Let's vent together, shall we?

Hello, there. Welcome to the first post at The Frustrated Journalist.

I've created this so fellow journalists -- print, broadcast, online -- can have a place to vent anonymously about the frustrating parts of our industry. There are the money problems, yes, but I envision this more as a place to discuss the more annoying parts of the job -- i.e. dumb things newspaper do, editors who just don't get the online culture, lame story ideas forced upon you, problems with sources, or anything else that comes to mind. I'm sure we can all relate to each other's problems/frustrations on the job.

So feel free to post your anecdotes here. You're welcome to stay anonymous, but post your name if you like. The idea is not to slam specific people or newspapers (in fact, I'd prefer to not do that), but just to share in the pathos that is the life of a journalist.

OK, I'll start with something to file under the "dumb things newspapers do" category:

NEEDLESS USE OF 'REAL' PEOPLE

A classic: An editor insists on having a "regular person" in a story, even when it's not necessary. This is particularly annoying when it involves a man-on-the-street "what do you think of this?" question on a topic that the person probably hasn't given much thought to until you asked the question.

We might as well phrase the questions like this:

... "Excuse me, random sir. The city manager, who you've never met and wouldn't be able to identify in a lineup, is leaving to take a job in another town. What do you think of that?"

..."Excuse me, random sir. The police department has restructured its officer system and two captains who we quote a lot in the paper, but who you've never met and didn't know existed until I just told you, will now have desk jobs instead of being in the field. What are your thoughts about this changing of the guard?"

..."Excuse me, random sir. You may have noticed that gas prices have dropped in recent days and it no longer takes a small fortune to fill your tank. Do you like paying less or do you prefer to pay a lot more? In general, most people like saving money whenever they can. But I was wondering if you're different."

I'm sure you can think of plenty more examples.

Here's how it usually plays out. Say it's your state's tax free weekend. Your editor demands the voice of a consumer in the story to talk about how great it's going to be -- even though you're doing an alternative presentation and there's not really a place for it. You've already assembled all the necessary chits and bits that will actually, you know, help people. But now you must find the traditionally required "face" of the story. Seriously, what does this add (other than inches)?

I've always found the insistence on scouring for "real people" comments a bit odd. The idea, we're led to assume, is to get a feel for the community's perspective on something. But the three or four people you'll talk to during the short amount of time you have cannot possibly be considered a representative sample when you're in a community of any significant size.

But more importantly, who cares what that random guy thinks about X topic? Take the tax free weekend thing. Are readers thinking, "I don't understand this story. Wait, this random guy says he thinks tax free weekend is a good thing. Ohhhh, he looks forward to it every year. Ahhh, now I get it." Now, a lot of editors will tell you this helps readers better relate to a story -- "Hey, that guy likes to save money, and I like to save money. Wow, what a relatable story." -- but I disagree. There's this notion that just giving people the information they need/want is not enough. This notion often leads to bloated stories with too many voices and litte or no value added. This includes one of the worst and most overused things in modern journalism: the unnecessary, tacked-on anecdotal lead (worth a whole discussion in itself).

Studies show regular people like to read about other regular people, editors will tell you. That's true, but I don't think they're talking about man on the street. My paper recently did a reader feedback panel, and someone mentioned that a lot of our stories take too long to get to the news. "Enough with the soft, featurey leads," I remember the guy telling our editor. "Just give me the news." This isn't the first time I've heard this. Or the second. Or the third. Or the ... you get the point. Yet, still, repeatedly, the editor-driven quest to force "real" people into routine stories marches on.

So, am I missing something? Please, convince me I'm wrong. Seriously.

Tell me, what are some of your dumb "real people" quests?