News-Record.com

I'd say that staffers should be able to blog.

But in doing so, they will add NOTHING useful to the website or paper.

Having the same staffers who are responsible for the lame product that is currently being put out simply write MORE in a flippant, more casual manner is not the panecea.

The key will be getting people OUTSIDE the newspaper to contribute to make the experience reach out to more, different readers.

To get a new audience you need to have different content, not just more divel written by the same boring people...

And, Bob is a very sharp guy. He could not be more dead on with the "trend of the moment" observation. It's been with newspaper websites for a LONG time: community publishing, "push" technology, starting a portal (greensboro.com?? the depot??), pdf versions of the paper... look out, it's now coming in the form of webcasts and podcasts...

For an industry that should be so wary of trends because of the skeptics it employs, the newspaper industry is one that jumps on EVERY bandwagon that comes along and rides it until it's a beyond obviously failed concept. How long did audiotext hang on?

oh, and I forgot about these other newspaper website trends that are extremely misguided/played out: "non-linear storytelling" (whatever that means), Flash (used in ANY form to "tell a story" -- usually with a black background image and fades between images -- that could be better told with just regular photos and captions) and QuickTime virtual realities (in various forms)...

And the two of the biggest trends ever perpertrated:

-- City Guides (remember Zip2??? boy, the N&R blew a boatload of cash with that giant "trend")

-- Registration!!! Everyone jumped on that one.. already three very large Tribune newspapers have backed off it because they realize it's a doomed concept. I'm just shocked that the N&R hasn't already required it -- I guess only because of the limited technology you have.

You know, if I weren't on vacation, I'd probably be on a rant right now about how a blog is a toold that can be used in many different ways in many different hands. And if I weren't feeling so mellow, I might even be inclined to point out that the use of blogs by staff writers at the N+R has little to do with being "flippant," but adding depth and context to coverage. I could even say that this sort of big-media-could-never-understand-blogs criticism is exactly the same sort of determined, snobbish ignorance of reality that us "big media" types have been slapped with over the years.

But I'm on vacation, so I'll let Lex worry about all this.

It would seem that no one is worried about it. Sadly.

The truth of the matter is just what Mr. Robinson says in his blog that the message -- not the medium -- is the key.

It's clear that people are not interested in the newspaper message (and the medium is weak as well). The people who produce the paper are not in touch with reality when it comes to writing what real people want and need. They ARE good at government process stories and "gotcha" journalism. (And the occasional tug at the heart strings 40 inch story.)

So, letting these same people simply write more is not going to change things.

I would think that keep watch on how people spend millions (or billions or trillions depending on what level of government) of taxpayer dollars is a useful service. And by your argument, "real people" don't want to know what new restrictions government is putting on their behavior or new investigative powers government is giving itself. And that whole idea informing voters so they can exercise their franchise in a responsible way is proabably just passe then?

So, this is Lex's blog and one of his missions is to listen to what kind of news readers - "real people" - want. So why not lay out your wishes. What kind of stories would you like to see? Lex has a nack for translating those sorts of suggestions into action.

Amen, Mark. Jim: Exactly what is it you'd have "big media" do? Simply ignore the "medium of the moment"? No one knows where this big blob of pseudo-innovation is heading -- and if you believe anyone who says they do know, I gotta' bridge I can sell you. Instead of proferring sour grapes left and right, why not offer something constructive?

Point is, good ol' big media is making an effort, though in fits and starts, to stay relevant and responsive. Hate to say it, but if the folks at the N&R were real leaders of the pack, we wouldn't be working for a mid-sized paper in a mid-sized city with mid-sized budgets and oversized project portfolios (no offense intended, as I'd merely be offending myself). There are some remarkable minds working for this organization, but we are plagued with greatly reduced resources and greatly reduced staffs, trying to support a greatly diversified line of products. So if we aren't exactly playing Thomas Edison (who stole not a few ideas himself), I hope you'll forgive us.

Take a deep breath, envy Mark Binker, relax, envy Mark Binker, look behind you, and compare yourselves, progressively speaking, to other U.S. newspapers of similar size.

You might need binoculars for this.

Anna, I'm not sure if you're asking us to point our lens behind us or ahead, but... well, thanks regardless. Maybe you'll pop back with "behind" and make me feel good about my Tuesday, but I seriously doubt it. There are so many small operations that have proven more lean and agile than the News & Record that have not gotten the attention and (largely unwarranted) praise that we have. History and inertia are both such cruel mistresses...

Wow, did that ever sound sexist.

