Calling Out EdWeek and the WashPost
Also worth noting is EdWeek's announcement that they are going to start charging for online services, first brought to my attention by Jimmy K at EducationNews.org: "Truly amazing with a large staff, foundation funding and fee-based subscription high priced ads and they need more money to operate!"
Well, not truly amazing, but a little sad.
Jimmy also calls the WashPost out for its "reluctance to properly cover the failures in public education [that] may be tied to their own investment interests." In particular, Kilpatrick points to the Post's stories on tutoring (Learning About the Learning Centers, andFor Some, Learning Centers Make the Grade) which dont cop to owning Kumon, Sylvan, Huntington and Score!
Maybe some real education journalists can shed some light on this?
6/24 UPDATE: Apparently Jimmy K was incorrect about the article and it does disclose its holdings. His site reflects the correction, and now mine does too.
6/27 UPDATE: Jeanne from EdWeek responds below.
Well, not truly amazing, but a little sad.
Jimmy also calls the WashPost out for its "reluctance to properly cover the failures in public education [that] may be tied to their own investment interests." In particular, Kilpatrick points to the Post's stories on tutoring (Learning About the Learning Centers, andFor Some, Learning Centers Make the Grade) which dont cop to owning Kumon, Sylvan, Huntington and Score!
Maybe some real education journalists can shed some light on this?
6/24 UPDATE: Apparently Jimmy K was incorrect about the article and it does disclose its holdings. His site reflects the correction, and now mine does too.
6/27 UPDATE: Jeanne from EdWeek responds below.
posted by Alexander Russo at 6/27/2005 06:29:00 PM
1 Comments:
"Truly amazing with a large staff, foundation funding and fee-based subscription high priced ads and they need more money to operate!"
I almost laughed out loud when I read this. A large staff? I’m looking around me ...
I’ve been managing edweek.org since 1998. Hiring me brought our online staff from two all the way up to three people. A few years later we added another online editor, and stayed at four right up until 2004, when we added a fifth editor.
So, that’s the “large staff” that’s been running, soup to nuts, edweek.org for lo these many years.
Please also note that we’ve been giving away our expensive-to-produce original content online since 1996. But even as we launched the site, we anticipated a time when we might have to start charging for it—or for parts of it—should giving it away start negatively affecting our print products.
Well, we’re at that point now, as are many other papers struggling with the same issues.
So yes, while it’s true that we are “going to start charging for online services,” for the record, we will only be charging for a slice of what comprises the totality of edweek.org—a good portion of our site will remain free to those who simply register. You—and I think your readers—will agree that registration has pretty much become SOP at most news sites. A bit of our content will remain free even to those who choose to never register.
So no, not truly amazing. And yes, maybe a little sad. However, we are confident that the content—and enhancements—we’ll be offering online will be worth the price of admission.
Finally, we’ve chosen to go about this transition as transparently as possible. Check out our publisher’s blog explaining all the ins-and-outs behind this decision.
—Jeanne McCann
jmccann@epe.org
Director of New Media
edweek.org
http://www.edweek.org
Post a Comment
<< Home