Top Story

Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage

1.	Poynter's Times Publishing Co. sells Governing 5:15 PM Nov. 20, 2009
2.	Recommendation for Fewer PAP Screens Sure to Set Off Controversy 10:32 AM Nov. 20, 2009
3.	Gene Patterson to Jack Nelson: Save Us a Desk Up There in That Celestial Newsroom 7:03 AM Nov. 20, 2009
4.	Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage 6:19 AM Nov. 20, 2009
5.	Woods: Plagiarism Never Justified 3:47 PM Nov. 19, 2009
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Article Feedback

View all Top Stories feedback

Your Duty to Read the Paper
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback | Feedback Guidelines | Report Feedback Abuse

Sorting options:	most recent	\| author
Display options:	expand all	\| collapse all

Page 1 of 4 [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ]

Why is print struggling?
Posted by David Benson 1/21/2008 10:25:39 AM

At the end of an e-mail cry to "Read Newspapers," these three sentences and link tell the story of why so many of us turn to the Web for information:

[Do you read the newspaper? If so, why? If not, why not?]

Irony is rarely so well-defined.

Wrong duty
Posted by Steve Woodward 11/8/2007 11:07:28 AM

(Cross posted from Journalists and Facebook group)

Duty? That sounds like religion, nationalism and homework, all rolled into one. If it's my duty to read the newspaper just to preserve a dying tradition, then it's also my duty to listen to my elders delivering the news around campfires, interpret cave paintings of the latest elk hunt, read political broadsides, decode telegraph messages and use rotary-dial telephones. I read the newspaper because I enjoy it with my morning cup of coffee -- and because my job demands it.

Newspapers do not have a lock on the truth. In fact, they have existed for barely more than 400 of the 6,000 years of modern civilization. That means modern humans have gotten their news from other sources for 5,600 years. So let's not turn newspapers into an object of cult worship.

If I have any DUTY as a journalist, it's to understand how citizens consume news and information, so I can deliver it to them in the easiest, quickest, highest quality way possible. If that means eventually delivering relevant news straight to people's brains without any media whatsoever, I'm all for it.

Read indeed!
Posted by paul chimera 11/4/2007 7:51:56 PM

How sad that such a story even needed to be written! Especially to an audience of journalists. It's a bit like suggesting to art students that, gee, they ought to look at paintings regularly.

I do not like reading on-line (no offense to the superb Poynter Web site). I love the look, smell, tactility of a newspaper. The portability of it. The tradition of it. The physical presentation of the news through ink on paper.

Most importantly, I appreciate the throroughness of a newspaper vs. broadcast media. TV and radio simply cannot possibly provide the depth and nuanced coverage that a newspaper can.

If you want a quick sense of what's going on, you might try turning on the TV. If you want to know what's going on -- contextualized, in detail, with a sense of perspective and completeness -- choose the paper.

As for the notion of serious journalists not reading the newspaper, I again am dumbfounded and outraged at the very thought of such a thing. It's a kind of hypocrisy our profession doesn't need. And journalists who don't read papers ought to seriously question whether they ought to be journalists.

Paul Chimera, independent journalist, Buffalo, New York

No Mute Button Needed
Posted by Bobby Matherne 10/25/2007 8:05:19 PM

Dear Roy,

That's why I read my local newspaper. I can get the information I need and skip any that I don't want to read. I have completely given up news programs in the evening, knowing that when morning come's I'll get the details I want clearly and concisely without interruption.

One night years ago I stayed up late trying to figure out from dozens of graphics what had happened in a large election. The next morning ALL the ANSWERS I wanted were laid out for me in my newspaper. I had wasted an hour or so trying to get what my paper gave me in seconds!

