Not everything is Google-able

The Internet is exciting and dynamic, which leads some to de-value print products. But what print still offers, in many cases, is better packaging of information. Newspapers present readers what they need to know--this is not necessarily "searchable" on the Internet. Consumers can use search engines and directories to find things they are looking for...but only things that are already out there. Newspapers need to break more news--be the ones to deliver information relevant to readers' lives before they have to search for it. Pre-emptive searching, if you will. Newspapers should devote more resources to enterprise and watchdog reporting in an effort to separate themselves from media competitors. Readers can't Google the status of a proposed TIF district in town or what it might mean to citizens. But newspapers can put this information right in readers' hands.

How does a small newspaper go about crafting enterprise stories? The process doesn't have to be as expansive as, say, the work of Barlett and Steele. Public records are a great place to start. Investigative Reporters & Editors' database library is a good place to start. Invite one of your most ambitious reporters to take on a project such as public officials' salaries. Free that reporter up for a few days a week for a couple of weeks. Then give other reporters the same chance. Over the course of the year, your newspaper will produce a dozen or more enterprise stories that can build readership and strengthen your newspapers' reputation.

Impossible, you say? Look, reporters get into journalism because they want to be Woodward and Bernstein. They want to win a Pulitzer. They want to be read. They don't get into it to cover school board meetings. Give them a chance, support their efforts, and they'll figure out a way to get it done. The more you can get your reporters to work as a team--to pick up slack, when necessary, for the greater good--the easier it will be.

Don't ignore good news

As pointed out in this article, newspapers continually shoot themselves in the foot by printing all of the woeful news about newspaper readership and circulation. Readers and advertisers see these articles, too. This must leave a negative impression on them, at least subconsciously. I'm not saying don't print these stories--but print the good news about newspapers, too. Continue to print stories about awards received and honors bestowed. Laud your reporters' efforts. Praise the enterprising works of newspapers across the country. Most importantly, print the truth about newspapers--the fact that total audience is going up when online readership is included with print readership. Check out NAA's work in this area.

Let's not forget the good news in our communities either. Newspapers often get caught up in their daily coverage of crime, malfeasance, obstacles, challenges and things that are wrong that they paint a very negative picture of their market area. Of course there are good news stories in the paper, but they are often buried or positioned so poorly next to more "newsworthy"-but-negative news items. Perhaps newspapers need to dedicate space on the front-page every day or week to spotlight the positive things going on around them. Readers will feel a little bit better about the paper when the gloom is tempered with some feel-good stories.

Embrace new 'carriers'

Here is an excellent blog entry from Ryan Sholin, a graduate student in journalism at San Jose State University. He makes excellent points. In particular, he notes that mechanisms such as RSS, SMS, e-paper, vlogs, etc., are not things newspapers need to be scared of…they are things newspapers need to embrace. “These are your new carriers,” he writes. It has been said since I arrived at Inland in 1994 (and probably a decade before that), newspapers are not about newspaper; they are about information. Print just happens to be one delivery mechanism for the information. Increasingly, newspapers need to embrace the Internet and other new media options as additional “carriers.”

To read about how the pioneering Lawrence Journal-World works “Web first, print second,” see the Inland Web site.

Balance and identity

The Phoenix New Times alternative weekly published an occasionally unflattering and slightly misguided examination of some recent “reader-centric” changes at the Arizona Republic. The article by Sarah Fenske made some good points, but took some naïve shots at Gannett, the Republic’s parent company.

Fenske’s story fully supports print editions and bemoans the loss of newshole to trifles such as readers’ forum posts. Her fears are legitimate, but it is doubtful the Republic intends to replace all of its quality, long-form journalism with forum posts and reader snapshots. Balance is key. Readers want journalism that is valuable to their lives. They will read it if it is relevant and well-written. Newspapers are wrong to abandon watchdog journalism at the expense of more community announcements. But they are also wrong to cut honor rolls and fundraiser news to run 100 inches of text that hold very little relevance to readers, even if it wins them accolades from other journalists.

The newspaper’s identity is also key. Fenske made a good point that interactive reader features (such as writing funny captions to a photo) do not seem to fit with a major metropolitan daily. I’ve felt the same way about related Chicago Tribune initiatives and believe elements of “community journalism” like these are best left to ancillary products targeting different demographics (such as Tribune’s RedEye).

