RSS
Ben Franklin Day at The Saratogian: A ‘Declaration of Independence’ from newsroom software (with video)
Jul 04, 2010
The Sunday, July 4 print edition of The Saratogian should look the same as always — if all went according to plan.
But it wasn’t put together in the usual way.
Most of the news and photographs on the pages, and the layout of those pages themselves, were prepared for publication without using the usual newsroom software for writing, editing, toning, cropping and paginating.
Instead, all this work was done using free software available to anyone on the Internet. And yes, it was hard work. The proprietary software is designed to be efficient, reliable and relatively fast for the task of producing a daily newspaper. The free substitutes, not so much.
So why did we do it? Crazy? Maybe. Tired? Definitely. Proud? You bet.
The free software experiment is part of the Ben Franklin Project of the Journal Register Company, which owns The Saratogian, 17 other dailies and a slew of weeklies and has been expanding its online presence with a content-driven, digital-first mentality that reflects where the world of communication is today and where it’s headed.
Part of the Ben Franklin Project is to push us newsies into active engagement with the public as a matter of course in planning, developing and reporting news. The buzzword is crowdsourcing. While it’s not a new concept, the Internet and social media in particular eliminate any excuses about reaching people and making citizens part of the process of shaping their news. That’s the ongoing part of the Ben Franklin Project, which recognizes that our No. 1 product is news content, whether you’re in print or online.
The Ben Franklin Project’s one-shot deal is the preparation of all daily newspapers in the Journal Register Company using free software for publication on the Fourth of July, a symbolic declaration of independence from proprietary software. Last month, a weekly and a daily in the company did it successfully, so the bar was raised for today. It’s a bit of a publicity stunt within the journalism industry, and it’s working. The industry has taken note of remarkable strides in attitudes and practices of the Journal Register Company spearheaded by John Paton, the CEO who has taken the company out of bankruptcy and is leading it into a digital-first world.
The Ben Franklin Project also demonstrates that the technology to publish is out there for anyone to use.
But between us, producing today’s paper wasn’t easy for the newsroom. News Editor Paul Tackett has been working days and nights, on top of his usual job, to set up most of the day’s pages in a layout program called Scribus. In the community, Tackett may be an anonymous editor, but you know him through his compelling page designs.
For today’s print edition, Tackett has duplicated the familiar components of The Saratogian from scratch, with the goal being that you won’t know the difference between the look of today’s paper and tomorrow’s. Likewise, photographers Erica Miller and Ed Burke have used free software (SeaShore) instead of Photoshop for their pictures, and the reporters have filed their stories in Google Docs instead of Microsoft Word. Online Editor Steve Shoemaker is posting video and stories to a free website, in addition to the regular site at saratogian.com.
It’s been a team effort involving other departments of The Saratogian as well as the newsroom.
We in the news industry take great pride in publishing, no matter what the circumstances – and news companies have faced natural disasters much more challenging than anything Journal Register Company CEO John Paton or Ben Franklin could throw our way.
Just wanted to share with you the story behind Sunday’s newspaper, to publicly commend The Saratogian team, and, as always, to invite your comments.
Barbara Lombardo is managing editor of The Saratogian. E-mail her at blombardo@journalregister.com or comment on her blog, Fresh Ink.
81 Responses to this article
Leave a Reply
Stay Connected
E-mail Newsletter Signup
Get our daily news delivered to your inbox.
Cool idea. But you know that Google Docs are just as proprietary as Microsoft office, right? In fact, Google gives you fewer freedoms than Microsoft does, as your ability to run Google’s software at all relies on availability of Google’s servers. As people in China know, this is hardly a given. And your documents are usually sent over the Internet and stored at Google, which raises privacy questions, and for a business, that means security questions.
I hardly intend to dump on Google here — they’ve done a lot of good for the Internet. But if it’s freedom from proprietary software you’re looking for Google isn’t the place to look. It has made several Open Source releases over the years and supports the community with sites like Google Code, but the really important software, the stuff it’s built its empire on, is as proprietary as it gets.
