One year in
A year ago today, I posted on this blog my memo to the N&R news department's senior editors on how we could make our Web site more of an online "Town Square" and why we might want to do that. (The memo is still available in Word format here, if you prefer.) Shortly thereafter, Editor John Robinson made "making it so" my full-time job, and the rest is history.
So, a year down the road, where are we?
I saw my efforts as falling generally into one or more of three broad areas:
- Increasing transparency and interactivity in our news operation.
- Creating opportunities for readers to become partners with us in reporting the news of this community to this community.
- In service of both of the foregoing, taking more robust advantage of the capabilities of the online medium.
Here's my rough assessment of where we are in each area.
Increasing transparency and interactivity: The most involved step, and the one that got us the most national attention, was creating a wide variety of staff-written blogs that dealt, in the main, with the beats those bloggers covered. That has widened the avenues by which readers can learn about and discuss stories we cover and even help shape coverage by suggesting follow-ups or new angles to stories. It also has provided reporters with a way to solidify their credibility on particular stories by posting images of source documents, audio from interviews, and so on.
We also revitalized our online forums and established a process for getting e-mail suggesting coverage ideas to the appropriate reporter or editor.
Beyond that, the Letters to the Editor blog has provided a robust, if sometimes rude, forum for discussion of issues in a way that printed letters to the editor could never do. Yes, we (and by "we," I mainly mean editorial-page editor Allen Johnson) continue to wrestle with issues of tone and taking responsibility for one's comments, but on the whole I think it was well worth doing.
But JR had been blogging for four months before we launched this project, and I think his blog has done more than anything else to increase the transparency of our operation. That's not surprising, inasmuch as he speaks for the entire news department ("news department" here also including sports and features, as well as visual journalism -- photography/videography/page design) and there are very few questions he won't answer. Ditto Allen Johnson and his blog for our editorial department. But JR also has gone beyond answering questions to anticipating them -- anytime there's a press problem that affects content and/or delivery to more than a handful of subscribers, he generally blogs about it, for example.
Now, to keep things in perspective, I don't think the blogs have increased people's ability to interact with News Department employees as much as did the simple fact that, late in 2003, everyone in the department finally got off the mainframe and onto a PC network, thus getting e-mail. But I think that, following JR's lead, we've all gotten a bit more proactive about explaining how and why we do some of the things we do.
I'd like us to do more, or at least experiment with doing more to see if there's a demand for it. For example, we could Webcast and/or liveblog our morning and afternoon "budget meetings," at which look at the list of stories likely to run in the next day's paper and decide which ones run where, with what art, and so on. They're generally pretty tedious, but then so are many meetings of the City Council or county commissioners, and people watch THOSE on live TV, so who knows?
And we're open to suggestions for other ways to increase transparency.
My biggest disappointment is probably the one you're thinking of: As of this writing, we still don't have comments enabled on individual stories, something you'd think would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, making that happen involved a lot more brain than we expected, but it's going to happen.
Creating opportunities for readers to become partners with us: We've created YourNews, where you can submit your own article for publication on our Web site and read articles submitted by others. In partnership with a vendor, we have created a site where you can post photos and video online. We have created Hometown Hubs -- special parts of our Web site serving particular areas, featuring (or soon to feature) content provided almost exclusively by readers -- for Summerfield and the Rock Creek area, with similar hubs soon to come for other parts of the county. (The concept, we think, will work for communities of interest, as well as for geographic communities, so if you're part of a group that wants to post news on our Web site, please contact community-news editor Betsi Robinson.)
Longer-term, we envision creating partnerships between some of our newsroom professionals and interested readers to pursue stories of interest to the larger community. What stories do you think would lend themselves well to that treatment? Meanwhile, as we look for other opportunities to make our news gathering and distribution more of a partnership with the community, what do you think our next step should be?
Creating a more robust Web site: By "more robust," I mean a Web site that takes as much advantage as possible of the capabilities and possibilities of the medium. Because this gets into technical issues, I don't even know how much I don't know about this subject. (A lot, I presume.) But we have:
- Installed a new content-management system that is making, or will make, a lot of things easier with respect to running a Web site.
- Begun including source material (e.g., images of source documents, audio from interviews) online with stories.
- Added more audio (including several podcasts, a medium staffer Herb Everett has strongly pushed for), video, slide-show and animated content to the site. I attended a week-long seminar in March at Berkeley's graduate school of journalism to get some philosophical and practical background in this area, and I've worked with such staffers as Allison Perkins, Tina Firesheets and Sue Schultz to create online components for their stories. On the visual side, photographer -- or should that be "visual journalist"? -- Jerry Wolford, in particular, has been doing so much on his own with slide shows and video that that's now a defined part of his job. (And while this isn't supposed to be a comprehensive list of everyone who has had a hand in our efforts over the past year, I would be remiss if I didn't thank the folks in News & Record Interactive -- in particular, Charlie Stafford, Stephen Paschall and Kevin Lockamy -- for all their help. Supporting the newsroom isn't a primary focus of their jobs, but they've been amazingly flexible, and even more amazingly cheerful, in helping us when we're desperate.)