At any rate, I'm not going to make any more excuses for us. We're trying, Lord love us. And everyone's attention and commentary merely goes to show they actually care, one way or another. ;-)

FYI, the opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners, management, or, indeed, my fellow employees...

And you did say "behind," didn't you? Sorry; tired eyes. That's what happens when I blog past my bedtime. ;-)

What would I have big media do?

I'd have them NOT take on every single trend there is in new media journalism and think very seriously about being USEFUL to me. Sure, a government story well-written that digs up some scandle is great. But HOW OFTEN do those come around? What about the content of the paper the OTHER 355 days of the year???????????????

The problem with newspapers is that most of what everyone is trying to do is write for their next job. And, they are taught to write and pitch stories that will progress their careers. They are not taught to do the simple stories that can actually help people's lives -- and the blog posts are spawned from that way of thinking.

Where are all the helpful traffic/road stories (I'm thinking of a transportation writer who actually does a Q&A about problem areas or issues on a daily or 3 days a week time frame)? Where is the guide to Mother's Day that will tell me where to take my mom for brunch? Where is the list that helps me figure out a place for my kid for summer camp? Do more consumer stories! (Should I get a water cooler for my home? Is it worthwhile? Is our water that bad?)
How about a weekly list of gas prices at several stations and track how much they are going up and down...

I could go ON AND ON!!!

The problem is these kinds of stories don't get reporters OR editors ANYWHERE in this business. So, they are devalued for the BIG STORY ABOUT CORRUPTION (which will conveniently land said reporter a big raise and/or a job at the big paper that's not in Greensboro.)

It's so OBVIOUS! WAKE UP PEOPLE!

I notice that no one acknowledges how correct I am about the trends that have washed through the paper and its website, further confusing editors and the mission. Everyone is so whipsawed they don't even know what to do! (Except get to work to get their next job.)

The paper's role should become INDISPENSABLE. Right now, it's very easy to just toss aside...

Jim -- As part of the early efforts at The Depot, I can tell you why no one's acknowledging that you're correct. You're not.

What was community publishing if not a forerunner of getting the community involved through blogging? Years before anyone knew what a blog was or had the idea of recruiting people from outside the paper to be part of the Web site, we did it through much clumsier publishing tools. (I can't take credit for the idea; I was just one of the people holding the hands of those who were struggling with various FTP programs.)

It's easy to hear the word "blogging" and think everyone's just jumping on a trend. But this is, in fact, a logical outgrowth of what the site has always done.

Staff blogs can be overdone, and many papers have done them badly. But they can work, for a number of reasons. First, newsprint is expensive, and reporters might not be able to get everything they want in the paper on a given day. Second, blogs allow reporters to call in other sources through links. Third, blogs allow comments as long as everyone is civil about it. (It works in a friendly town like Greensboro; it won't work many other places.)

Sometimes, people will misstep with a new technology. Remember the early days of ESPN2, when they tried to establish themselves as "edgy" by having Keith Olbermann dress down? ESPN2 survived that experiment and got better.

(For the record, the N&R did a big summer camp preview April 10, and I found a lot of references in community calendars in the archives.)

So, nothing that I said is correct?

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that community publishing was not a failure (despite tens of thousands of dollars poured down it and endless amounts of people and groups who built their sites on the platform supplied by the N&R that later just bit the dust -- POOF! AND the fact that community publishing was not a precursor of blogs since people creating their own websites existed well before and after the community publishing debacle.)

So, let's just say that I'm wrong on that point (although one -- certainly not me since I'm wrong -- would more likely argue that community goodwill was hurt more than helped with the fiasco.)

You're telling me that NOTHING the N&R has done in the last 9 years has been because of a rush to jump on a trend? I mean, out of my list you point out only one thing that I am wrong about and then say "you're wrong" -- implying it's about everything.

And, if those things really weren't trends, wouldnt the N&R still be DOING them? As you probably know, the real worthwhile things eventually bubble to the top...

I will give you this Beau: there probably are more things in the paper that are of use than I think. But, I could never find them OR -- and this most likely -- they appear in the paper TOO LATE to be of any use! (I'm thinking when a Mother's Day brunch guide ran a couple of years ago on SATURDAY -- far too late to be of any use for the next day! Reservations being the key...)

Beau, I am uncertain why you are such an apologist for the News & Record. I can only see giant missteps they have made in the past -- the only constant decent idea (although not very well executed) being the newspaper website. If the N&R would just FOCUS on doing a GREAT newspaper website, the marketshare and readers would come. As it is, it's very, very weak. The mission of the staffers here is obviously drifting EVERYWHERE. I mean, this site didn't even have a site search for several days but it has lame blogs -- how is that for priorities!?!?!

