Taiwans press

Give us our daily Apple

WAVING black-and-red flags emblazoned with the word fury, a sea of nearly 100,000 supporters of the opposition flooded the grounds outside the office of Taiwans president on January 13th. They formed the largest protest against the president, Ma Ying-jeou, since he was elected to a second term, a year ago. The crowds demanded that Mr Ma step down over the ailing condition of their islands economy. The rally, which was organised by the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), had another, newer theme too: media freedom. Protesters were demanding that regulators block the acquisition of the young democracys most popular newspaper, the Apple Daily, by a consortium that is widely perceived as being cosy with the government of mainland China. The DPPs leader, Su Tseng-chang, accused Mr Ma of doing nothing while proBeijing corporations snap up Taiwanese media outlets. The media freedom that I have witnessed Taiwanese people fight for with bravery and even their own lives is being destroyed, Mr Su told the cheering crowd. Taiwan has seen many feisty demonstrations of late. Mr Ma, first elected in 2008, has eased over six decades of hostilities with the mainland, which regards Taiwan as a renegade bit of its own sovereign territory, by signing nearly 20 trade and investment pacts across the strait. Mr Ma says this saves Taiwan from economic marginalisation. China, for its part, believes this bolsters its long-term goal of political unification. As Taiwanese companies, including media owners, see their fortunes increasingly tied to the mainland, critics of Mr Mas policies say that China will use its clout to muzzle criticism in the press and to Sinicise Taiwans separate culture, either by applying direct pressure to the media owners or by indirectly persuading journalists to self-censor. Political scientists say the resulting situation would be is similar to what has happened in Hong Kong since its handover to the mainland in 1997. Worries converge on Tsai Eng-meng, a Beijing-friendly media baron, whose snack business in China has made him one of Taiwans richest men. After he added the influential China Times to his stable of newspapers, magazines and television stations in 2008, critics say the paper started to echo views from the mainland and grew reluctant to raise sensitive issues, such as unrest in Tibetan areas. The alarm increased when Tsai Eng-meng told the Washington Post that the number of people who were killed when China crushed the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 had been greatly exaggerated. Then in November a flamboyant pro-democracy publisher in Hong Kong, Jimmy Lai, sold off his Taiwan print-media businesses, including the critical Apple Daily, to a consortium that includes Mr Tsais son. Fresh protests erupted, stoked by the fear of a

strengthening, pro-Beijing monopoly on the media. The China Times and Apple Daily newspapers combined would have a market share of nearly 50%, if regulators approve the deal. Mr Ma denies the claim that Taiwans press freedom is at risk. George Tsai, an editorial writer at the China Times and a friend to Tsai Eng-meng (but no relation), says his papers owner is not a stooge of the government in Beijing: granted, he supports reunification, but only rarely does he meet with Chinese officials. And he will criticise them too, if need be. University students are at the forefront of the protests. In one incident around 200 of them eschewed New Years Eve celebrations in favour of a rainy all-night sit-in near the presidential office. They were greeted at dawn by a phalanx of riot police standing behind shields. Their movement will undoubtedly give the DPP new momentum, but the party still needs to find a way to negotiate with the economic powerhouse across the Taiwan Strait, which reviles all talk of independence, if it is to win the presidential election in 2016. In other respects the climate is favourable: Mr Ma faces a record-low level of public satisfaction, measured at 13%. The KMT might need to absorb the protesters ideas to some extent if it is to remain in power. KMT lawmakers seem to be taking notice. At first they supported the DPP-sponsored draft legislation to prevent the growth of media monopolies. On January 11th however they voted them down in parliament, on the advice of Mr Mas media regulators, who said the plans were not well considered. Mr Ma says Taiwan still needs such legislation. His government will send fresh draft bills to parliament March. Even if they were enacted, it is not clear whether these laws would prevent the takeover already under way. The prospect of anyones winning ultimate control over the media is complicated by the fact that while Chinas economic clout is ever rising, so too is the sense of a separate, distinctly Taiwanese identity.

