newspaper originally uploaded by GiantsFanatic
Jeff Achen, a well known journalist from Thisweek/ECM recently posted an excellent blog entry entitled A new business model for local news may be on the horizon where he discusses the options that their struggling industry has in moving forward with providing news to the general public.
Jeff discusses the advertising woes that the newspaper industry has with steep competition in classifies, auto ads and real estate listings. He wonders if local media sources can get away with a subscription model in providing their news to the people all while changing their format to a low-profit entity whose primary mission would be to provide a social benefit first and foremost over making a profit.
This is an interesting topic as many of us are interested in the news that the local media provides about our political and social activities around the South Metro. I have probably linked to this before and I know I have mentioned in during The Show interview I had with Jeff recently but Time Magazine wrote an article about what occurs when local media disappears and the content is a bit frightening:
1. Lower voter turnout
2. Fewer people run for office
3. More incumbents are reelected
According to the article this only occurred in larger areas but being that this article came from a study done on a newspaper in the Midwest with a circulation very similar to the regional papers that Thisweek publishes (18,000 to 25,000 depending) I’d have to say that we would definitely fall prey to this.
I argue that while we need the local media to continue its coverage, it needs to be modified heavily before they move to a subscription model which will not work at all. They need to drop fluff coverage, sports, and all the press release rewrites that they offer to local governments and instead concentrate on what’s truly important. Jeff later agrees (true journalists!) but I really wonder if the management of the smaller local papers will.
I came up with the big question all the local papers should be asking themselves as they work to reposition themselves in a tough market:
Why is it that some random idiot with a computer, a car, and a telephone can provide information to a group of people in their spare time and for free when we cannot?
And so I wonder what everyone here thinks the local papers should do to better their chance at survival while providing us with the information we need to avoid falling into the political void that can come from lack of information? This is an important topic for both old and new media and one that needs citizen input to work. So do us all a favor and comment on and let us know what you think!
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
June 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
At first blush, my only thought is that you’re under estimating “fluff” coverage, in my opinion.
In Lakeville, for example, there is a great amount of community pride in the local newspaper and its coverage of high school sports and in things like community festivals and senior activities.
It’s not like this everywhere, clearly, but Lakeville has long felt a connection with its very own, community paper. We’ve changed the name — it used to be the “Life & Times,” but there is an expectation from both readers and advertisers that we run sports stories and scores, run senior announcements, and profile Miss Lakeville and cover the hell out of Pan-O-Prog.
If we didn’t do those things in Lakeville, we’d obviously be able to devote more time to “more important” stories like preliminary budgets and the like, but I can promise we’d lose a lot in the process.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I have to agree with Derrick. I get incredible response when I write a “fluff” story. People comment, e-mail and call to say they love seeing good news in the paper, too.
I know you have a different tolerance for these things, Bill, but some people want to read about the good things their neighbors are doing, too.
That is not to say that I don’t think we need to do the digging and hard news reporting, either.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
News at a community level is all about getting names of residents in the paper. It isn’t as much about huge investigative pieces but those aren’t excluded as well. Local sports (especially high school) is also another big piece of the puzzle. An effective newspaper can’t be effective if they cut any of those items that can easily be viewed as fluff. There isn’t always a huge amount of “hard news” to be had at a community level so the personal interest stuff gets a higher priority. People like to see their names and faces in print. They like to see their neighbors and friends int eh same medium. However, there’s also a place for the kind of coverage you do here. It’s actually a piece of what’s missing from plenty of community newspapers and some good blogs should be looked at by the community newspapers because more content=more traffic and a variety of content makes people stick around but in the end it’s still ads that monetize everything in the free online world. Donations could make up a small percentage of the puzzle but they alone won’t save journalism and newspapers.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Jess, long as you’re here, I’m going to go ahead and call you a story stealer! Good thing I got the Pink Cow story up before you, eh? ;-)
Moving on …
I wouldn’t say that, Sornie. I’m at a local newspaper and we’re not in the business of “putting names in print.” We don’t run honor rolls any more, for example and we don’t cover Pan-O-Prog so people can try and get in the paper. It has a value, as Jess said, to people on a different level than hard, gotcha news does.
I would agree that there isn’t a lot of hard hitting news all the time. In the summer, hard news can be hard to come by …
June 24th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
My comments have to do with the cost of researching and printing them. While people love to be all warm and fuzzy, at the end of the day they aren’t necessary and aren’t at all cost effective. Jeff asked how newspapers can make money and I said to drop staff and stick to what newspapers really need to concentrate on and let the market pickup where they left off.