I read my newspaper every day and if I'm gone for a week, I spend a couple of hours scanning for important local items I may have missed. Worth every minute of it.

thanks for asking,

Bobby Matherne

Disappointing
Posted by Andrea Berggren 10/23/2007 1:33:58 PM

I must be naiive, because even after 15+ years in the newspaper business, I am still shocked when I see postings like this one. How can one be considered a "scholar" when they freely admit to engaging in what can only be described as the lazy banality of modern society? What you do is your own business but I fail to see how anyone deserving of a "scholar" title could believe that it is a revelation to say he ought to be reading the daily news with some regularity. And even so, 15 minutes oer day is hardly a concession. If you want to know what is wrong with America, all you have to do is appreciate the number of hours Americans spend in front of the television and their computers and iPods. We have now developed a nation of passivists, who willingly swallow whatever (mis)information is directed at them. That a "scholar" of the Poynter Institute has succombed to this type of mediocrity says everything one needs to know about the condition of the American press. Mr. Clark: This isn't simply about supporting "hard-working journalists"- this is about your own ignorance. Don't you want accuracy in your information? Don't you want to learn? Don't you believe that actual THINKING is the only way to lead a more fulfilling and informed life? Newspapers are one big way that society can be informed and connected. The Web can be one part of that and television can be another. But do not mistake your own apathy with research or thought. Reading a newspaper shouldn't be a "duty"- it is your right and privillege as a supposedly intelligent American.

If you didn't work there, would you read the paper?
Posted by Ron Reason 10/20/2007 12:35:33 PM

A short time ago I visited a newsroom and asked for an audience with the reporting staff, as part of my research for a redesign. Of the group, 9 of 10 appeared to be under 30. Dour faces all around, not enthused at all. I already had formed some opinions about the quality of the editorial product, but wanted their views of the current state of things and the prospects for change. Even before the meeting began, the glum faces suggested we were stuck, so I kicked off with a detour: "If you didn't work here, would you read this paper?" The unanimous, vocal response: NO. (This assumed that they did read the paper, which I don't think was the case. Sadly, I encounter this a lot in my travels.) I then asked: "Is this a more interesting, fun, dynamic place to live than the paper suggests?" YES.

My question was framed in that "why don't 20-somethings read newspapers and what can we do to change it" thing, but I think the response went beyond this, and suggested a more broad disconnect with the product. (I'm 40-something and didn't find much of interest to read - it was a chore. Though this wasn't my hometown, I'm pretty good at putting on the "local reader" hat.)

Editors who are concerned with this question need to start with this: Are we producing a print product that we ourselves find interesting-engaging-relevant-vital-LOCAL, and can't wait to dive into each day (or week)? If we aren't producing this, and don't willingly and eagerly read it, then why should our readers?

How else can we work
Posted by Srinivasa Ganapathiraju 10/17/2007 3:15:17 PM

I read newspapers not because it is an industry that needs consumers.
Newspapers, despite the advent of online or TV media have the ability to package the entire news of the day in one parcel.
Scouting the web for all the news that I want would require me to subscribe to all the RSS feeds or some searching.
TV feeds what it wants and at unless I surf more than one channel i do not get the entirety.
Newspapers are not an old world charm, they cater to all the news starting from local engagements to the world news that i need to know.
To be a better journalist it is my duty to keep myself posted about what news the competition is breaking.
I get a better idea of where to get the next story for the day, by reading the newspapers at leisure. Something the web and TV do not offer.
The details of newspapers definitely score over web and TV, at least from the Indian experience.
Newspapers have a sense of longevity which the TV or the web do not offer.
Breaking news in a paper might be a day old, but still they have the details available on hand for reference through the day.
Maybe i am being myopic and talking out of a limited experience in the field, over 12 years. And limited to one state called Andhra Pradesh in India.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Posted by Genny Pershing 10/17/2007 1:14:07 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - Oh that was a funny one! Woo!

Yes, and we have an obligation to buy horse buggies until we can figure out what to do with all those poor little horses.

And um, we have an opportunity to buy typewritters until people at those factories retire.

And um we have an opportunity to smoke cigarettes until the plantations in Virginia have been turned into Wal-MArts!