'Ordinary' vs. 'unique'

I’m sure there are reasons and I would never be so arrogant as to question the editors of the Chicago Tribune; however, I found this
Story (RR) a bit puzzling, especially its length (1,000+ words) and front-page treatment. Basically, it’s about two wealthy attorneys suing each other over Bears season tickets. I think it has limited value for readers. The economic factors alone make the story irrelevant to many readers. I’m sure I was not the only reader who thought both parties were privileged crybabies. I would love to have the money to spend on a luxury like Bears tickets.

This is an example of a lack of focus on readers. The front page is prime real estate. It should hold stories that help readers with their lives or at least entertain them with features in which they can see themselves—where ordinary people are the heroes (and sometimes the villains). Two litigious men who can afford to fight a silly battle in court is not “ordinary.” It is, however, unique and I’m sure that this characteristic led to the story being front-page “news.” Unique should not be the only standard for the front page.

A better-written, more relevant front-page story might have been this one about a man whose wife and son had just been deported to Poland after a long immigration battle. This puts a local face on a national issue. The human elements of love, loss, grief, frustration, etc., are much more evident in this story than the one about the bickering attorneys.

Train now, improve later

Among the many fine points in Tim Porter's book "News, Improved: How America' s Newsrooms are Learning to Change" (co-authored with Michele McLellan) is this one from Karen Dunlap of the Poynter Institute: While newspapers must become reader-focused, they must also maintain the practice of quality journalism. Too frequently, she says, audiences are exposed to very poor journalism, poor story selection, poor reporting, poor writing and poor organization. That's something newspapers can change, especially through an investment in training.

"News, Improved" points out the woeful record newspapers have investing in training. The book uses data from Inland Press Association that showed the amount of money newspapers spent on training actually fell from 0.6 to 0.4 percent of payroll over the last 5 years or so. The national spending average for all industries during that time was 2.3 percent of payroll.

Readership advocates talk about focusing on readers and what they want. What often gets lost is that one of the things that they want--badly--is quality journalism. Improving quality starts with training. Newspapers need to reassess its importance. All newspapers have to invest more time and money in training, even if they do nothing more than encourage veteran staffers to teach rookies or invite nearby college professors to speak.

Why Oprah matters

If anyone questions the need for newspapers to change the way they do things, let’s look at Oprah and her profound influence on my family.

As I note in my book, which I will shamelessly plug even though it is not out yet, my wife watches “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” just like 10 million other people every weekday. Of course, she watches it in ten-minute bursts on our TiVo as she spends the day caring for our two boys. And, like many of her other viewers, my wife responds to some of Oprah’s suggestions to check out an author’s book, donate to a charity or try one of her “favorite things.” She belongs to some of Oprah’s “O-Groups” online and she reads her magazine on occasion.

All of this in place of the newspapers she used to read like The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune and various local papers. Neither one of us has this luxury anymore. We have kids. We have jobs (hers at home with the kids, mine abroad). Our media consumption patterns have changed. We each make choices in what we consume media-wise. My wife chooses Oprah.
I asked Rita why she invests her time in Oprah. She responded with the following list:

Easy access

Topics that relate to me

Trust the information/Quality info

Ability to pursue topics of interest

Interactive

An easy-to-manage investment

“Water cooler” talk

Breadth of topics

Examine this list two ways: once as newspaper people and once as a reader. How many of these elements do newspapers boast? As newspaper people, we would likely answer, “All of them.” They are easily accessible and filled with an extraordinary variety of topics. They are produced by credible, professional institutions. Web sites provide interactivity, as do solicitations for letters to the editor or various “Speak Out” columns. They are easy to use.
Now, answer the question as a reader.

I hasten to say that many readers would not answer affirmatively to any of the items on Rita’s list. Perhaps the difference between a “yes” and a “no” is a matter of degrees. Sure, the turmoil in the Middle East is relevant to readers, but how often do stories pinpoint exactly why religious strife in that region affects readers in a typical Midwestern community? How “interactive” is a plea to write a letter to the editor from a stale, space-filling house ad? How easy is it to navigate through dozens of broadsheet pages with columns of gray text and astoundingly dull headlines? By the way, have newspapers really emerged from the credibility crisis of the mid-90s?

The point is the difference between a “yes” and a “no” is important. It doesn’t always matter what newspaper people think. What readers think is important, too.