While the general public isn’t really interested in sitting through 5 hours of city council meetings to get a 1 page summary, they are certainly going to sit through the 5 hours of their kids’ ball games and will fill the needed niche when it goes away–especially if they give as big of a shit as you all seem to claim that they do.
Why do you say that?
June 24th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Derrick — I am sure you got the same e-mail I did about the Pink Cow … You just got to it before me!
But you can definitely say you “scooped” me. Oh, I am so punny!!!
Bill, you are right to some extent. But the general public doesn’t have time to ferret out quirky, interesting stories. And I do believe that a big part of our business comes from people looking to be entertained.
I’m going to shut up now and get back to that fluffy piece I’m writing. :)
June 24th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Your business is faltering and the industry is doing very little to stop the slide even though they have seen it coming for years. Granted, I don’t understand all the dynamics at play and it’s interesting to hear from the side of old media but to be honest, you need some new blood to look at what your industry is doing wrong and how your reader base can correct it.
I always go back to the “Kindle model” for newspaper content delivery. Instead of giving the media in a format that the people want, the newspaper industry is always looking at their bottom lines and is instead interested in telling us what they believe we want. Unfortunately, while this seems like a cool idea at first, a subscription based model via multiple proprietary devices is no different than what you already have that has proven a failure.
To me I look at the newspaper and the important shit is on page one. This is no longer a time when the vast majority of people rely on the newspaper as their only news source. It’s time to stop paying for printing and distribution costs of something that doesn’t matter after page one.
That said, I hope to hear more from those that aren’t part of the media and what they believe are good ideas on how the industry should rethink their future. After all, we are the consumers and we are moving away in droves so what would bring us back?
June 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Bill, I don’t have the stats in front of me and I’m too lazy, frankly, to look them up, but there have been focus groups, and oodles of research done on what readers WANT out of their news, whether it be online or in print. I can assure you that the content isn’t the mitigating problem in the newspaper dilemma. People want “fluff.” That much is clear. The muddy part is how they want it.
A good example is the story Jess and I did for our respective newspapers on Pink Cow Ice Cream. We’ve received comments and letters about the stories we’ve written. People appreciate those stories. They fill a niche. They’re a vital part to community journalism, and I don’t consider myself a “old journalist” considering I graduated in 2005.
A sophisticated reader isn’t always interested in governance and politics and money. They’re interested in what’s new in town and who’s doing something new or exciting.
I think magazines are a great example. Their subscriptions are faltering just like newspapers, but readership isn’t down. They’re just getting it for free online. Same story with newspapers. Content difference: magazines are all features all the time — for the most part. The content isn’t the issue.
You say we should slim operations and focus on hard news and less on “fluff.” I can promise you that the “fluff” is as large a market share as the non-fluff.
As for summer being a tough hard news period … in the summer, most cities scale back on the business they conduct at meetings. Budget work is done for the most part. School boards actually slim down to one meeting per month until school is back in session.
I don’t know if you think there is a story behind every thing a board or council discusses, or if you think there is a hidden story or agenda in every council or board’s action, but I can assure you, that’s not the case. Sure, there is news. And we cover it. But it may only be a story a week. We need to offer more than one story per week.
In many cases, meetings don’t provide anything the public will find newsworthy. Simple as that.
You say that our business model is faltering. This is true. But why? Because people are tired of reading “fluff,” or tired of paying to read it?
I think it’s the latter. I don’t think content is the issue.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
And Jess, I laughed out loud at your pun. Well done.
And I did get the same email. Just teasing you.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Thanks Derrick.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Do I expect my local news paper to cover the same international topics as a larger regional paper? no. Do I expect a writer at my local paper to win a Pulitzer? No. Do I expect a reporter to ask follow up questions that a regular citizen would ask if having a conversation with a subject of a story? You bet. Do I even expect a bit of skepticism when being fed a story by an interested party/government official/business person? Absolutely. Just because you are covering a small town doesn’t mean you don’t have to think up the tough questions AND ask them. Case in point: “Here are the earnings for the PAC” oh, ok. Then write about how the “PAC made money” without asking for the P&L statement that told the entire story. Come ON.
I read the fluff pieces – they are nice. But newsreporting (to me, anyway) involves reporting the good AND the bad. If there is gritty stuff going on in a small town, that has to get reported too (heroin use by minors, prostitution busts, in depth analysis of crime statistics, etc.)