DO NOT confuse the duty to be an informed citizen with a duty to support a dead business model.

Almost as funny as the joke about demanding that ISPs pay up to support online news. That one was funny too.

Part of My Life
Posted by Anupam Choudhury 10/15/2007 1:35:48 PM

I am what you would call a techie. I spend more than 6 hours on the Internet and read lot of news online. Yet, my day does not begin without the Hindustan Times and a mug of ginger tea to go with it. It is so much of an ingrained ritual for me that I feel odd the day I have not read the local 'paper' news.
I travel across India and even while I am on a train, I have to get down at the first station early in the morning to grab the local morning edition. Then I get some sweet milk tea in an earthen cup.
Yes, in a way I participate in this chaotic democracy by feeding myself rather than being fed. There is something about a newspaper, as opposed to the Internet or TV, that gives it a more down to earth and honest feel. In India, newspapers are still hghly respected because they have an element of truthfulness and they reach where TV and Internet do not. The most respected journalists and editors work for papers. But all this is changing fast.
Most of my friends, unlike me, do a McNews on the morning paper - Headlines>Crime>Sports>Cartoons>Sudoku.
The importance of chewing the news & thinking it, making up your mind, analysing whats happening - all these are fading away in the fast paced life. People would rather just press remote buttons.
But still, the most successful or aspiring people in India read 2-3 newspapers every morning. Families are identified by the paper they read. Somewhat like the Coke/Pepsi divide. "Are you a Times of India family or a Hindustan Times family? Nah! I'm not into fluff. I read the Hindu!"
Lately, papers in India have gone colour and have added more ads to sustain themselves. For newspapers to survive financially, it is important that the market does not dry up or defect to other media. Newpaper publishers as well as the intellectuals of the society should keep selling the usefulness and benefits of papers to individuals. The people should feel that they're missing out on something really vital if they are not reading paper news.

Thanks again
Posted by Roy Peter Clark 10/15/2007 10:46:06 AM

Thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion. I've learned a lot, and appreciate the passion and civility in many of these arguments. And I especially want to thank my Poynter colleagues Julie Moos, Ellyn Angelotti, and Mallary Tenore for helping to build the audience for these issues. -- rpc

My two pence worth
Posted by John Kelly 10/15/2007 4:44:01 AM

What a wonderful debate. I had to weigh in on my blog: www.voxford.blogspot.com. Here's the lede:

"As I've done every day since I moved to Oxford, yesterday morning I walked my dog, bagged and disposed of his poop, then stopped at the newsagent's to buy a paper.

"When I got home, I sat on the couch and started to read it (the newspaper, not the dog). Suddenly, I was overcome by a wave of shame, as I heard the catcalls of smartypants media bloggers: ...."

Where are the prizes?
Posted by Clyde Bentley 10/14/2007 11:33:01 PM

Oh Roy, now you have me moping through my enormous guilty conscious.

I admit it. I don't read the back of cereal boxes anymore. I used to, and the cereal box is still often in front of me at the breakfast table. I eagerly read all the details before ordering my Sgt. Preston compass/telescope/whistle. And I could tell which was Snap, who was Pop and the cap color of Crackle.

But now the box tells me how fat I am and how my innards will be cleaner if I eat more. Wow.

I like to read. I couldn't keep away from Harry Potter's exploits. I'm also easy bait for a snappy headline and a cliff-hanging crime story any medium.

Sure, I usually read my paper -- the Columbia Missourian -- over granola or Cheerios -- each morning. Sometimes I may as well be reading that cereal box, but at least the comics lighten my day. (As sappy as it sounds, I really miss those comics when I go to the online edition.)

I'll read, Roy. But for God's sake give me some reason beyond "duty." That didn't even work with my draft board.

Serving the Audience
Posted by Krystal Knapp 10/14/2007 2:25:56 PM

Whether we are talking print or digital media, the solution is to use the resources of the newspaper to reach people with information that is important to their lives. But it is also important how we provide this information, by communicating clearly, writing compelling stories and providing context they can't get elsewhere.

