Top Story

Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers

1.	AP stories are back on Google News again 7:21 PM Feb. 9, 2010
2.	Foursquare partners with New York Times for Olympics 4:39 PM Feb. 9, 2010
3.	Glitches, Delays Disrupt Plans for Virtual Border Fence 11:33 AM Feb. 9, 2010
4.	Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers 5:20 AM Feb. 9, 2010
5.	What Great Bosses Know about 'No Surprises' 4:20 PM Feb. 8, 2010
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Article Feedback

View all Writing Tools feedback

Can Newspapers Not Suck?
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback | Feedback Guidelines | Report Feedback Abuse

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

Page 1 of 1

Well argued
Posted by Roy Peter Clark 11/8/2007 4:07:21 PM

Nice take, J. Patrick, these are three I had not thought of in such rich detail. Especially interesting is the nature of the preserved record. Cheers. -- rpc

The best thing about newspapers
Posted by J Patrick McGrail 11/8/2007 1:14:43 AM

There are three great reasons why physical newspapers are still great.
The first best thing about newspapers is that they are real. What do I mean by this? I mean that they are not virtual. Yes, I can go online and read (mostly) the same thing, but what I like about physical papers is the ability to circle, tear off, mark up and otherwise physically react to an article that provokes me. You can't do that online.
A second very positive part of being real is that the newspaper has to be as "right" as it can be during a very specific time frame, whether that's a day, or an edition's lifespan before the final edition, etc. Why is this important? Because then a physical record exists of a comment, fact, quote or picture. Some months ago, my friend Jeff came across an article in the physical Washington Post, but didn't save it. When he searched online for the article later on, the entire thing had been redacted, and replaced by a more "correct" (read polished) version. If we begin looking at the virtual record as the real record, we may be deceiving ourselves as to what people have actually read in the real world.
The third thing that's great about newspapers is that you can very effectively and with a minimum of hassle, share an article with a friend. All you have to do is give someone the newspaper to read. No laptops, logging on or waiting for a wireless hotspot, etc. You just say, "Hey, look at this." Easy, peasy.
And That's Why I Like Newspapers!

What I would miss if they were gone
Posted by Barry Spiegel 10/25/2007 12:36:33 AM

If newspapers as we know them go away, here's what I'll miss:

Doing the crossword puzzle
Reading the funnies every day
Studying the box scores very carefully
Finding out who died
Finding out how different columnists saw the stories I read on page one
Doing the Sudoku puzzle
Reading about the school board and public library
Seeing who is getting married
Doing the Jumble
Learning about foreign countries I should already know about
Finding out what the President and Congress did wrong today, and how their spokespeople are trying to keep us from understanding it.
Doing the Wonderword puzzle
Finding out my horoscope and laughing about it

I suppose that some of those things may still take place online, but I doubt that those rituals can be replaced. I'm still having a tough time getting over the reduction in the Sunday funnies from two sections to only one.

If newspapers slip away, it will be the fault of their industry. But clever management and a bit less greed could go a long way to altering, if not reversing, the current trend.

What would you miss?

Can Newspapers Not Suck?
Posted by Mary Parker 10/18/2007 7:49:02 AM

I love newspapers. I buy them no matter where I am---Hong Kong, Guam, the Stars & Stripes in Japan---and it's because I don't always have access to a computer and I don't get the same pleasure from reading pixels that I get from reading ink.

I am a visual and tactile learner---I feel deprived when I cannot touch something. I also cannot tell you the joy I get from serendipity---reading something in the newspaper, the sidebars or the advertisements---I would not have gotten otherwise. And I love tearing out stories and ads---for me, they are visual reminders of ideas.

I am definitely in the minority; I would pay more for my newspaper service than I currently do just to maintain this pleasure of sitting at a table and drinking my morning tea.

Full Circle ...
Posted by Alex Dering 10/18/2007 7:44:52 AM

You know, THAT would make a fabulously non-sucky series of articles.

RE: In defense of Father Mulcahy...
Posted by Lin Young 10/17/2007 8:12:03 PM

Thanks Alex, I stand corrected on who sold the orphan�s chocolates. I had a serious concussion last century, losing parts of my memory, 70 percent of my vocabulary and my ability to alphabetize � so I couldn�t even look up words in a dictionary for years. As you can imagine that made it hard to write. Sometimes I literally couldn�t find the right words. LOL.

It was a hard time because my memory had been so good. When I was on debate team I could quickly remember where I had read each fact I used. In other areas of my life, people had either loved or hated my awesome memory.