I like the community calendar to show what is coming up so I can plan my calendar for the next week/month accordingly, and would like this to be expanded actually. Why not include a comprehensive calendar of what restaurants have “kids eat free” nights, or the fact that Home Depot has a cool free project for kids the first Saturday of each month, or deadlines for signing up for parks programs, or cool library events. If all of this is gathered in one place, it feeds the economy AND makes the local paper more relevant and more likely to be read AND needed by the readers. Don’t just base it on what events people submit, but do some actual legwork and compilation of material. Make yourself needed and relevant.
Bill’s right. Find out what people want in a small town paper and then do it. A good place to start: drive around town and look in people’s paper boxes. Find a couple that are stuffed full a month’s worth of old community newspapers. Then go to the house and ring the bell and ask that person: “What kind of content would it take for you to walk out to the paperbox each Thursday (and remember that Thursday is publication day) and say, “I wonder what’s in the local paper today?” Instead of just picking up the mail and leaving the paper in the box to rot.
Because sooner or later, the “same old, same old” is just not going to cut it anymore, and you are going to be in the same position as the Yellow Pages: picked up off the driveway and put in the recycle bin on the way into the house, without being used or read.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Reading the responses from our Jess and Derrick, its very easy to see why newspapers are failing.
Fluff to me is not high school sports, or even restaraunt reviews or stories about local festivals. I love that stuff. Fluff is writing a story about the PAC that only serves to further the agenda of the had that feeds you. Fluff is doing restaraunt reviews where every single review is all positive. Fluff is the “Cars” section of the Sunday paper where week after week I can read about how great some new car is, even when it sucks. Fluff is writing stories that suck up to people instead of objectively trying to report the news.
I will pay for a paper with local news. I want to read about the city council meeting, the school board, the high school football team, and upcoming events in my community. I dont want to read drivel that is clearly just a mouthpiece for local politicians or advertisers.
Neither one of you gets it, and its sad, but you are working on a sinking ship. I cant depend on a newpaper for my news, because I know you have already been bought and you are much more worried about pleasing the local govt than reporting to me the actual, unbiased facts.
To go one step farther, there are few “News Outlets” that truly report unbiased info. I should not have to go to BBC, CNN, Foxnews, CSMonitor, RealClearPolitics, and several local and regional sites to get all sides of one story.
At least with the blog I know what I am getting. Bill is not hiding behind being a journalist, or trying to cleverly hide his opinion by writing his stories from a cute little slant to convey his opinions.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“A sophisticated reader isn’t always interested in governance and politics and money. They’re interested in what’s new in town and who’s doing something new or exciting.” Per Derrick.
I want both. Is that too much to ask? If it has to be one or the other, I’ll take the paper doing the watchdog role and leave the “there’s a new ice cream van in town” to the individual business’ advertising budget. Hey, wait just a minute! That would work out for you guys too! Hmmm.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Chad made some good points. As I mentioned in the conversation a few weeks ago regarding the blurring of the lines between bloggers and journalists, I think the local and regional news media have lost their sense of access.
I rely on journalists’ credentials and more ready access to information because, theoretically, that will make for a more informed story.
No offense to you Derrick, and especially to you Jess since I’m more familiar with you and your work, but almost all of the “news” reported in the papers in the south metro has appeared to be stories recycled from this very blog and a few others.
I chuckled last night when I looked at the Strib on my cell phone and saw the headline about the PAC not doing so well. I’ll grant that it was nice that they used their access to get more in-depth comments from the VenuWorks exec (which were laughable). But that was the same story I read long ago in the Pioneer Press and the local papers…which were printed well after the discussions on the topics here.
On a local level, very little is being reported that I couldn’t already find elsewhere and much more quickly and objectively. I have media experience and a degree in communications. I can write creative news pieces myself. What I can’t do is consult with experts to help me analyze and sniff out the truth and/or pertinent details behind the nonsense the City Council, Mayor and other local officials are spewing. I don’t have access to get behind closed doors or get in a locker room. I don’t have the time and/or resources to travel around to photograph, scan the police/fire scanners, meet with people like Wolf Larson in-depth or get a few meals paid for so I can produce a qualified restaurant review.
I’m stuck in a distant office for most of the day so I don’t have time to explore all of the Supermercado Olmecas, the Satay 2 Gos, the Rearn Thai Markets, the Blue Max Beer Aisle and the other unique markets/businesses/businesspeople that make our community rich and different.