Hi,
I am sure that it took you weeks / months / years of constant use to get your current workflow and effciency in using your proprietary software. And you probably have learnt the various short cuts you can take (scripts / templates / tools created over a long time to help out).
It should be expected that it will take some time for you to be just as efficient in your new environment.
Anyway, it’s good to know that it is possible to use free software to do news publishing.
Fantastic and great job! Like any new workflow, it’s always going to be a difficult with new templates and layout! Commercial software is certainly far ahead in publishing. but it’s great to see you experimenting with free software!
thanks£¬it¡¯s a good software
Congratulations at making it happen.
It seemed you experienced difficulties, because it is hard to move from one familiar interface to another non familiar one. It takes time to find out how to do things in a different way.
“Instead, all this work was done using free software available to anyone on the Internet. And yes, it was hard work. The proprietary software is designed to be efficient, reliable and relative fast for the task of producing a daily newspaper. The free substitutes, not so much.”
You see in commercial software users request features, in FOSS, developers propose features. This is the difference, which leads to sometimes awkward interface or lack of support for specific functions.
The solution, is bug handling. Whatever you found hard, difficult, not there must go as a bug report in each application you used. Only then developers will take notice and address some of your frustrations.
In FOSS, there are not marketing department that looks the web to know what the users think. So an article is nice, but it will not reach the goal of improving the software.
BTW, I don’t think Google doc is Free Software, because free here means freedom not free beer… Try OpenOffice next time…
Keep the good work!
I think it’s great the staff at these newspapers get the opportunity (or perhaps the assignment) to see whether they could do their job using free software. The story indicated that some inconveniences were found in the different programs. As this is open source software, the developers are always looking for detailed comments about things that do not work as you would like it. If you experienced oddities or bugs, it would be very helpful if you could take the time and contact the developers about it. This would only make the software better for all of us.
Thank you for your effort.
I hope that, even more than the sense of “independence”, you gained a genuine experience in what Microsoft has so unrelentingly tried to suppress:
freedom of choice. Microsoft software (including Windows, by the way), are simply *not* the only and unavoidable alternative. Especially in negative economic cycles, it’s more than just an interesting idea to consider driving Buicks, even if one has become somewhat accustomed to Lexuses. Besides saving money, one will sometimes discover that the lower-cost choice isn’t even inferior, but merely different.
Much free and low-cost software is, by all accounts, on arguably level footing with expensive software (e.g. Firefox instead of Internet Explorer, Linux instead of Windows, Open Office instead of Microsoft Office, Google instead of Bing, etc.).
A significant part of the difficulty of using “free” software could be chalked up to the fact that it’s different; some unlearning of the old, and learning of the new; sometimes worse, sometimes better, usually “different”.
I always like to point out that when companies resort to laying off workers, that perhaps some of those jobs can be saved by switching to less costly (or free) software.
I’ll bet those about-to-be-laid-off workers would jump at the chance to train themselves and their colleagues, for free, in exchange for the possibility of retaining their jobs if enough money is saved by switching.
Also, I’d like to mention that the cost of maintaing security of Microsoft Windows desktops is enormous, and those costs might be significantly slashed by switching to Linux desktops (using older cast-off computers in many cases) equipped with Open Office and Firefox.
Especially for casual workers (receptionists, clerks, captive applications, and general-level office workers), a Linux (e.g. Ubuntu) machine would be much more secure,
as well as easier to maintain, faster yet needing generally less cutting-edge hardware, and most of all, a huge dollar savings.
These typical computer users have little or nothing that *requires* Microsoft software; again I hope that your experiment will open some eyes that there *is* a Choice, and for some non-trivial slice of work, that Choice is one that will be highly beneficial to make.