But there has been an interesting upside. Although I�m virtually recovered, I�m hazy in remembering TV shows, such as �M*A*S*H,� that I�ve seen or books I�ve read. It makes re-reading novels great, sometimes it�s almost like reading them for the first time, except I often discover where I got a certain idea. Plus I can truly enjoy TV re-runs. I also can relate to the character in that funny new show �Samantha Who?� who can�t remember her life because she had a concussion and I�m relieved it wasn�t that bad for me.

I�m not making light of head injuries. It is a huge problem for many of our soldiers returning from Iraq and some of them won�t have the happy ending I have had.

Creative presentation of news required!
Posted by E Swee 10/17/2007 6:45:02 PM

What newspapers can do and not suck.

I think a majority of newspapers try to hard to satisfy every segment of their readership. And they should stop doing so because it is not possible.Gone are the days when newspapers are sought as the primary deliverer of news. Today, the moment news breaks, it would have reached the masses - whether through the radion, tv or the internet (news sites or blogs or even Facebook).

How a newspaper is to survive this competition is to go away from its traditional role of being the street screamer of reporting news. A lot of creative (and lateral!) thinking is needed, but certainly not impossible, to tell more of a breaking news - ie. what the readers don't already know and what the competition would not have thought about. And if you have that when you hit the streets at 7am tomorrow, I think you have a fair chance of survival.

Let me illustrate. A big quake hit Java some months back. All the online news site screamed about the magnitude of the undersea quake which tremors damaged property on land and how much lives were lost. One Indian news portal (was it the Hindu Times?) did something many could have done but few thought about. It ran a story on why a tsunami would not occur despite the strength of the quake by interviewing a local seismologist. Now, if anyone would have RSS on quake news fed into their Google reader, which news item would you think would attract most attention and click?

Similarly, if newspapers employ the same strategic thinking and news management, how can it suck? By 7am tomorrow all news are stale news. But if you give readers something that help him digest all the bits and pieces he would have seen across the radio, TV and on the Internet, don't you think he/she would gladly spend his/her penny/cents on your paper? Dissect the current issues and analyse them. Show how these affect their lives and the lives of people around them. How can you suck when you don't insult your reader's intelligence?

RE: Really Selfish Syndication?
Posted by Lin Young 10/17/2007 6:43:36 PM

Roy thanks. Actually, I focused on the problem of getting young readers because that�s the demographic newspapers say they can�t attract. But what I said about them applies to the circumstances of many people aged 30 to 70+ who joke about being downwardly mobile. The difference is many people in those other age groups still read the paper, even if it lacks much relevance to them. As John Edwards says, we are two Americas, divided into �haves� and �have nots.� One of my colleagues told me this morning that people don�t realize how easy it is to become a �have not� if your employer goes under or downsizes before you bail with a decent paying job.

You�re right, we�re fragmented and it�s hard to appeal to the contradictory needs of different audiences. Maybe newspapers never have. After all, papers used to have Negro news pages or ignore blacks altogether.

I saw problems developing in the �90s with cheap Chinese imports manufactured without the regulations the U.S. has. I wasn�t a journalist then. And maybe newspapers couldn�t step on the toes of retailers selling those imports and run stories about potential problems. Maybe newspapers had to wait until after pet food, toothpaste and toys were toxic and readers were interested because they see how it affects them.

When house prices soared and created wealth on paper for homeowners, newspapers could have explained the downside that was sure to follow, based on known economic realities. Those soaring prices meant property taxes � based on value � would have to go up too and since increased value meant insurance companies would have to pay out more for claims that meant insurance premiums would also soar.

I have no easy answers. Explanatory journalism takes time and teamwork. If newspapers can�t explain how issues might affect everyone�s pocket book what context do they give readers to care about a story?

And since we are fragmented, maybe no newspaper can appeal to a community of only common geography.

Question for Roy
Posted by Alex Dering 10/17/2007 10:58:47 AM

Actually, two. No, three.

You mention "So the question becomes whether it is possible to put out a newspaper that appeals to rich and poor, young and old, black and white, married and single?"

Has anyone looked at the loss of circulation and revenue as a natural outgrowth of the evaporation of the middle class?

And, speaking of the poor.

What's the motivation for a newspaper (besides -- ha ha -- civic responsibility) to appeal to the poor? With trivial exceptions, telling the poor why they're poor (ridiculous penalties for late payments, lack of unions, runaway medical costs, tax cuts to the wealthy, etc.) is directly contradictory to the interests of the wealthy ("What, my dividend report is lower than expected because some poor person needed dental coverage?")

