Full speed ahead: a primer
Ken Sands, the innovative online publisher of The Spokesman-Review, published a list of the "10 Things Editors Should Do in 2006." It's more of a learning guide, rather than a doing guide, which is fine. Because it's on a registration required site, I'll list them in short-hand:
1. Use RSS.
2. Subscribe to some media sources.
3. Attend a conference.
4. Experiment with alternative story forms.
5. Get involved with citizen media.
6. Think about blogging. (He mentions this site here for which I am appreciative.)
7. Exploit the power of database utility.
8. Discover social networking.
9. Keep an eye on the future.
10. Give readers what they want more often.
It's a good list with useful links throughout. I'd add two more pieces of advice:
11. Don't worry about feeling as if you're behind. You're not. Well, you may be now, but if you work through Ken's list, you'll be ahead of most of the newspapers around. Experiment to see what works in your shop. It's not hard to move ahead.
12. Be bold. Don't be intimidated or frightened by the rough-and-tumble online atmosphere encountered recently by The New York Times or The Washington Post. Most readers are civil and sophisticated and tolerant. They will support your efforts.
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
This may not be the correct forum, but in the interest of continually beating a dead horse, have you read "The Lex Files" specifically the comment from a reader dated Jan. 3?
In that comment, a reader objects, to the bias in the article "Strange Days, a roundup of the idiotic, the ironic and the just plain weird. He feels, as do I, that Alexander ridicules Republicans while giving Democrats a pass.
In reply, Alexander launches into a long-winded, irrelevant rationalization of how he gathers information, filters it through his own sense of humor and slects items. He doesn't seem to realize that its not HOW you write the article,but WHAT the article says.
When other readers comment with specific items that could have been included, Alexander responds in a mean-spirited, personal manner.
Of course it's a biased article, written by a bised reporter to further his own personal agenda. I realize that we are in the minority, based on current voting patterns in the county, and that it makes sense for the paper to have a liberal, pro Democrat stance. However, we are a substantial minority, and your stance of continuing to insist that "The sky isn't REALLY blue" can eventually alienate many of your readers.
You appear to be a rational, reasonable person who is honestly trying to improve the newspaper. All of us recognize the improved local coverage, increased investigative reporting, more balanced reporting, and other improvements in the news section.
Please don't interpret this as continual criticism or write me off as a far right ultraconservative wingnut. I share many of the liberal concerns such as the fairness of the death penalty, the realization that there are two sides to the abortion debate, the feeling that we made a political mistake in invading Iraq, the disgust over Tom DeLay's excesses, and many others.
It's just that when your understandable bias becomes so strident and apparent, it seems to negate what you're trying to accomplish.
Posted on January 24, 2006 4:09 PM