So, fellow journalists, what's frustrating you today about our business? Let's talk about it.
Post topics here or join another discussion under a previous entry.
Let the conversation flow.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Where's the innovation?
Today's frustration: Why do newspapers just sit back and watch other people invent things that revolutionize communication? Why not stop trying to find ways to save the print product and get creative with an eye toward the future?
Facebook? Twitter? Craigslist? These are all things that could've been invented, or at least popularized and cultivated, by forward-thinking newspapers. But the problem is that most newspapers weren't even aware that Twitter and Facebook existed until well after they became part of the cultural vocabulary. Even then, newspapers did what they've always done when it comes to innovation: Sit back and do nothing and claim, with self-righteous blabbering, that their 20th century way of disseminating information is the best and only "true" way to do it.
Only within the past year or so have newspapers as a whole started to see the benefits of having a Facebook profile and/or sending out tweets to connect with readers and drive traffic to their online home. At least they're doing it, but too little, too late. And there are still editors who aren't convinced that using Twitter is not somehow hurting the paper.
Why do newspapers continue to sit on their behinds and watch themselves lose readers and revenue? Who in the industry is spending significant time trying to come up with the next big thing? I know, I know: The print product is still what makes the majority of the money. I get it. But why not at least experiment a little, try something new, take a chance? I'm not asking for wholesale change overnight, just solid evidence that you're making a determined effort.
It still baffles me that every layoff, every furlough and every other cost-cutting measure is designed to make the financial picture jibe with a broken business model. It's a model that is never going to work again. Period. Way past time to try something new, guys. But what's driving the stubbornness? Is it greed? Nostalgia? Stupidity? Probably a combination of those. If I didn't know better, I'd swear that some people at my paper believe that one day people will wake up and realize they've made a huge mistake relying on the Internet for news, communication and commerce.
"What was I thinking? I do want to pay for an ad in my local paper instead of posting to Craigslist for free. ... I do want to get 12-hour-old news on my doorstep every morning instead of getting it instantly online."
A corporate big wig came to my paper once and was asked how the traditional newspaper business model can be expected to survive in the 21st century. The response (I'm paraphrasing, but it was close to this): Well, we've only really lost employment ads, classified ads and real estate ads, so if you think about it, we've not really lost that much.
In other words: Our lifeblood broke up with us, but we're pretty sure it'll leave that new hottie and come back. So we're just going to stay home and sit by the phone. Wouldn't want to miss the call.
Let me know how that turns out.
Once the powers that be realize they're fighting an unwinable battle, the new era can finally begin. It will be different, and it will be painful at first. But true progress is seldom pain free.
Facebook? Twitter? Craigslist? These are all things that could've been invented, or at least popularized and cultivated, by forward-thinking newspapers. But the problem is that most newspapers weren't even aware that Twitter and Facebook existed until well after they became part of the cultural vocabulary. Even then, newspapers did what they've always done when it comes to innovation: Sit back and do nothing and claim, with self-righteous blabbering, that their 20th century way of disseminating information is the best and only "true" way to do it.
Only within the past year or so have newspapers as a whole started to see the benefits of having a Facebook profile and/or sending out tweets to connect with readers and drive traffic to their online home. At least they're doing it, but too little, too late. And there are still editors who aren't convinced that using Twitter is not somehow hurting the paper.
Why do newspapers continue to sit on their behinds and watch themselves lose readers and revenue? Who in the industry is spending significant time trying to come up with the next big thing? I know, I know: The print product is still what makes the majority of the money. I get it. But why not at least experiment a little, try something new, take a chance? I'm not asking for wholesale change overnight, just solid evidence that you're making a determined effort.
It still baffles me that every layoff, every furlough and every other cost-cutting measure is designed to make the financial picture jibe with a broken business model. It's a model that is never going to work again. Period. Way past time to try something new, guys. But what's driving the stubbornness? Is it greed? Nostalgia? Stupidity? Probably a combination of those. If I didn't know better, I'd swear that some people at my paper believe that one day people will wake up and realize they've made a huge mistake relying on the Internet for news, communication and commerce.
"What was I thinking? I do want to pay for an ad in my local paper instead of posting to Craigslist for free. ... I do want to get 12-hour-old news on my doorstep every morning instead of getting it instantly online."
A corporate big wig came to my paper once and was asked how the traditional newspaper business model can be expected to survive in the 21st century. The response (I'm paraphrasing, but it was close to this): Well, we've only really lost employment ads, classified ads and real estate ads, so if you think about it, we've not really lost that much.
In other words: Our lifeblood broke up with us, but we're pretty sure it'll leave that new hottie and come back. So we're just going to stay home and sit by the phone. Wouldn't want to miss the call.
Let me know how that turns out.
Once the powers that be realize they're fighting an unwinable battle, the new era can finally begin. It will be different, and it will be painful at first. But true progress is seldom pain free.
Friday, July 31, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