Can we drop the fiction of a newspaper trying to appeal to everyone?

Really Selfish Syndication?
Posted by Roy Peter Clark 10/17/2007 10:24:36 AM

Lin, you make a strong argument about the newspaper's failure to reach a certain audience: young, workclassing people who want their lives to be better. Is that what the current readers of newspapers want? I doubt it. So the question becomes whether it is possible to put out a newspaper that appeals to rich and poor, young and old, black and white, married and single?

The culture seems to be moving more toward a fragmentation of the audience for news, information, and advertising. There is clearly an appetite for "news for me," which I sometimes call RSS: Really Selfish Syndication.

How do journalists help readers "find" an interest beyond their current narrow desires? How do journalists serve the contradictory needs of different audiences at the same time? How do journalists get people to read about "the others"? Who will pay for all this in the public interest?

If you figure this out, Lin, let us know. We'll appoint you Poynter's monarch. Cheers. -- rpc

In defense of Father Mulcahy...
Posted by Alex Dering 10/17/2007 8:59:30 AM

... in the episode in question (one of my favorites), it is not the chaplain, Father Mulcahy, but rather the man who operates the orphanage -- St. Teresa's, I think -- who sells the chocolate on the black market to buy enough rice and cabbage for a month.

There is, I think, an episode in which Father Mulcahy has to buy penicillin on the black market, but I digress ...

Newspapers choose to suck
Posted by Lin Young 10/17/2007 12:19:21 AM

I agree with Bill Marvel, newspapers need to give readers something worthwhile and not dumbed down. I also agree with Steve Meyers about people not liking �a single monopolistic voice that determines what is news and what isn't.�

I think getting younger readers - or any reader - to decide a newspaper doesn�t suck means relevant stories. Most people worry about pocketbook issues, but not everyone has the same amount in their wallet. Newspapers need to find ways to give all readers the relevant "so what" of a story.

My first journalism teacher said news stories were full of white voices mostly middle-aged, middle-class and overwhelmingly male and she advised interviewing people different from that to get other voices into stories. Call it affirmative action, as in affirmation and action for a newspaper�s readers or potential readers. If a community is X percent a certain age, income, race, marital status or sexual preference, etc., etc. then it seems that making sure those voices are in stories and covering stories that are important to those people would ensure newspapers didn�t suck.

For instance, in a community where many people are single or divorced, have run through their savings and liquidated investments � or never had any - and are struggling to pay basic bills, a story on doing a financial tune-up to make sure that all is on track with investments, etc., sucks. For newspapers not to suck, they need to know who the intended audience is before they can write for that audience. Too many papers write for middle-class, financially secure married readers.

In a �M*A*S*H� episode Winchester donated candy to the orphans then accused the chaplain of stealing it. The chaplain asked Winchester if he would feed the kids dessert before supper, Winchester says no. The chaplain then explained that the orphanage was about out of food and selling the chocolates gave him money to buy food. News stories that are all dessert and no supper sucks for readers.

It's the format that's so great!
Posted by Anupam Choudhury 10/16/2007 11:33:33 PM

I dont think newspapers suck at all! The editorial drought can be fixed. The debate is really of medium. What is available on paper is the same thing available on screen. But online, you have more variety and quantity. You have more choice. But does that really help? More and more people are choosing RSS feed subscriptions to get targeted news. Isn't that what a newpaper does - encapsulating yesterday for you? Isn't that the precursor of RSS? A newpaper is a compilation of carefully chosen content that would appeal to general audience, not niche audience. And I believe, most people in this world are general audience. They want the morning dose and get on with their workday. No one lives the news except journalists. Most people just want to be aware.
I believe that eventually online news will go the newspaper way. You will get a digital paper in your inbox that has news that has been 'customised' for your personal taste by the publisher. You will read that paper and get on with your life. You neither have the time nor patience to go looking for more news.
Other than that, whether you want to hold newsprint in your hands or click the mouse is purely personal choice based on convenience and lumbar support.

Thought experiment ...
Posted by Alex Dering 10/16/2007 2:34:19 PM

I'm just wondering. As a thought experiment.

If every newspaper simply shut off its website, what would happen to print?

Would people, no longer able to read the paper online, simply bite the bullet and go back to buying it?

Or have I hit my head?