I've seen so much of it that it is obvious when another over-hyped trend is coming.. and it's here...

Jim -- From my post: "Sometimes, people will misstep with a new technology. Remember the early days of ESPN2, when they tried to establish themselves as "edgy" by having Keith Olbermann dress down? ESPN2 survived that experiment and got better."

Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes.

You raise some good points. Perhaps under ideal circumstances, the N&R would have segued seamlessly from the old publishing tools to blogs. I do think the "reader-submitted" stuff would work a bit better if more of it came from community groups -- what I've read so far seems a bit, well, random.

But I think you're undervaluing the N&R. Just this week, I read a critique of the LA Times' site for failing to follow up their own story when there were developments the next afternoon. The N&R updates throughout the day -- my hunch is they would've had the follow up. That sort of updating was considered "trendy" in some circles a few years ago, but it happens to be a good idea. Some "trends" (Matchbox 20's popularity) are bad; some "trends" (iPods) are pretty good. Only a psychic can always tell which is which ahead of time.

As for blogs -- I'm still of two minds about them. As a publishing tool, they're great -- so simple and efficient. But it's all about the content. Of the current N&R blogs, maybe half will draw a decent readership and the other half will fade. The medium itself won't go away, so the paper won't lose any money invested in a publishing tool. Little harm if a couple of the blogs don't pan out -- no worse than publishing a couple of stories that don't grab a lot of readers.

Geez. I take a week at the beach and an actual discussion breaks out.

I'll "worry about it," as Binker put it, after digging out of the first-day-back-from-vacation landslide, so Jim et al., please stand by.

OK, going back to the original point of my post: If Cauthen's real point was "Newspapers, for crying out loud, DON'T just jump on the latest trend like you usually do," he made it poorly. I won't speak for the N&R here, but I personally come from two long lines of Scots who don't much care for being told what to do (or, particularly, NOT to do) by anyone, for any reason.

To respond to some of Jim's points, in no particular order:

-- Yeah, we've bitten on our share of bad trends. I'm thinking particularly of our 1992 redesign, which is probably the most egregious example, but there are others.

-- That said, in some cases, we've been trendsetters rather than trend followers. At a time when many newspapers were planning to put their content online in ill-advised partnerships with AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy, if they were planning on putting content online at all, we created one of the first two dozen or so newspaper Web sites in the country. We did it quick and cheap, to learn, and we learned a lot about what worked and didn't work FOR US, irrespective of what was going on in the industry at large.

-- Which leads me to repeat a point from the original post: We're leading, not following a trend. We're not JUST writing a bunch of blogs. We're not JUST posting reader submissions online. We're working toward the bigger picture of a cooperative local journalism effort involving a core of professionals working alongside citizen volunteers. We'll use what works and discard what doesn't.

-- As part of that process, we're learning, hands-on, to master the capabilities of the online medium. As a result, most of what you see online right now is people's practice work (including my own) because I want our efforts out where the public can provide useful feedback. You dismiss nonlinear storytelling as "misguided and/or played out," but there undoubtedly are some stories out there for which it is the best fit, so we need to understand the concept and be competent in its execution ... which is true of every other type of online production as well.

-- Is the N&R "essential" or consistently "useful" in the specific way you describe? No, probably not, yet. Newspapers have struggled with this for a long time, but it has less to do with wanting to get promoted and/or move to a bigger/ostensibly better paper than it has to do with the fact that newspaper journalists are just demographically very different from their readers. Thus, they don't THINK like readers. Just one tiny example: We paid serious attention to the items exempt from sales tax during this past weekend's sales-tax holiday on only one day, when we should have reprinted the complete list the day before and all three days of the weekend. Another example: When we write articles advancing a particular event, we're supposed to include a "Want to Go?" box with the date, time, location and admission price of the event, along with a phone number and/or Web site where more info can be obtained. I've been with the N&R for 18 years, and we still omit those things pretty regularly, just because the reporter forgets and the editor doesn't think. We're all guilty of it. We shouldn't be, particularly us long-timers, but we are.

-- To suggest that people are not interested in the newspaper message is a bit of an overgeneralization. The N&R's circulation has bucked the industry trend the past couple of years, although by much less than we'd like.