In a time when we need more resources to make the transition to the Web (and continue our print operations) and improve our storytelling techniques, papers keep cutting back. The reduction is quality is obvious to our readers, both in print and online. Many readers can tell when a press release has simply been copied and pasted almost word for word in to the paper (because we do not have the staff to go out and get real stories). We need to give our readers more credit than we often do. They are not stupid.

Papers have fewer staff members yet are expected to do a lot more - blogs, shooting video, etc. Papers need to look at the long term effects of such actions instead of the short term budget patches. Instead it is as if they want to commit suicide.

I'm glad Roy Peter Clark's column has generated so much discussion. Thanks Roy.

Our duty to journalism
Posted by Fred Schecker 10/14/2007 12:36:39 PM

I am sympathetic to your sentiments here, but I do not understand your logic.

The print format business model that has served journalism so well for many years is in decline. It is not going to make a comeback. I doubt even you believe your suggestion will delay the inevitable.

In today�s highly competitive media world, there are, in fact, many substitutes for the local daily paper. My responsibility as a journalist is to study those substitutes, understand why they are appealing to today�s readers, and then find new formats that sustain journalism while meeting readers� needs.

I feel a terrible urgency here. I agree that we are still seeking an electronic business model that is as sustaining as print has been. But to reach that goal, journalists need to be focused on the future, not the past.

And the sad fact is, most journalists and newspapers have not been able to fully make that commitment. For good and bad reasons, we continue to straddle old and new media while substitutes peck us to death.

The future of journalism does not depend on our loyalty to a specific format. It depends on our willingness to evolve and execute good journalism in new formats. Let�s reflect on our love for print when that job is done.

Fred Schecker
Senior Producer
HamptonRoads.com

Print vs Electronic news
Posted by Barbara Graham 10/14/2007 11:56:34 AM

This is a thought-provoking commentary. I suspect it's a generational thing. My generation still wants to hold a newspaper, magazine or book in our hands. We don't completely trust electronics (although that feeling tends to be buried, unacknowledged when we speak about this issue) and are not comfortable reading on a screen, whether it's at a distance on the TV, in front of us at a desk, or on a tiny Blackberry/cellphone display.

Much has been said about being able to take a book into the bathtub. I've never done that, but I want to be able to take a bunch of newspaper clippings, a magazine or a book with me when I go to an appointment where I'm likely to have to sit in the waiting room, to bed, on vacation (I took a folder and two books to Chicago), etc.

I also want to READ, not listen to my news. I suspect that most people only half-listen to news on radio or TV. They're busy doing something else, often distracted by other tasks or other noise. Concentration is lost, meaning if often distorted, and listeners can even repeat the opposite of what was actually said, mistaken about what they *think* they heard.

I'm a writer. Nothing will ever replace print on paper. And there's nothing like paper to allow for detailed information that you might want to underline for emphasis or reread to make sure you understood the previous paragraph.

I've recorded some fascinating interviews on my PVR over the past year, including Bob Woodroff on his injury in Iraq, Charlie Rose exploring views on education, economics, aging, philosophy, etc. and insight provided by Canadian interviewer Allan Gregg. I wish I had these in print, so I could refer to them again and again.

Barbara Florio Graham
www.SimonTeakettle.com

Paper for efficiency
Posted by Geoffrey Fox 10/14/2007 11:50:15 AM

I read one good international newspaper every day (El Pa�s when I'm in Spain, Herald-Trib, Le Monde or others when traveling), not out of a sense of duty but because if is the fastest, most efficient way to get a sense of what to look for in the on-line sources. Then I may log onto the websites of El Pa�s & other Spanish & Latin American papers, the BBC, The NYT etc. I use all this (especially the Spanish sources) for my weekly blog / column on events in Spain. If the paper edition became unavailable, I could still manage, but not as easily.

