Can't beat an aphrodisiac to seduce the reader, I always say
I'm no internationalist -- although the Internet is helping me to become more of one -- and I'd never heard of Mathias Döpfner or the company he leads, the Axel Springer media empire controlling over 150 newspapers in 32 countries. But I stumbled upon an article he wrote in May. (While I have a couple years of college German, the English translation is here.) It's sort of a response to Rupert Murdoch's well-circulated speech to newspaper editors last year.
I've tried to limit my links to newspaper commentary lately because so much of it is same old same old. But I liked Murdoch's speech, and I like this response.
In short, Döpfner outlines three characteristics that will always attract readers:
Exclusive news: By definition, newspapers are about news. But the genuine element of the newspaper, its true function and reason for existence, is that which no one knows yet (as opposed to easy-access agency wires) and that which no one was supposed to find out (if those concerned got their way)... If newspapers want to keep abreast of the times and successfully compete for their share of the customer's precious time, they must place more emphasis on research....
Independent opinions: Besides news, the lifeblood of newspapers is opinion. Ideally, it should be intelligent, pointedly stated, sometimes even provocative and polemic. Nothing is more tedious than perfectly balanced views or writing what the reader wants to hear. Newspapers must offer people things to talk about. Provide a briefing for discussions in the corridor at work or later in the pub....
Captivating language: Language is the journalist's raw material, and an aphrodisiac to seduce the reader. It is a well-known fact that there are no tedious subjects, just tediously written texts. Publishers view writers like orchids -- expensive and sensitive. But these artists of language are the most important anchors -- the popular columnists and those responsible for the big reports we had no intention of reading but which, after reading the first two sentences, we simply had to finish. Language is the talent that newspaper journalism -- unlike radio, television or the Internet -- can and must make the most of. The message between the lines, precise observations, ironic use of detail, striking and unfamiliar use of words, and maybe even the reader's laughter -- this is what binds people to their newspaper.
There are several points he makes that I disagree with -- other media can make excellent use of language, for instance.
But he brings an interesting perspective. I like his description that a newspaper works horizonally and the Internet vertically, meaning that the Internet has depth while a newspaper has breadth. I also like the description that the Internet "is selflessly anti-authoritarian in character, profoundly democratic. Newspapers, by contrast, are confidently authoritarian." The sentiment has been oft-repeated, but I like the way he says it.
Unfortunately, as much as my printer's ink-filled heart wants it to be true, this ain't enough. Changing is coming faster than any of the pundits are predicting. The generational difference in reader habits is stunning. Technological advances are making leaps far outpacing all but the most forward-thinking visionaries. Money isn't following the change quite as rapidly, but it promises to be. (At least those of us who love journalism and want to continue in it hope so.)
Adapting and innovating, adapting and innovating. Right now, we have trouble keeping up with the possibilities. And then we have trouble resisting all the online opportunities that, perhaps, don't come close to our journalistic core competencies. In all, it's exciting because the world has actually opened up wide for readers and for journalists and for citizens.
Adapt and innovate. That, and offer aphrodisiacs.