Old News is Bad News

Not to dismiss the importance of this study, but you can file this under “Things We Already Kind of Knew.” Scott Reinardy, a professor at Ball State University (my alma mater), conducted a study that showed nearly 75 percent of journalists under the age of 34 intend to leave the profession or are unsure about their future in it, largely because of burnout. The causes: stress, brutal hours, meager pay—no surprises here.

I propose this is the greatest crisis facing newspapers today. If innovation and relevant content are to form the salvation of newspapers, then how will that be done with unmotivated, disillusioned journalists ready to bolt for anything they see as better? It has been many years since I occupied a true newsroom, but nothing much has changed since then. We worked long hours for little pay…and we got out. Not many of us are in newspapers anymore. I’m not. I would love to be. There is little as rewarding as community newspaper work. But I wanted a life, too. Time to be social with other people outside the newsroom. Time to invest in other pursuits. Time to do something other than listen to the police scanner, drink beer and watch “Seinfeld.”

Newspapers have to think seriously about blowing everything up. Starting over. Establishing a fresh paradigm. Use any buzzword you like, but rethink priorities and how the work can be allocated. What needs more coverage? What needs less? Be brutally honest too…who is working and who isn’t? This goes for managers as well.

Yes, money is a big motivator (lack of it a big de-motivator). But there are other elements to this disturbing burnout equation that can be altered for the benefit of reporters/copy editors:

• Give them time off - This means no emergency calls on their day off. This means not working extra hours before and after the vacation to get everything done.
  
• Give them better journalism to do – Have them launch a special project (that is relevant to readers). Send them to the statehouse for a legislative feature. Have them team up on a story with another staffer. Let them experiment with story forms.
  
• Invest in their future - Send them to off-site training. They might leave for greener pastures six months down the line and you might be tempted to look on the training as a waste. I contend it is just as likely that they would stay six months longer than if you hadn’t shown any interest in their development as journalists at all.
  
• Listen to them – Make them feel valued and appreciated for not just their skills and talent, but also their ideas. They have good ones. Don’t be afraid of them. If you honestly fear that they might someday take your job then (A) You need to work harder and (B) I would think this would be ideal—that you have somebody working for you that could take your place.

The Issue of Relevance

If you need a pseudo-focus group to tap into, here’s one:
Journalism in Pain

(Courtesy of Doug Fisher’s Common Sense Journalism)

Read the comments and you can find a lot of reasons why people don’t read the newspaper. Excerpts:

Newspapers are, frankly, a hassle. Why people still read them, I don't know.

I get nearly all of my news - "serious" coverage and celebrity junk - from other sources: online, talk radio, and cable news, and I stay better informed from a wider variety of sources.

Doesn't ad revenue really pay for a paper? I always understood that the subsciption price just basically paid for delivery. Well, my subscription price is too high. So they lose readers, and ad revenues fall. What a dirty, viscious [sic] circle.

Obviously, you need to understand your local market and what drives desires to read (or, more importantly, not read) your newspaper. However, some of these attitudes are fairly universal. Yes, there will be some local differences in what is and is not relevant. The battle is one of generations, not geography. It’s also one of marketing—selling to readers what is important.

Still, you need to find out what readers find relevant. Here are some tips from my forthcoming book:

• Assess just how far off base you are with readers. Ask your staff for their input. Ask friends or family members for honest assessments of how useful the newspaper is to them. Ask a non-competing newspaper to offer an assessment.
  
• Quantify how many stories, features of services fulfill important needs for readers. Take a look at your newspaper’s content and determine how many stories are written for readers and how many are written because they are routine beat coverage. Are features truly lively and enlightening pieces or do they simply fit a preconceived notion of what a newspaper feature is? Establish a benchmark so you can note improvements.
  
• Brainstorm ways to connect with readers. Involve as many staffers as possible. Don’t edit ideas. Promote free and open discussion. Don’t dismiss ideas as illogical or expensive.
  
• Get out of the office. Get everybody out of the office. Interact with readers on a non-business level. Learn about them as people, not customers. Don’t even bring up the paper in discussion. Ask about their lives.

Candidates Unfiltered—An Evolution?

Interesting points made by Andy Martin, a candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois. He writes an open letter to new Tribune Co. owner Sam Zell. He compares and contrasts his experience with the media as a candidate running for public office. Broadcast media comes out ahead for several reasons, some valid and some maybe not.

Where he is right is in reading the public’s desire for “unfiltered access” to candidates. He complained he was given short shrift by the print media and was grateful for a broadcast station’s generous offer to produce a free five-minute statement to be posted on the Web site alongside other candidates’ video statements. He said this set-up allowed voters to “get a sense of who the candidates are.”

There is nothing wrong with this, provided the media (in whatever form) also provides a “sense of who the candidates are” by exploring their backgrounds, calling them out on their positions, tapping their knowledge or lack thereof, and providing all-important context and perspective.

Does a newspaper have enough resources to cover in depth every candidate, even fringe ones. Probably not. But should it be their duty? Probably so, I say. Let candidates have their say—provide access without filters—but complement the unfiltered coverage with analysis, with perspective, with public debate (what voters really think), with TRUTH (like the St. Petersburg Times’ daily Truth-o-Meter ruling)

If a newspapers can’t provide this, then they should look at their priorities. Can resources and newshole be allocated differently? Or are other things more important than the election of public officials (in many cases, there just might be other things more important)? The key is examining the situation and not resorting to status quo.

