What have we accomplished?
Beau Dure used to work at this newspaper back in the '90s, but I know him better through his comments on this blog than I did when he was here. He's smart and insightful as he shows in these comments reproduced at Journalism Hope. With that intro, you probably aren't surprised that I agree with him.
The bottom line: Newspapers could have done everything "right" -- all the suggestions from this list, minus the things never caught on -- and still found themselves in the situation they're in today. The marketplace is fragmenting. Prime-time network TV is losing viewers. Tower Records is gone. Forty years ago, everyone could name a Beatles song; today, most people don't know any of the songs in the Top 10. We simply have too many options....
As the market fragments, traditional newspapers will decline....But there will be opportunities for good journalism....
So we've established niche media while transforming traditional media - perhaps more slowly than intended -- into something new. We've learned a lot along the way from both successes and failures, both small and spectacular.
Despite what you may read on journalism sites and blogs, many of us do understand the market we're in and the skills we need. Our challenge is to move more quickly understand where the audience is, where it is going and how to serve it.
He mentions his experiences and observations commenting on this blog.
I'm as much a fan of the blogging experiments in Greensboro as the next Online-Newser - probably moreso, since I spent four terrific years at the N&R. But judging from the agenda-driven comments on John Robinson's blog, my old editor in Wilmington probably got better feedback in the steam room at the Y than John is getting online.
I don't know about the feedback at the Y -- my experience is that a pretty good place to talk to the audience -- but he has a point about some comments here. Some do go to all the same places -- usually trashing the paper for one sin or another. Really, it's not all that different from conversations I have with people on the street. The criticism in person is usually more polite, but it can also be equally blunt and mean-spirited.
Other conversations are quite robust, helpful and stimulating -- both in person and on the blog. And they make it worth it.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
John, maybe he was referring to your comments being agenda driven.
Posted on October 19, 2007 6:46 PM
Sam -- Uhhhh, no.
The editor in Wilmington was a character. Very old school. He came in one day ranting that reporters should ride the bus to find out what's going on in town.
But he got much of his feedback on his daily trips to the Y. (I also got some feedback at the same Y, but no one ever told me anything at the Greensboro Y, mostly because no one knew who I was.) We often joked that we were going to go to the Y in disguise and say things like, "Give raises to all your copy editors!"
Posted on October 20, 2007 11:40 AM
"(M)any of us do understand the market we're in and the skills we need."
But you don't, and you don't even realize it.
You want people to believe that somehow the recent college graduates got a whole lot smarter in the last 10-15 years, right when newspapers decided they wanted to pay a lot less for staff. Funny how that works.
Instead of training good writers and editors for the last 15 years, you try to lure readers with "something shiny." Then you scratch your heads when that doesn't work.
You're spinning down the drain, but you're proclaiming victory. You're the Baghdad Bob of media.
Posted on October 24, 2007 11:14 AM