It's a daily thing
Posted by Bobby Magill 10/13/2007 10:34:04 PM

Reading the newspaper in the morning is as natural and necessary to me as eating breakfast. To do otherwise would make my day incomplete. I'm 30, I've been reading the paper daily since I was 15, and reading it online just isn't the same. As a reporter, it seems entirely hypocritical to skip reading the very medium that provides me with a paycheck -- the primary medium through which my audience reads my work. Skipping it partly disconnects me from my readers. And that's a shame.

Not my duty at all
Posted by Rocky Agrawal 10/13/2007 12:18:25 PM

Industries that dictate to customers how, when and where they should consume their content are doomed to failure.

Despite all the high minded talk about journalism and civic responsibility, the business part of the "newspaper business" is selling eyeballs to advertisers. If you're in that business, you have to make your content available to people when, where and how they want to consume it.

I have an ongoing debate with friends on which of the media industries is the most screwed up -- newspapers, television, movies or music.

This column scored some serious points for the newspaper industry.

More on my blog:
http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/10/13/whats-the-most-screwed-up-media-business/

I am with RPC
Posted by Balu Pulipaka 10/13/2007 11:57:33 AM

Why read a newspaper at all? The answer boils down to something very simple but at the same times lies at the very root of the societal structure. News is not just about finding out what is happening either �out there� or in the neighborhood-it is a reflection of civic engagement. In a world of personal music machines and multifunctional mobile phones, it is certainly difficult to make someone read a newspaper.
Coming from 15 years in the print media in India, I am appalled by the lack of or the falling interest in newspaper reading here in the U.S. This is not an attempt to blame anyone for people not reading newspapers but I strongly feel that the newspaper industry needs to look within first. With the industry consolidation, buy outs of competitors and the emergence of a single newspaper towns, except some large cities, newspapers have little to offer. The cuts within the newsrooms themselves have not helped any either. There is an increased reliance on news from wire agencies, news which can be found nearly verbatim on various news websites, television channels or any other place you can get your news from today.
If what I get in my newspaper is a wire copy, which I am already familiar with, why bother reading the paper? This is the sense I get from my limited exploration of the issue so far as a journalism student. Sure, there are many other factors but for me, the single most important issue appears to be the absence of competition among newspapers in much of the country. A status quo appears to be a very attractive proposition if you happen to be the only player in a market, or so the newspapers appear to reason. A study I did for one of my classes found a fair correlation between the disappearance of competition and the falling circulation levels of newspapers in many American cities.
I think Roy Peter Clark�s argument is important. Journalism draws its sustenance and much of its staff from the print media. That is why print media needs to survive.

Read the paper
Posted by Ellen Creager 10/13/2007 6:23:55 AM

Those who have posted to this site while sitting alone at home in their ratty bathrobes could have spent the time better sitting at a friendly diner reading their local newspaper.

Read the paper.

Especially if you work there.

I don't know when that got to be some kind of esoteric argument.

It's a civilization argument.

What Roy got right ... continued
Posted by Rich Gordon 10/12/2007 10:50:52 PM

The print paper is still the biggest piece of newspaper companies' business -- it needs to be as good as possible for as long as possible, within the constraints of whatever budgetary realities exist.

I wish print newsrooms weren't shrinking. But I do believe many newspaper companies have room to improve their print products -- even if the staffs are smaller than today. It will require (1) understanding the audience and (2) fundamentally rethinking of how the news operation works. A few companies are actually doing both of these now. For instance, check out the AJR article on the transformation of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Web site.

Call me a fuddy duddy, but I don't see how a newsroom can produce a good print newspaper with staff members who are unfamiliar with the end product. I'd say the same thing about the Web site, the mobile edition and more.

What Roy got right
Posted by Rich Gordon 10/12/2007 10:48:52 PM

We shouldn't let the backlash to Roy's article let us miss the fact that he diagnosed a real and important problem: that the economic model of print newspapers is falling apart and not being replaced online. The destruction of the print business is leaving an online business too small to support the cost of creating original content at all but the largest scales. Large scale content markets -- say, national sports or national business, possibly even a few national news providers like the Times -- are now large enough (or close) to pay people to create content. What happens in Raleigh, NC? Or Peoria, IL? Or Carlisle, PA?