Chicago Tribune Redesign

The Chicago Tribune launched its redesign this morning sans the trademark blue nameplate that, for this longtime Tribune reader, defined the paper. I'm sure the Tribune expects some disgruntled seniors to respond with anger at the redesign, though I doubt they would expect such a reaction from a GenX reader that still sort of falls within their coveted demographic (given the sad state of newspaper readership they should want me reading anyway).

True, the nameplate itself was an anachronism. However, it was part of the print edition's brand, as easily identifiable with the newspaper as the Old English type or the American flag it continues to run. The big blue nameplate distinguished the Tribune from other newspapers, even if the nameplate itself was not what you would call "distinguished."

And that is where the Chicago Tribune redesign fails in my opinion. It now looks like dozens--hundreds--of other newspapers. There is nothing wrong with the redesign. It just fails to distinguish itself from any of the competing newspapers in the area. It's clean. It's neat. It's thin, too, as the Trib cut some more off the web width. And that is all fine. But the design seemed to suck energy from the stories and photos. this is not the way the Midwest's premier newspaper (open for argument) should appear. It should be leading the charge in developing a design to enhance readership, not following others.

Their argument is that they no longer need to showcase their color printing capabilities or compete as much for newsstand sales. These are valid points. My argument is that the paper had an opportunity to be bold and innovative and settled for a limp tweaking. Go ahead and blow up the nameplate--but do something with the space, do something defining that lets people know This is the Chicago Tribune.

I'll say this--I know when I'm looking at the Chicago Sun-Times...and it's not just because it is a tab. They have bold headlines, photos and refers, even if they lean a little "tabloidy." Put the Chicago Tribune redesign up against a dozen other dailies and weeklies in the area and I don't see a big degree of difference.

Plus, the newspaper just lost all the brand identity (and the real power it held) built up over 26 years in that blue nameplate. Perhaps they are positioning the newspaper to build a new brand identity with newer, younger audiences. If that is the case, then why not redesign with a little more courage?

The design isn't my only complaint about the Trib. There are content issues. That can be an entirely new post, but I feel compelled to note this complete waste of space -- a July 10 item from Outdoors Adviser Barbara Brotman: 5 Outdoors Workouts.

Instead of a stationary bike, I can ride on a real bike outside for an "outdoors workout." Really? Or instead of walking on a treadmill in a gym I can walk outside. You're kidding?

This list got through editors at one of the largest newspapers in the United States? This was part of a larger package and was negligible in terms of the space it occupied, but I still groaned audibly when I read it. Disgraceful. How stupid does the Tribune think readers are? I'm sorry, but any newspaper that prints something this devoid of value for readers deserves to be called out.

I complain because I care. It's great to hear good words about your newspaper (just as the Journal and Courierin Lafayette, Ind., did recently). But it sometimes can be better to hear the negatives. It's not always the crackpots who complain.

Jumping off the cliff in Allentown

Wow...some major changes to watch in Allentown, Pa. Once again, economic factors dictate the changes, but at least the Morning Call is diving into innovation. Editor Ardith Hilliard's memo to the staff reveals some key initiatives: newsroom reorganization, a universal news desk, a watchdog reporter, investment in newsroom video.

Pay attention to what happens here. Click on the "innovation" label below to read about more newspaper innovations.

"The Incredible Shrinking Newspaper"

The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C., a pioneer in the use of alternative story forms, continues to face the struggles of every major metro. In this column, staff writer Ted Vaden explains some of the changes made recently to the paper. They are the usual suspects: cut stock listings, condense TV book, combining two Sunday sections.

But he tackles head on the impression this leaves with readers. He writes, "It's 'The Incredible Shrinking Newspaper,' and The N&O isn't alone in finding itself in a bad movie." He notes other major dailies making similar cuts. He also quotes Phil Meyer, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill journalism professor and author of "The Vanishing Newspaper." The shrinking newspaper is inevitable, given the changing economics of the business, Meyer said. They are a mass medium in a niche world.

Cutting space/content is hardly a viable long-term strategy, he added. What good newspapers do it re-invest the savings in new products to reach new readers.

Good strategy. Unfortunately, I think the space reductions are more to bail out already troubled operations--such as the Chicago Sun-Times' recent web width reduction. Incidentally, I picked up a copy of the new Sun-Times the day it made its debut without knowing about the new web width. I didn't even notice.

Some more quick hits:

• The Ledger serving suburban Indianapolis also announced changes: "compact" size, shorter stories, no jumps, "chapters" to organize content, more local news and breakouts.
  
• Marcy Burstiner, an assistant journalism professor at Humboldt State University, makes an interesting point in this column. She pleads support for the local press, particularly the Eureka Reporter. She notes, however, the wrongheaded approach the Reporter took in conducting a readership survey. Some good advice here--such as look at why more than what, and reach disgruntled readers (or non-readers) not those who already love what you do.

New year, new hope

That's an awfully ambitious headline, but why not start off optimistic?

There is actually a lot going on at newspapers. Some have taken the new year as an opportunity to launch change. Here are some examples:

• The Herald News has shared northjersey.com with The Record for years, but has launched myheraldnews.com to focus on Passaic County and other communities the paper serves.
  
• The Gilroy Dispatch in California has launched a new Web site, e-publications and print cycle, moving to twice a week. The Web site will serve to update readers on breaking news in between editions. The newspaper is also employing several vendor partners such as Kaango for classifieds and Pictopia for photo galleries.
  

More to come...