizona and South Dakota are working on similar legislation and have received scathing editorials from the local newspapers demanding such legislation be stopped. Their arguments include: pulling legal notices from papers cuts off the public from information, not enough people have the internet or a computer and therefore miss this important information. (Source: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/) To believe newspapers are the central and only form of communication is ignorant and pathetic. To counter these arguments you simple need to gather some basic statistics from the Newspaper Association of America. On their website, http://www.naa.org/, you can see they don't even classify legal notices as an area read by most people. According to their 2008 readership report only 95 Million adults read the daily paper and 113 Million read the Sunday paper. Computer user statistics, according to Computer Industry in America, shows there are 264 Million PC users and 220 Million internet users, as of Jan. 2009.

The argument we are cutting readers off from Legal Notices just doesn't hold water. More people have computers and use the internet than read the newspaper. Senator Urquhart's bill puts money back into the tax payers pocket and helps push information out to nearly 51 percent more people than a regular newspaper will. The newspaper industry is concerned about the loss of revenue to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do not be fooled by the future editorials and reports, this is about money for them. This is probably why Senator Urquhart wanted bloggers to get this information to help counter act the newspaper attacks to come. Smart.

Whatever the motives, I enjoyed the blogger brief and I support SB 208