P.S. I just happened to have moved my modest savings account from a Big California Bank to The Adirondack Trust Company. I’m now even happier that I did; I like the way you folks in Saratoga Springs think!
Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is usually created by people who has one specific goal or idea in their heads, then other people pick up the source and implement their own idea, then yet other people take the source and implented their ideas again….
Whereas Proprietory Software (also called Closed Source Software, CSS) have a team of developers that generally streamlines the ideas and requirements of the software and makes it, as said in the article, more streamlined (the exception is of course MicroSoft who creates whatever they want, and try to either squish honest competetion or buy them out in order to maintain their own income).
Some FOSS programmes could very well need a “board” who are dedicated to streamlining the contributed sourcecode and implement it in a more efficient way, however, the beauty of FOSS is excactly that anyone, ANYONE, can pick up and use whatever parts of the sourcecode, or even the full sourcecode, for their own ideas.
Now… The GIMP vs Adobe PhotoShop, for example…. I know personally people who swear to using The GIMP because they know and understand it, and they are completely lost if they have to use Adobe PhotoShop. And they are professionals, using The GIMP because it does what they need it to do, in the way the want to do it.
Does it mean The GIMP is better than PS? Nopes. And it deosn’t mean it’s worse, either. It just means, some people like The GIMP, some likes PS.
And honestly… I don’t think the experiment truly shows the “power” or “quality” of FOSS…. the editors using FOSS for ONE issue of their papers, where they’ve used proprietory software for years beforehand. To truly get a proper “fell” of the FOSS alternatives, I believe the people working with them papers, would need to use the FOSS software for a few weeks to get used to the quirks and differencies.
All that said: Congrats to all the editors and journalists for giving FOSS a go. You’ve showed it CAN be done, even with programmes you’re not familiar with.
And this experiment truly shows, there are MILLIONS of £, $ and € to be saved, by using Free (as in speech) software, vs handing out however much it is for however many licenses of each programme.
WELL DONE!!!
You got a halfway decent looking paper printed on time? That’s better than I expected.
I am not sure I understand the point in just doing this for one day. Why put all the effort into learning and using all these great resources just to go back to the same proprietary software that is the status-quo? If the Journal Registry Company truly was doing so bad financially such a short time ago, why not keep the switch to Free and Open Source Software in place. Saving those thousands of dollars per year on licensing fees would be minor drop in the bucket for any large company, but it would still be a sign to the share holders, board of directors that even when things are looking up the company is still remembering the recent past. That is just my 2 cents though.
Still a good thing that was done, and I hope several articles were made in print highlighting what was done.
Congratulations on your foray into free and open source software for newspaper publishing. I have been using open source software based on Linux for four years, and I use Windows less than 5% of my time at work. The Linux reliability is incredible. I need to reboot Windows at least once every other day–Linux never.
Recommendations:
1) Prepare for this by becoming familiar with the FOSS application programs a few weeks in advance. It takes longer than one day to do this properly!
2) Take home some work to do on a Puppy Linux live CD, using Abiword or even OpenOffice for word processing. Puppy Linux can be installed in an USB Flash Drive for fast booting. Then OpenOffice can be installed on the flash drive as well. You save your work on the flash drive; when you shut down, your PC is back to Windows.
3) It’s such a waste to do this only for one day. Don’t do this just as a one-shot deal!
Something that is new and that you have only used for one day would be hard to use. Using something as complex as software for only one day is not a fair trial. To say “proprietary software is designed to be efficient, reliable and relative fast” maybe the efficiency and speed come from being familiar with the software.
Example: I could make the same statements if I used OSX or Windows 7 and applications built for their operating systems. Why? I’m a Linux Systems Engineer. Just from shear repetition and use I am faster on a Linux system using the applications I have used every day for years. It doesn’t matter if the other guys software is better or not I will be faster on Linux and find the other guys systems that “it was hard work”.
