News-Record.com

A journalism student doing research for a paper asked me why more editors didn't have active blogs. I said more do than she thinks and I mentioned a few around here.

But like a good reporter, she had done her homework. "I haven't read those, but I've read others. They either aren't active or they are thinly veiled newspaper promotions or they don't encourage much give and take. You see more editors writing columns for their newspapers than blogging. Why is that?"

I talked about the amount of time a blog can take and the restrictions that some papers have with publishing platforms. Then I said, "Some editors still think of themselves as newspaper editors rather than as editors."

After all this time, it still surprises me that so many editors consider themselves only as newspaper editors. That may have been what we were 10 years ago, but it can't be what we are now, not if we want to serve our audience and have a future.

The truth is, newspaper columns take more time to write than blog posts. While the columns are read by more people -- at least mine are -- they reach only part of the audience. All newspaper editors know that some people who visit the Web site don't read the newspaper. So why would an editor cut off part of the audience?

Newspaper editors get plenty of feedback over the phone, in letters and in e-mails. But it's one way -- reader to editor -- or it is two way -- editor responds to reader. A blog lets a reader or an editor start the discussion. It's in the open for everyone to see. It's immediate, generally, and it's helpful to the editor. The interactivity can be rough, but it's no rougher than an angry phone call or publishing a letter to the editor that is critical of the paper. So why would an editor not want to join the conversation and get the immediate feedback?

I told her I couldn't answer those questions for her. Well, I could have, but I didn't like the answers. She hung up, on her way to call other editors.