-- "Useless," "worthless," "drivel," etc., are subjective value judgments, as are their more complimentary opposites. For critique to be most readily understood, most useful, and most likely to be received in the constructive spirit in which it is intended, its suggestions should be phrased on concrete, objective language.

-- You say, "If they weren't trends, wouldn't the N&R still be doing them?" Well, that depends. We did audiotext for a long time, even though it obviously wasn't the right medium for some kinds of information, because it was useful for customers, provided one more way for readers/customers to interact with us and made us (a small amount of) money. But the 'Net pretty much rendered it superfluous.

I probably haven't covered all the points I need to, but this'll have to do as a start.

Hi Lex,

I hope you had a good time at the beach -- welcome back!

Yes, Bob didn't do a good job in his original post. In fact, his hyperbole of saying "you don't get to do this" probably made people miss his point.

I understand that you'll do what works and toss out what doesn't... but, I wish I saw more here that got more to regular people. The blogs you have are expanding, which is good, but I guess I wish I saw more that attracted people who weren't typical political wonks or journalists -- real, retired or aspiring...

I do wonder that if your initial attempts at this are so... um, uninspiring... if you'll later be able to lure in the regular folks. (I'm not a marketing person at all, but I would push the non-traditional blogs more than those that would attract the classic newspaper readers...)

It's no doubt going to be tough to do, but I think Bob does have a point that real community interaction won't come from the typical, traditionla sources...

Good luck -- as always.

Jim, I think Bob is correct on the point you describe, and we're working in that direction. It has just taken a lot longer than we'd like because of a lack of time and technical capability.

For one example of what might be non-traditional newspaper blog, check out the new cooking blog, Mel's Kitchen. I don't know if this comports with your idea of non-traditional, but if there's a formula for blogging success (other than being, or pretending to be, a woman and blogging about having lots of sex), she has hit it: She writes engagingly and, from what I can tell, knowledgeably, on a subject about which both she and many members of the public are quite passionate.

Hi,

I really struggled with whether to post this or not.. and finally decided to.

I REALLY don't want this to be taken the wrong way. I mean, I complain about your efforts and then you do something that you would think would make me happy and now...

OK, it's not that the cooking blog is bad. I'm sure it's great.

The problem is that if I want cooking info I can go to about one of 15 places on the web that will provide me with more and better organized information. (Searchable recipies, Q&As, etc.)

I REALLY admire the different approach, I am just not sure how much a generic cooking blog is going to help.

I feel like you NEED to have blogs that are specific to your area. Now, if the blog was specifically about eating in the Triad (a Short Orders Blog) then THAT would be different... but, a blog about cooking? I can get that anywhere...

Short Orders Blog would be great!

Well, the appeal of it to me is that it's not JUST about cooking. It's about our relationship with food, as well -- kind of in the tradition of M.F.K. Fisher. That, as my wife has been bemoaning pretty much constantly since Ms. Fisher's death years ago, is something you canNOT get just anywhere.

And, obviously, we hope, and expect, that discussions will pop up on the blog that will pertain directly to cooking/eating in the Triad.

I don't even know who M.F.K. Fisher is. I think you're going after a pretty narrow audience if you're going to talk about people's relationships with food (whatever that IS).

I think you're best off focusing on something that EVERYONE does -- and that is go out to eat!

I've never, ever heard of any regular person bemuse their relationship with food. (Let alone seek out a blog about it.)

I'm afriad this last exhange has proven my point for me. Even a blog that one THINKS would reach out to people is drifting in the direction of being so narrowly focused no one will read it.

Good luck....

OK. Time to toot my own horn.

Jim, I hear you loud and clear regarding keeping it real. Filling a local niche, not so much what you can find anywhere.

That's what I try to do at my blog, Bargain Blog.
Gas prices? Done that several times.
Restaurant deals in the Triad? Done that.
Mother's Day suggestion? Done that.
Flea markets you should go to in the Triad? Certainly.
Good deals on food and drink and beer at Triad grocery stories? You bet.
T-bone for $4.99 a pound? Where can I get that in the Triad? You'd know if you read my blog.
Where can you get a pint for a buck?
Where can I go bowling cheap?

Those are just a few examples.

I recall you said you only read two News & Record blogs, so that may be why you haven't seen those entries.

It's all good. Please feel free to visit and give me your 2 cents.

I'm not exactly getting blown away by replies and so forth. But I don't think it's so much indifference, but a lack of promotion. We can do so much better in that regard, but as you know newspapers have never been good at that.

But we're aware we need to do better, which is a start at least.

Mike makes an excellent point about his blog ... one I apologize for not having made myself.