It would seem that these days with Newspapers crying over loss of income that you would permanently go with Open Source Software. The company that I work for I’m sure is smaller than your company and we save over $250,000.00 in just licenses fees a year using Open Source not to mention the savings in maintenance costs because Open Source is more secure, reliable, and easier to maintain. A quarter of a million in savings on overhead is nothing to laugh at.
I am glad that you all tried it for one day but give it a chance use it for a month or so and THEN write the article.
Interesting piece, and I’m happy to see at least someone in the media actually interested in freedom. Still, it would be interesting to know what you did and didn’t like about the software, why you won’t continue to use it, etc. Some of us would like a follow-up piece.
As someone very familiar with free/open source software, I can certainly appreciate the pros and cons, but sometimes one’s reactions are more a case of unfamiliarity than actual flaws in the FOSS programs. Anyway, I hope you might give it an extended trial sometime. It certainly can’t hurt the bottom line, considering the cost of Photoshop, InDesign (or whatever you’re using), and so on. (And yes, labor costs might be a more important consideration if the FOSS programs are causing work slowdowns, etc.)
Hey all. Steve Shoemaker, online editor at The Saratogian, here. I find it fascinating how the disucssion on this project is shaping up, and I want to thank everyone for weighing in!
I’d like to address a few points, in no particular order:
1) We’re all waiting to see what the next step in the the Ben Franklin Project is, most of us with baited breath. I think it’s too early to rule out the use of these tools for future editions of The Saratogian and other newspapers owned by Journal Register Company.
2) I’ll do my best to get some written accounts from our staff over the next few weeks, outlining or highlighting problems/inefficiencies/likes/dislikes regarding their use of the software and post it to our saraTechian blog (http://saratechian.blogspot.com).
3) When we use the term “free” in this project we really mean “available to use at no monetary cost.” I’m perhaps less tech-savvy than you might assume given my position, so it’s interesting to watch you all debate open source/proprietary and parse the meaning of “free” (not a criticism, by the way. Please carry on!).
I hope everyone’s enjoying their long weekend (I know I am, though the BFP killed my Saturday — great to see, from all your responses, that it was worth it).
I find it hard to believe that the editor of a newspaper doesn’t know how to spell ” ‘bated”. I call fake!
As a Scribus developer I would be interested to find out the major stumbling blocks you encountered when using our software. Most of our users use Scribus for small newsletters, so their needs have driven Scribus development to a large part. Knowing your requirements we could improve Scribus in ways that make it more feasible for newspaper production. What version of Scribus did you use? What platform? What was your workflow?
Cheers,
Andreas
Google Docs is not free software[0].
[0] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[...] The Saratogian celebrates Independence Day by producing the newspaper using only free software The Ben Franklin Project’s one-shot deal is the preparation of all daily newspapers in the Journal Register Company using free software for publication on the Fourth of July, a symbolic declaration of independence from proprietary software. (tags: newspapers innovation) [...]
[...] Ben Franklin Day at The Saratogian: A ‘Declaration of Independence’ from newsroom software (with… Most of the news and photographs on the pages, and the layout of those pages themselves, were prepared for publication without using the usual newsroom software for writing, editing, toning, cropping and paginating. [...]
“The proprietary software is designed to be efficient, reliable and relative fast for the task of producing a daily newspaper.”
This is not true. Proprietary software is designed, first and foremost, to make the author money.
If it happens that the best way to make money is to make what the customer wants, then that is what they get. But the best way to make money isn’t to make the product the customer wants, the best way to make money is how proprietary vendors make money now: by using IP laws to keep competitors away, and create arbitrary limits in the products, to force users to buy the same product again at some point in the future.
Software does not wear out like physical goods, yet proprietary software is sold like physical goods. Technically the buyer is only licensing the product, but unless you are an IP nerd you probably won’t realise this. Proprietary vendors take advantage of this misunderstanding.