At least in the south metro, the printed news is rarely better or more informative than the comments section on a blog or the word on the street. Lately, when I’ve seen neat things around town and thought a whole lot of people should know, I’ve told Bill about it because I know he’ll get it out there. Hopefully people here have benefitted from my tips on restaurants that Bill has so generously followed up on. I know I’ve benefitted from others’ information.
That’s really what it’s all about to me. I want what will make me more informed than I can be on my own. I want information from experts, not creative writers. I want someone with the time and resources to take basic information and turn it into something that provokes thought and action.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
MSPD, thanks for the thoughts, and for saying what I wanted, more eloquently.
One thing I would add/elaborate on. The fact that someone needs this explained to them tells me there is probably not much drive there to actually go out and try to dig for the truth.
Derrick kinda summed that up when he said there is no hard news in the summer months.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I’m going to agree with some of the other commenters that the “fluff” pieces are actually a very important part of the local news. It may not have the same drama as scandals, trumped up political debates, and allegations of wrong doing. But it is something that people can’t readily get elsewhere, and something that connects readers to their neighbors and communities.
My feeling is that to be successful, local news needs to have an online presence that is the go-to source for deeply local information. There needs to be comprehensive and trustworthy information about events, dining, local businesses, navigating schools and local government, etc. Local news, including the “fluff” pieces, are an important part of it and will keep people there, but it isn’t what will draw people in. If people go to ThisWeek-Online.com everytime they are looking for somewhere to eat or something to do in the neighborhood, then restaurants and businesses will be willing to pay more to advertise there.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
When I was a student at the U, I interned for an organization that bought a lot of ad space in the Minnesota Daily, and part of my duties was placing the ads and negotiating the rates. By far, the sections that were the most expensive in which to buy ads were the sports section and the back page with the comics, crossword, and dating advice column. The actual hard news sections were substantially less expensive. The Daily had done extensive research and surveys to see what was read what the most, and the hard news wasn’t it.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Chad, I don’t think you’re critically reading what Jess and I are saying.
I think it’s pretty clear that we’re not advocating newspapers and their reporters write crappy stories about cars and people who need sucking up to.
I think we’re advocating the current business model is broken because the medium is foggy, not because of content. If you think all those things should remain in local newspapers, then you and I and likely Jess are on the same page.
I also think it’s pretty clear you haven’t a clue how the advertising process at a newspaper works, because what you’re saying is so wrong, it’s downright nonsense.
I know you have your issues with the PAC and how the topic as a whole has been covered, not only by Thisweek, but any news outlet covering the South Metro save this blog.
So the PAC and anything Mayor Kautz touches notwithstanding, I’d love an example of a suck-up fluff piece found in our newspaper that had a benefit to our bottom-line somehow. The truth is, you’ll be hard pressed to find one.
I’d say 99 percent of the businesses we cover don’t advertise in our newspaper. City legal notices are pittance compared to the other revenue generated by the print edition.
You say we don’t get it, but it’s you who doesn’t. You say we’re working for a medium you can’t trust because we’ve been “bought” and we’re worried about “pleasing local government.”
You couldn’t be further from the truth. We have no reason to do such a thing. They can’t legally freeze us out, and they don’t offer enough in terms of ad revenue for it to matter.
Whit o’ wit, I think you are getting both, frankly, but that’s just my opinion. As for the individual advertising budget … it’s an ice cream truck. What budget are you talking about? Not to mention … it’s a strong community feature story.
Brandon: Good points.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Tim, while your research and thoughts are probably accurate, papers across the country are going out of business. There is a flaw someplace in the research. Perhaps its the fact that the demographic that is reading these sections is not the same demographic that is spending money. Dont know.
I buy a newspaper a few times a week, mostly to have something to read at lunch time. I buy a Sunday paper most weeks for the coupons and the Money/Business section. I also still subscribe to my home town paper from Northwest Iowa to keep up with family and friends and all that is going on with them. I dont know where that puts me, but I would guess I spend slightly above what an average person does on newspapers.