I keep coming back to this fundamental problem: For most newspapers, the average reader spends more time with a print edition on a single day than the average user of the paper's Web site spends in an entire month. If current trends continue, we won't be able to afford to pay journalists to report and write/tell stories that take days or weeks to produce, except in the largest markets. The problem is, the per-article cost of hiring a journalist to report and write a story isn't much lower in Peoria than Los Angeles.

It's time to innovate, for sure. We need journalism that can be produced at lower costs and still earn large traffic -- and there are a couple of nice things about the Web in that regard. First, content can spread virally. And second, traffic can build over time instead of having to be delivered to a single print edition or broadcast.

That's one of the key reasons why database-driven journalism is so important. Journalism that includes data -- or is structured as data -- can have value for days, weeks or months after initial publication.

I agree that requiring people to buy the paper is counterproductive. Though, I can't imagine it's a good idea for journalists who work for the paper *not* to read the print edition regularly.

Read Read Read
Posted by JD Malone 10/12/2007 10:21:52 PM

i'm not sure it is my duty to read THE paper. i wouldn't subscribe if my news organization didn't sign me up for free (my one perk).

but it is our obligation as journalists, or even just as members of democratic society to be informed, to learn, to read about what we don't understand or about what threatens our freedoms.

i also believe that if you want to be better at what you do, you should read the papers you want to work at or want to do work like. i read the ny times, the la times, the washington post (all online). i also read bbc.com, cbssports.com and espn.com.

but is it my duty to read a paper? no. i think the paper's -- most of them -- failed their readers long ago by selling their souls, and their shares, to wall street. i think the problem is that the vast vast vast majority of cities, towns and podunks don't have a solid paper, like say, the st. pete times. too many places are like cincinnati where they have an awful gannett product that writes about last night's shooting, yesterday's press release and where the best thing going is the editorial cartoonist who won;t be replaced when he retires.

Jason Fry - sell ads not subscriptions
Posted by Nan Connolly 10/12/2007 9:09:17 PM

To Jason Fry: The only successful subscription-based 'print and photo and video' content provider I can think of is porn - and that biz model doesn't impress me. The effort to charge readers for content failed, for a variety of reasons. I think the marketing push should be to convince Ford Motor, P&G, Macy's etc. that they should advertise on newspaper web sites, just as they did in broadsheet. Shiny ads stuffed into the mail are deemed junk, and nobody plans a back-to-school or holiday shopping trip based on a radio jingle or short TV ad. Clickable, easy to read ads (with printable coupons) on newspaper web sites are going to work. It just isn't perfected yet. Yes, I know it doesn't work now in most cities, especially compared to outdated profit models established when family papers were monopolies. The good news - with fewer people, trucks, presses and newsprint the papers will be cheaper to run. TV and radio stations run largely on advertiser profit, right? And they don't have to send carriers door to door offering people the news and begging them to keep on buying it next month and so on.

Time for a rethink a journalist's role
Posted by E Swee 10/12/2007 9:01:31 PM

As a journalist, first in print and now online, I think journalists of the 21st century should think of their relevance. It is time to lower one's heads, walk with the masses, and come down from the land in the clouds and see what is really happening on the ground.

I still come across journalists who still write for tomorrow when by 6pm this evening you would have all the news he thought he had covered splattered all over the television and radio, if the internet and electronic billboards had not beaten them to it. So what he has left, if he has awakened up to this rude fact, are just spoils that will be as fresh as the fish the paper (his news is printed on) is going to wrap.

Unless and until journalists propagate news at the speed of thought, they will be left behind and die with the dinosaurs.

Page 1 of 4 [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ]

View all Top Stories feedback

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Article Feedback

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)