
The Reynolds Journalism Institute has a good news/bad news report on engagement. The good news is that newspaper editors “overwhelmingly say they think audience engagement has become an important part of practicing journalism. The unsurprising part is “they’re often not sure what that means or how to go about it,” but the bad news is “Not even half of respondents said that they use social media to listen as well as share information, that they interact with readers in comments sections, or that they use their analytics reports to help make news decisions.” Not even half? I’m not saying you have to go diving into comments and mix it up, though constructive interaction is a good thing, but at a bare minimum you should be paying attention to the comments on the website and in social media, and the analytics reports are as much a tool as your circulation sales numbers are — you don’t do a story just because it will get big numbers, but the numbers inform your decision on story play and promotion.
Posts Tagged ‘innovation’
Call it creative chaos in the news business
Posted in Online media, Print media, tagged curmudgeons, innovation on July 10, 2011| Leave a Comment »
Clay Shirky has produced another piece of what should be required reading for journalists, this time arguing the benefits of different news organizations trying many different things to either raise new revenue or reduce the cost of reporting. Much of the argument repeats the plain-English explanation of the economic underpinnings of the news industry and why those underpinnings no longer make the sense they did decades ago, but it bears repeating because of the many who still focus only on what the newsroom has lost and on so-called buzzwords that don’t fit traditional notions of journalism. Shirky rounds it up aptly:
“If we adopt the radical view that what seems to be happening is actually happening, then a crisis in reporting isn’t something that might take place in the future. A 30% reduction in newsroom staff, with more to come, means this is the crisis, right now. Any way of creating news that gets cost below income, however odd, is a good way, and any way that doesn’t, however hallowed, is bad.
“Having one kind of institution do most of the reporting for most communities in the US seemed like a great idea right up until it seemed like a single point of failure. As that failure spreads, the news ecosystem isn’t just getting more chaotic, we need it to be more chaotic, because we need multiple competing approaches. It isn’t newspapers we should be worrying about, but news, and there are many more ways of getting and reporting the news that we haven’t tried than that we have.”
7/11/2011 UPDATE: The Economist has an interesting series of stories on the evolution of the news industry. Particularly interesting is the installment Coming Full Circle, which argues that the Internet, “by undermining the mass media’s business models, that technology is in many ways returning the industry to the more vibrant, freewheeling and discursive ways of the pre-industrial era.”
Driving home the scale of disaster
Posted in Broadcast media, Mobile media, Online media, Print media, tagged aggregation, engagement, innovation, photography on May 24, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Jot this idea down in case a disaster ever levels your city: Use Google Streetview to get a “before” scene of anyplace in town. The above from Joplin, Mo. (pros take note: the “after” photo by a citizen-journalist).
Why don’t news stories link?
Posted in Online media, tagged curmudgeons, innovation, reporting on May 18, 2011| Leave a Comment »
Thanks to Matthew Ingram of GigaOm for transparency and the work compiling a debate conducted via Twitter about news stories offering links to source material. That news stories should provide links is a given for many, like Matthew, but it’s not a universal view. I think it’s the ideal (as Matthew writes, doing readers a service “by making stories as complete as possible and by providing them with links to further information instead of making them hunt through Google for it” — which also makes sure they don’t find misinformation via Google), but I struggle, given the limitations of the content-management systems I’m familiar with, with the idea of where in the process the links get inserted and by whom, especially if it’s to be the norm for all staff-generated stories. The Web “staff” at most news sites are not enough to handle the volume, and as noted by Patrick LaForge in the Twitter debate, it doesn’t fit neatly into the reporting and writing process. Which is probably how we arrive at the current state of affairs: Stories deemed to be important and of high reader interest get the attention needed to build the Web extras, including links to outside material, but the typical story is linkless. (Another job for the robots?)
5/20/2011 UPDATE: More on this subject, from Publish2.
5/21/2011 UPDATE: I confess I am still catching up on much of the online debate on this topic (more here, with good discussion in comments) and have no idea yet what initially brought this boiling back up as a major topic this week. It seems to me that, while it might be helpful as Scott Karp at Publish2 suggests to adopt technology that favors Web-first publication and easy importing of that work into a print editorial system, and while those such as Doc Searls are correct in saying there remains some (ever declining, in my experience) curmudgeon resistance to the idea of linking out, the larger problem is trying to turn the Titanic. A daily newspaper of any size, especially if it is part of a larger integrated media company, simply has so many moving parts (human, mechanical and technological) that we all might recognize exactly what we wish we could do, but it’s like being in the left lane of the expressway at rush hour when you realize, as your passengers give you instructions on five separate topics, that there’s an exit just ahead that would take you to a much better route home. It’s a direct descendant of the much older issue that used to be the big eternal issue occupying newsrooms, which is balancing the desire for really excellent writing against the need to meet deadline (a saying I always heard goes something like, “Good writing is a fine thing, but we have a newspaper to put out”).
TBD RIP
Posted in Online media, tagged hyperlocal, innovation on May 17, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Just a brief note: The last of the management involved in the TBD.com experiment has left the site.
Some basically good advice
Posted in Broadcast media, Online media, Print media, tagged innovation on May 15, 2011| Leave a Comment »
(Originally posted on May 10, 2011)
Initially, the post “The Story So Far by J-Lab’s Jan Schaffer kind of ticked me off. She makes suggestions for news organizations to deal with their permanently diminished resources, and at least a few at first come off as quite glib. Example: “Identify the gaps in news coverage and find ways to fill them.” Oh. THAT’s all. Why didn’t I think of that? Just find a way to fill those gaps.
So just so you know, if you have/had that reaction to her post, I had it too, and I would guess it’s a pretty common one. On further reflection, however, I’m going to knock her instead for her phrasing and approach, not her ideas. The problem with her post is she is already over firmly in the territory of having gotten over the shock of what journalism has lost — staff, beats, travel budgets, the whole enchilada — and she’s writing as someone who has moved on to attempt confront the new reality. Many of us are not there yet, even if we think we are. I must not be, judging by my reaction. I think she was tone deaf to how her phrasing would strike this large segment of journalists. Or maybe she was aware of it but decided not to expend the energy to try to add some psychic cushions in her suggestions.
Put a few of those cushions in place yourself, if need be, and then read her suggestions. The premise of her post is that we will never get back the beats and jobs we have lost so far. Given that, how do her suggestions stack up, in your estimation?