It may be entirely true that the sports and other soft news are the parts that people read the most, but its also true that this is not selling enough papers to stay in business. GM charged more for, and made more money on an Escalade than they did on a Yukon, but the fact is neither one was enough to keep them in business, regardless of what all the studies and focus groups told them. So, keep thinking the same way and go down with the ship, or start listening to the people who are actively seeking the news when we give feedback on what we are looking for.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Tim wrote:
I didn’t go to UMN, I don’t have the research you did, and I didn’t work in the field but knowing what I know about college students and their behavior regarding what is read in the newspaper, I have to agree with you. Unfortunately I don’t think that extrapolates to the real world. I am a much different person 10 years later and while I still read the police blotter, it’s not so I can see if my name or my deed was listed. And while I wasn’t looking for news back then (in the campus newspaper at BGSU it was filled mostly with U-wire bullshit anyway) I certainly am now.
Thisweek did extensive focus groups, ones that I completely and utterly disagree with (I hate only seeing AV/RMT in the paper) but thankfully I use RSS and get my news from them online, otherwise I wouldn’t see 2/3 of what they write.
So while research is great, it’s also not always going to support the biggest readers/supporters of the newspaper. I don’t know what that means to you but to me, that means that there was a serious breakdown somewhere–something like what happened to Microsoft and Bob.
Derrick wrote:
Derrick, you want to speak to those city council members after meetings and get quotes from them. In order to do so you have to be civil and write bullshit that won’t piss them off so bad that they refuse to speak to you. There’s that and there’s the “official newspaper of Foo” designation. Both of those things add to your bottom line and make you less likely to do your job the way the public has become accustomed to it being done. Just because you think that we’re all a bunch of conspiracy theorists (we aren’t, you’re just fucking blind–much like how you view the failing of your industry) doesn’t mean that our opinions aren’t valid.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
What they’re doing now might not be keeping them in business, but at the same time, I don’t think focusing more on hard news and deeper coverage of local politics and government will either, even if I personally would like it. I guess I just don’t see why this is being treated as a given.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
It may not be a given, but it is a given that a huge percentage of papers have either gone out of business, declared bankruptcy, or are teetering on the edge. Business as usual is not going to get it done, and personaly, I think its stupid to think the only problem is the medium.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
I vote for more news. Keep the fluff to the rear of the publication.
Make it real news, please. All of my potential questions asked and answered.
June 25th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Personally, as ignorant as it sounds, I try and stay away from local and national mainstream media and news. It’s all violence, drugs, wars, and not enough of an uplifting benefit for me to watch. I’ll catch the weather at most. Fluff is nice, but life isn’t all about puppy dogs and flowers either.
When I do try and catch up on local media, I’ll look to blogs etc that aren’t constrained by the need to be politically correct, or worry about offending someone or some group. Too much candy-coating and over dramatization in most other news venues.
Also, I don’t care to pay for a paper that I really don’t read, and then recycle, nor do I have the time to spend sifting thru pages of news, heck, I can’t even find time to keep my own blog updated! :(
June 25th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Some of you guys talk about this stuff like you have a better clue what to do than the companies suffering do.
It’s not like I’m confused or ignorant about the maladies the industry is facing. I’m more acutely aware than some of you are since I’m in the middle of it.
Here ‘s what we know:
Generally speaking, readers are fine with the content found in most newspapers. Do people have individual requests for changes in coverage? Of course. But for the most part, there is a good blend of hard news to “fluff” and features found in most publications.
The problem is a double-edged sword that has nothing to do with the content provided.
The problem is that the internet has created a place where print ads are irrelevant because car dealerships and furniture stores can have their own Web presence and advertise for themselves at half the cost of running an ad.
Secondly, and actually less significantly, subscriptions are down because people have discovered that they can read the news for free on the internet, which in some cases is also a more convenient way to be informed.
For those who are blasting away at the content of newspapers, you’re missing the larger issues and overlooking that it’s deeper than print. It applies to broadcast and radio as well.
As for how to fix it, read Jeff’s column. There is no magic bullet, and that’s the point.
I think journalism is going to have to die for a period of time, then rise from the ashes in whatever form the public wants. May not be the best answer, but it’s what we’re sliding toward.
And Chad, I don’t think it’s stupid to think. I live it and breathe it every day. There isn’t a flaw in the research … the problem is that there isn’t really a good answer yet.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Why does anyone pick up a newspaper? To get at information they can’t get elsewhere. Whether it’s news, movies schedules, advertisements, sports results, or your daily dose of For Better Or Worse, they come to the newspaper, ultimately for its content. I think it’s a bit to easy to blame the internet, the internet is just the final straw. Sort of.