Al Jazeera
Must do better

The Arabs premier television network bids for American viewers

AL JAZEERA, the Qatari satellite television network that revolutionised Arab news coverage a decade ago, has long defied its critics. No other network has seen its

bureaus both bombed by the American air force and torched by Egyptian revolutionaries. None has been damned by so diverse a range of governments and politicians. Libyas Muammar Qaddafi blasted it for fomenting revolution. Syrias embattled regime accused it of building Potemkin sets of Syrian cities to stage fake anti-government protests. And Al Jazeera was recently described on Fox, a rival American news network, as an anti American terror mouthpiece. Since launching a 24-hour Arabic satellite news channel in 1996, Al Jazeera has added others devoted to sports, documentaries, local news and childrens programmes, as well as a widely admired English-language current-events channel. Although Al Jazeera English is popular in the State Department cafeteria in Washington, the networks unfair notoriety as a supposed promoter of jihadism has largely shut its channels out of the broader American market. But its recent purchase of Current TV, a cable network partly owned by Al Gore, a former vice-president, for a reported $500m may extend its footprint to 40m American households, paving the way to launch another dedicated local service, Al Jazeera America. Yet amid this expansion, boosted by controversy and a seemingly bottomless well of royal Qatari cash, Al Jazeera has been steadily losing ground nearer home. Numerous pan-Arab rivals sprouted to grab a viewing share with a copycat mix of flashy graphics, daring reportage and sizzling debate. And global media firms such as Bloomberg, News Corporation and CNN have pushed into the Arab market. Ironically, the Arab revolutions that Al Jazeera gleefully promoted have produced a challenge to its dominance. Audiences in countries such as Egypt, Iraq and Tunisia are now gripped by fast-moving local events more ably covered by independent national channels that have proliferated rapidly in a freer political climate, along with internetborne social media. Moreover, Al Jazeera Arabics vaunted reputation for even-handedness has withered in recent years. The repressed voices it once daringly aired, particularly of Islamists linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, speak now from positions of power. Qatar, once a weakling in the Gulf, has grown hugely in wealth and clout, partly thanks to the soft power of its satellite arm. But Al Jazeeras breathless boosting of Qatari-backed rebel fighters in Libya and Syria, and of the Qatar-aligned Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have made many Arab viewers question its veracity. So has its tendency to ignore human-rights abuses by those same rebels, and its failure to accord the uprising by the Shia majority in Qatars neighbour, Bahrain, the same heroic acclaim it bestows on Sunni revolutionaries.

It is not just viewers who notice. When Sultan Qassemi, a pundit in the United Arab Emirates, wrote an article last year noting the channels pro-Brotherhood bias, he said dozens of Al Jazeera staff sent confirming e-mails. Not a few such people, including star correspondents in Beirut, Berlin, Cairo, Moscow and Paris, have quit in recent years. Even Al Jazeera English, with a solid reputation built since its birth in 2006, is not immune. In September its staff protested after being told to promote a speech by Qatars emir, Sheikh Hamad al-Thani, at the United Nations in New York as its lead item. Al Jazeera America will not win hearts and minds like that.

Hispanic television in America

Lights, camera, accin!

Media companies are piling into the Hispanic market. But will it pay off?
SOME call it Hispanic Hollywood, but Telemundos frenetic lot in west Miami is a world away from a Californian studios. Props, sets and characters rotate constantly. Episodes that might take a week to shoot in Hollywood are wrapped up in a day so that its torrid telenovelas, or soap operas, can air on time. Body doubles mill in the hallway waiting to film a prison fight scene between a comely murderess and another woman. The props room is a jumble of coffins, stretchers, Virgin Mary statues and fake bags of cocaine. Entertaining Americas Hispanics has become a big business. Once, Spanish-language programming was dominated by a few specialised firms, like Univision and NBCs Telemundo. But lately the field has become more crowded. Ten years ago there were around 14 broadcast and cable networks catering to Hispanics; today there are around 100 on air or in the works, says Csar Conde, the president of Univision. Big players are piling in. In August Rupert Murdochs Fox and RCN Televisin of Colombia started MundoFox, a Spanish-language broadcast network. For many media companies the 2010 census was a wake-up call: it showed that around 51m Americans, or 16% of the population, are Hispanic. Between 2000 and 2012 their numbers rose by around 55%, more than four times the growth rate for the general population. Hispanics are also younger on average than other Americans, and are getting richer. So there are lots of advertising dollars chasing them. According to the Selig Centre for Economic Growth, Hispanics have around $1.2 trillion in spending power, up 146% from 2000, and spend disproportionately on such things as clothes and groceries.