What we do best
Posted by Steve Bruss 10/16/2007 1:37:40 PM

This is not a new debate, of course. When I entered the field 15 years ago we were being done in by television. The cry from newspapers was that we do depth and context better than TV. And it was true.

We do depth and context better than the Internet, too. At least, when we do it well we do it better than those media. Every one of the papers you mentioned as ones that are worth reading is a paper that has not sacrificed its ability to provide readers the thing that newspapers provide best.

The newspaper itself can't compete with the Internet for immediacy. Our Web sites suffer because, by and large, they can't compete with the big information providers like Yahoo! and Google.

So we've got to give readers a reason to pick us up. Make ourselves different from the electronic media instead of continually trying to make ourselves more like it.

The trick, of course, is stopping the momentum that's taken us as far as it has toward emulating media that we never can truly compete against.

Bill Cosby ...
Posted by Alex Dering 10/16/2007 1:36:16 PM

... once said that he did not know the secret to success, but that he DID know the secret to failure: trying to please everybody.

Papers are failing because they simply aren't generating any genuine emotional connection.

I read a story about some kid in Oregon who got face surgery for a tremendous deformity and I feel like part of me is being educated about a deeply human issue, but the other part of me is saying, "Jeez, will they stop deliberately and calculatingly pulling on my heartstrings?"

I see a story about someone crashing into a bridge support and burning alive.

So? Big deal. A car crash is supposed to generate anything other than a fraction of a second of "Glad it wasn't me?"

Look at the local tv news. Iraq doesn't get a word, but there's two minutes to cover a car crash involving a child. Good God, I'm sorry the kid died, but I've got the bills to pay and dinner to make. How does that kid's story affect me? How does it affect anyone other than the very small group of people who knew and interacted with that child? Do you really think they want to find out about their friend/classmate/neighbor's gruesome death from a reporter and a clip of (surprise) a hysterically sobbing parent?

Give the readers stories that don't just seem to be designed to allow for the catharsis of a good cry. Maybe people are tired of just being given depressing events without the sense of there being a wider pattern or something that can be done. (And those drive-by "investigative reports" don't count.)

The Future of Newspapers
Posted by Bill Marvel 10/16/2007 12:45:34 PM

Roy,
I wonder if we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The question is not whether newspapers will still be read, but where readers are going to find what they want.
Those looking for a quick news fix will continue to drift to the web, in all its forms. (About three-quarters of my journalism students seldom look at anything else.)
I am assuming a small but irreducible audience will still want to read. A lot of these are folks who have dropped the local paper because they can't find anything to read, but get the Sunday New York Times. In order to win these people back, newspapers will have to give them something worth their time. Yet so many papers seem to be headed in the opposite direction -- dumbing down, cutting the news hole, running short, dropping reviews.
I still get the daily paper I used to work for. But more and more of my reading time is poured into magazines, books, and, yes, the New York Times.
As a writer I have to ask, Where's my audience going to be in a couple years? Unless newspapers change their ways, it's going to be elsewhere.

Can Ads & Business Models Not Suck?
Posted by Amy Gahran 10/15/2007 8:58:33 PM

Great column, Roy

I think there's no question that people want great news content. The problem is that the advertising which has thus far supported most traditional news organizations has most definitely sucked, big time.

There's a reason why ad blockers are so popular in online media: most ads suck. They're not just stupid; they're annoying, irrelevant, and they get in the way of experiencing and enjoying the content.

It doesn't have to be that way, I think. Online advertising can be delivered in targeted ways that increase relevance and palatability to on an individual or community scale, while reducing clutter, annoyance and obstruction.

Plus, as Elaine Clisham commented today on a Tidbits post, we need to look beyond ads for our business model options. She wrote, "We need to stop talking about advertising as though it's the only source of revenue, and start talking about revenue that includes search, lead generation, targeted e-mails, behavioral targeting, marketing services, etc. It's a training and education issue, a compensation issue, and a performance management issue, and it's turning out to be a huge barrier to change at newspapers."

See: http://snipurl.com/1s7h7

Thanks!

- Amy Gahran

Mass medium in a niche world
Posted by Maurreen Skowran 10/15/2007 7:46:52 PM

Part of the problem is that newspapers are a mass medium in a time of diverse choices.

What is perfect for one person might be crummy for another.

There is no single answer. But one option is to advance more on the general filtering and navigation -- help people manage the multitude of choices.

Page 1 of 1

View all Writing Tools feedback

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Article Feedback

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)