Proprietary software products have to be limited to get future sales. Vendors do this by purposely limiting compatibility (knowing that most users will never know), EULAs, and hiding behind limited support statements. Things like a product will only be supported until a certain date, and then, even if it opens your computer up to attack, the vendor will not fix the problems. And no, you don’t get access to the source code so you can fix it yourself, if you want. Remember, you don’t own the product you “bought”.
FOSS does put the user first, but it is usually designed to be the most powerful implementation of something possible. This means that the user needs understanding of what they are trying to do, and how the computer will do that. If users have used proprietary software all their life then they probably don’t have genuine understanding, but only knowledge of how to use a proprietary product. Proprietary software must not actually empower the user, but only make the user think that the software is empowering them. If the user was empowered, he would be able to easily switch to an alternative product, which is bad for the business of the proprietary software maker.
This is why proprietary software, more and more, is trying to hand hold the user. Get the user dependant, cut support, sell them the same product again.
I got sick of this pattern, even though I was pirating software for years. I haven’t legally had a copy of Windows since 95a, yet gave up on the platform with XP. Free software has shortcomings, but I feel the ones that proprietary software have are ultimately much worse.
And if you are still doubting, look at the mad foaming that is happening with web applications or web 2.0. That is really proprietary software 2.0, yet with the user having even less control over the application and their data. Proprietary software 1.0 made the world’s richest man, so the prospect of lock in with proprietary software 2.0 is much worse. Avoid it all costs, and don’t fall for the hype.
Secure proxies are selected to make sure you can visit all websites without any limits, essentially unblocking the internet.
[...] Quest’anno è toccato al quotidiano The Saratogian. [...]
A SUPPORTED BY THE DEVELOPER TOOLS? It was interesting. You seem very knowledgeable in ypour field.
Fantastic blogpost, I favorited your site, All the Best
@Steve_Shoemaker:
“… with baited breath” —> “… with bated breath”?
As one poster notes, it took probably years to become efficient in the proprietary tools that the Newspaper uses. I think it’s pretty amazing that they were able to do what they did for one day using completely new software, proprietary or open source.
Congratulations and I commend the openness to try open source.
Hey, thanks for the blog article.Thanks Again. Will read on…
Did any body take a look at Campsite? It’s open source software written specifically for newspapers and magazines, and that means our users are journalists and editors. The interfaces are easy to understand even if the journalists have no computer experience and users are only shown those actions which they have the right to use. Tasks are made to use as few clicks as possible, and common tasks are made to be quick and simple. It’s made for journalists … on deadline.
http://www.sourcefabric.org/en/home/web/69/overview.htm?tpl=18
Now a day News websites and papers, but also TV and Radio stations … around the world are using Campsite.
http://www.sourcefabric.org/en/home/web/32/whos-using.htm?tpl=323
Admin & Webmasters … Campsite is a multilingual content management system based on PHP and other website needs. If you want to it’s … free available for download here.
http://www.sourcefabric.org/en/home/web/35/download–install.htm?tpl=18
I commend the newsroom staff of The Saratogian for using free software to publish the Fourth of July issue. As many others have commented, free does not equal FOSS, and I think that the next go-around for this experiment(if there is a next time…) might require that the software be Open Source Software(including operating system).
Being an IT person with 15 years in prepress and advertising, I always wanted to try moving towards FOSS, but the limiting factor has always been the need to interface into proprietary production systems and backend systems that FOSS could never fulfill. I’m sure that we’re not hearing/reading/seeing the entire story, and would like to get more details regarding how this project was hatched and the approval process to move forward with it. Perhaps the experiment was limited to the newsroom, since anything beyond the newsroom would require vertically engineered systems(plate making systems, colorimetry/spectroanalyzer software, rasterizing software, pdf normalization, ad insertion systems, etc).
Very interesting experiment but I agree wholeheartedly with b0 and others who say that you should try it for longer. Doing it in any system other than you are used to is an impressive challenge, but doesn’t really tell us much about the shortcomings of the free software (that could then be addressed.)
Great job.