Univision is still the biggest Hispanic network, beaten in prime time only by four networks in EnglishABC, NBC, CBS and Foxaccording to Nielsens ratings. Bought by private-equity firms in 2006 for $13.7 billion, Univision has launched new channels and digital initiatives, and is expected to go public in the next two years. It is aimed at Hispanics of Mexican origin, who are around two-thirds of the Hispanic population in America, and imports telenovelas from Mexico; Telemundo makes its own, and caters to Caribbean Hispanics. Emilio Romano, the boss of Telemundo, insists it is a big validation of our business that media giants are piling into its market. But is this wise? Although the population of Hispanics is growing, they actually spend less time watching television than other groups in America, and watch more on mobile devices, which is trickier for media firms to earn money from. Advertisers pay half the average price for spots on Hispanic television, mainly because Hispanic families median income of around $40,000, although growing, is still a third below the average American households. Telenovelas are still popular, but it is hard to think up other programmes with such broad appeal, given the Hispanic populations diversity. Of the top 25 shows watched by Hispanic audiences during prime time, 23 are Spanish-language dramas or reality shows, according to Nielsen. The other two are sports shows. Sports channels have broad appeal, but competition for rights is getting fiercer. Telemundo paid around $600m for the Spanish-language rights to screen the 2018 and 2022 football World Cups, nearly double what Univision paid last time around. Lino Garcia of ESPN, which runs a Spanish-language channel, ESPN Deportes, says such channels depend heavily on getting rights to show football (soccer), since that is what Hispanic viewers want to watch, but prices for showing European matches have soared. Media companies are investing millions on these initiatives now, but will demographic forces stay on their side? Most of the Hispanic populations recent growth has come from births, not immigration. As they grow up, second- and third-generation Hispanics may want to watch ABC, instead of Abismo de Pasin. More than a fifth of Hispanic Americans now speak only English at home. Networks are responding by providing English subtitles for programmes in Spanish. They are also making more shows that are aimed at Hispanics, but in English. Rival networks will be watching closely next year when Univision and ABC join forces to launch the first cable-news network in English for Hispanics. Many are sceptical. Mr Romano of Telemundo says history shows that once immigrant groups start habitually

using English, they want mainstream English-language entertainment. I dont see any English-language channels for Italian-Americans, he says.

The newspaper industry

News adventures

After years of bad headlines the industry finally has some good news
IN A recent issue of the beloved comic book, Supermans alter ego, Clark Kent, quits his job as a journalist at the Daily Planet because the paper has gutted its news coverage. Is the outlook for newspapers really so dire that even superheroes have given up on them? Ever since 2006, when The Economist asked on its cover who had killed the newspaper, the industrys pains have only intensified. Advertising has plunged. Readers have kept moving online. Revenues of newspapers continued to fall, dropping to $34 billion last year in Americaonly about half of what they were in 2000. Yet things have started to look a bit less grim, particularly in America. Revenues from advertising are still falling, but those from circulation have at last started to stabilise. At some papers, such as the New York Times, circulation revenues this year are forecast to offset the decline in advertising for the first time in at least five years. Some newspaper stocks already reflect this good news. Over the past six months the New York Times Companys share price has risen by 37%. Those of Gannett and McClatchy, two other big publishers, have climbed by 34% and 24% respectively (although part of Gannetts gain is attributable to its television unit, which was boosted by Americas election campaign). Hearst, a private company, has seen profits at its newspaper group rise by 25% this year and is having its best year since 2007, says Lincoln Millstein, an executive at the firm. In May Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffetts firm, bought a legion of local papers from Media General. Some may see the celebrated investors blessing as a sign of better days ahead. In any event, it is a bet that papers with strong brands and no competitors in smaller towns will be able to charge for content and be profitable. Many papers have been raising the price of their subscriptions and news-stand copies, which has helped to stem losses. But a more important contributor to the change of mood in newspapers is what Ken Doctor of Outsell, a consultancy, terms a revolution in reader revenue. Paywalls, methods of charging readers for online content, have become popular. The number of American newspapers with some sort of paywall has at