Back in the old days when I was just a kid in the backwaters of California’s Central Valley, Sacramento, the state capital, and the place I was born, had no less than 4 daily newspapers going. This was about 45 years ago. In San Francisco there were a ton. There were morning papers and afternoon papers. When I moved to Stockton with the folk in the early 70’s there were two papers, both afternoon editions that kids would deliver after school. I remember walking past newsstands in the city that had 10 newspapers for sale at any given time. Some local, some from elsewhere, like the New York Times, Washington Post and so forth.
My point? Everyone of these papers competed with each other for stories and commentary. The content that each paper had is what drove it’s sales. For example, I loved reading Herb Cain, the famous columnist in the Chronicle. The Chron also had a sport page that was excellent, the Sporting Green, that was actually printed on light green paper. I’d guess back then they had 5 full time reporters covering the Giants and the 49ers. If you wanted “hard news†you would pick up the Examiner. That was an old Hearst property and had access to the Hearst news wires with their breaking news from around the globe.
Before the internet you had the local papers going to pool reporting to save money. In my life time AP and Reuters have become the source for most of the content of our local papers, no longer does the Star Tribune send a guy to Washington to cover a hearing or a session of congress. My opinion is all this pool reporting diluted the differences between the papers, you no longer had to chose a paper based on the quality of the writing.
The columnists presented the bean counters at paper with problems too, as they became more popular they had could demand higher salaries and start their own media careers. Here in the Twin Cities, Patrick Ruesse is a good example, he’s a fixture over at the Tribune and as he gets more popular he’s able to branch out to other media, he’s able to demand more money, the paper has to cut out the mid-tier reporters to pay for him..
So what’s my point? Content. When I was a young college kid in Journalism school we were taught all it was all about the content. The writing and the ability scoop the competition on big stories is what drove readership.
Today’s big newspapers have sort of lost that edge as they’ve commoditized information, generalized it to save money, and as the attention spans of the public have gotten to the point where a series of 140 character tweets suffices for news coverage, they need to go back and evaluate what service they’re offering up.
This is where the local guys, I believe, really have an edge. The Internet has clearly eliminated the need for hourly editions of the paper. News breaks to fast and there is no way print can beat virtual reporting. However at the local level, there still a great demand for local news. What’s happening next door? How did Apple Valley do last night. Even in this day an age it’s damn hard to get a local lacrosse score, believe me I know. I think the small local papers need to evolve into more of a localized information community, based online but with local print delivery.
Reporting in the traditional sense of hiring a kid to go cover football games and city council meetings could be replaced with bloggers, like Bill here, feed information to the paper, the paper pays a small fee. Perhaps the paper can run a clearing house of meetings or sporting events they need coverage on. The professional journalists become more like editors, looking at content and grammer and so forth, and assuring that the branded look and feel of the medium is kept intact.
This frees up the reporting staff to cover the things that really matter. The PAC fiasco for example, I more detail.
The reason there is so much fluff today, I think, is that there aren’t that many reporters anymore. The few on staff at This Week or the Sun Current have to be selective with what they cover, and when the week deadline is approaching and you have 24 inches left to fill… that story about making delicious home grown tomato soup starts to look OK, after all, someone will cut it out and use it, which makes your paper relevant.
I’ve run on, these are few of my thoughts.. we’re clearly in transition and a new model is needed for providing information for which there is still clearly a market.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Interesting idea but one that the journalists will scoff at. “But she’s not a journalist and thus she cannot cover that story as well as I can!” Afterall that would be putting more and more of them out of a job, something I honestly don’t even want to contribute to (remember, they didn’t even want me on The Show–god forbid someone pushes them to do their jobs better).
June 25th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I agree with you, they need to start thinking of themselves as being in the information business, not the reporting business. Or advertising business.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Sank, I agree whole heartedly.
And Bill, you’re missing the point totally.
Are there journos out there that wouldn’t want you covering news? I’m sure.
But as long as you subscribe to the ethics of journalism (AP style, semblance of fairness through fact reporting and not pontification, and no profanity), I’m willing to bet a majority of journalists wouldn’t have a problem with the model described by Sank if it was going to be successful.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
What else is new?
June 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Semblance of fairness through fact reporting………..the PAC made $45,000 in January and February!
June 25th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I guess it depends on your definition of fact checking. The reporter went and asked the questions of someone they expected to be the source of truth. Unfortunately they believe that we’re of lesser value because we don’t believe what we’re told by the people that deal with this shit directly.
That makes us horrible people to the journalists because it makes them look bad.