least doubled this year. More than a quarter of newspapers now have one, and most big groups that do not have plans to charge for digital access. This is a global trend: newspapers in Brazil, Germany and elsewhere are fed up with giving away their articles for nothing on the internet. Charging for content online used to be the privilege of the lucky few, such as the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal, offering market-sensitive information readers would pay for. General newspapers opposed charging because they feared their traffic would dropand their fragile digital ad revenues would fall rather than rise. Several factors have changed their mind. For one, technology has got better and cheaper. Online pay systems were expensive to build and test, but Press+ changed that. The firm, which was founded in 2010and was bought last year by RR Donnelley, a big printing and marketing firm licenses the technology for newspapers to erect a pay system in return for a cut of digital revenues. So far 566 (mostly American) papers have signed up, and 400 of them have launched.

Tablets and other mobile devices have also been a boon for news organisations, because they make paid digital subscriptions more attractive. Many newspapers have started offering all access editions, bundling print and digital subscriptions (sometimes at a slightly higher price). Executives say that if they can train people to pay for digital subscriptions, they will be less threatened by prints persistent and inevitable decline, since digital editions bring in fatter margins. Newspapers have been heartened by evidence that pay systems can work. In the industrys most closely watched experiment to date the New York Times adopted a paidaccess model in March 2011. It chose a pay meter, which is more porous than a hard

wall, and allows readers to view a certain number of articles each month before having to pay. The advantage of this is that search engines and social media can still direct casual readers to a newspapers site. Traffic typically drops by only around 20%, according to J.P. Morgan, an investment bank. This means online advertising revenue can be mostly preserved while readers are required to open their wallets. In October the New York Times and International Herald Tribune, its global sister, had nearly 600,000 paid digital subscribers. During the first nine months of the year circulation revenue grew by $55m to $695menough to make up for losses in advertising, which fell by $47m. But it has also become clear that digital advertising dollars will never offset what newspapers are losing in print advertisingwhich is why papers want to be less dependent on ad revenue. Advertising, which is high-margin, has historically contributed around 80% of American newspapers revenues, far more than in most other countries. This is changing, mostly because advertising has slid so far. In the third quarter the New York Times earned more than 55% of its revenues from circulation, compared with only 29% in 2001. Newspaper bosses say they are moving their papers to a model where they get half their revenues from advertising and half from circulation. Paywalls may have prompted a mood-change in the industry, but is the worst really over? There is still plenty to depress newspaper enthusiasts. On December 3rd News Corporation, a media conglomerate, announced plans to close the Daily, its tablet-only newspaper. Newspapers in the crisis-plagued euro zone have been hit particularly hard. El Pas, Spains leading newspaper, has had to lay off a third of its workers. On December 7th the Financial Times Deutschland, a German newspaper, is due to close (see article). Life continues to be particularly difficult for newspapers in saturated markets like Britain. It has not helped that British papers have lately been slower to innovate and more cautious about charging for online access than American peers. Many will watch the performance of News Corps publishing unit, which is being separated from its entertainment unit. On December 3rd Robert Thomson, the editor of the Wall Street Journal, was appointed to run the publishing spin-off. It is also too early to tell exactly how successful paywalls will be. They may not work at national newspapers without any real comparative advantage in news, or at newspapers in competitive districts where other papers are giving away content free. The Washington Post, which has had a tough time, has opposed a paywall so far, presumably because it worries it will not woo enough paying readers. Most important, a papers content has to be worth paying for, which is bad news for papers that have cost-cut themselves into journalistic wraiths. For the industry to

experience a real turnaround, advertising would also have to stabilise, but that depends on the economy. Shattered newspaper executives are right to be hesitant to call the bottom. But Gordon Borrell of Borrell Associates, a consultancy, thinks that newspapers are in a similar situation to radio in the 1950s. When television became popular, many advertisers fled, much as they did from print after the internet arrived. But within several years some returned to radio and ad revenues stabilised at a lower level (see chart on previous page). By the time this happens to newspapers, Clark Kent may want his old job back.