More importantly, I think, the notion is taking hold in our newsroom that we all need to become fluent in all of the media available to us in telling a particular story and learn to match the best (i.e., most appropriate) medium/media with each story. Beyond that, although we print-based people are wedded to the notion of telling stories, we're also learning that readers want and need certain kinds of information that 1) aren't "stories," at least in the sense that they don't necessarily lend themselves to linear, narrative presentation of any kind and 2) aren't necessarily suitable for print at all.
This change in thinking is revolutionary, but the change in what it produces will be evolutionary, as current staffers become more technically proficient and as, over time, we hire people who already have worked with these tools in college or at other jobs.
I think it's crucial to point out here just how much of this has been made possible by JR's leadership. I've led related newsroom initiatives in the past -- expanding database-analysis capability among reporters, trying to create and then enhance the paper's Web site -- and newsroom leadership that is indifferent (not even hostile, just not caring) to what you're trying to do can keep almost anything significant from happening. JR cares, and he has pushed for these changes to happen in many ways, some of which you (and I) probably know nothing about.
My biggest frustration? I wanted our transformation to be overnight. Realistically, I knew it wouldn't be, but I am still frustrated by how slowly we have had to move.
The delay is partly because of technology. As JR recently observed, technology often isn't our friend. I'm not sure exactly what he meant, but what I mean when I use that phrase is that 1) there's a fairly long learning curve for most of us print types, even for people like me who have some experience in other media; and 2) sometimes the best, easiest technology for what we want to do either is too expensive or simply hasn't been created yet. (One big example, as I noted earlier, is our online content-management system.) So we have to make do with what we have and/or can afford.
Also, there's a question of resources. As I've said before, we're privately held and I'm not privy to the newspaper's financial decisions, so I'm definitely speaking only for me here, not the paper or the company. But I think about how the drop in newspaper readership overall has accelerated. I think about how cheap some digital A/V equipment has become. I think about the favorable publicity our efforts have garnered not just in the trade press but in mainstream news outlets as well (to say nothing of the blogosphere). And, most of all, I think about the stakes, which are nothing less than the survival of independent, professional local journalism (irrespective of medium). And I wonder why we haven't gotten more than we have.
Recall, as I laid out in the memo, that we began to do what we are doing for three reasons:
- We thought it essential to our own survival from a business standpoint.
- We thought it would make our journalism better.
- We thought it was what you, the reader, were telling us you wanted and hoped for.
I think these reasons remain valid. We're on the right track, just not moving as quickly as I had hoped (or, perhaps, as quickly as we need to).
I don't know whether we're going to survive or whether we're just currently occupying the highest spot on the Titanic. But I know two things: I'd rather be here than anywhere else on the ship, and I'm glad that you, at least so far, are hanging in with us.
Comments (18)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Your attempts to bolster readership are commendable if not heroic. Unfortunately, I feel you may be "preaching to the choir." To me, the real question is how to get the attention of the apathetic and apolitical. Figure this out, and you will not only save your venerable employer, but perhaps even our democracy.
Posted on January 4, 2006 2:53 PM
But no pressure, right? :-)
Thanks for the kind words.
Posted on January 4, 2006 8:31 PM
Fecund's talking about relevance -- funny, reading your post I was thinking about asking a question on a similar line. It's cool where you guys are going, but *how are you making local information more useful and more relevant to the lives your readers are leading?* Besides the Bargain Blog, I mean.
Posted on January 5, 2006 9:09 PM
Joe, the whole News staff is wrestling with that question. One problem is that whether or not certain information is "relevant" means different things to different people, so let's start by defining our terms. What news/information would YOU consider relevant? (Obviously the direction of our news operation will not depend on your answer, but even a single, well-defined data point is a good starting point.)
And I throw the same question out to anyone else who might be reading.
Posted on January 6, 2006 11:09 AM
I was up to my usual foolishness somewhere recently when I came up with the term "discretionary intellectual focus." I think you are engaged in a battle for that feeble resource. Obits and Sports capture some of it. Local features help. Battling the Peter Pan Syndrome is tough.
Posted on January 6, 2006 11:41 AM
In reading the report I am curious if any thought was given to the part culture will play in the survival of newspapers. The internet is flat, flexible, and very fast. Newspapers are slow, rigid, and hierarchical. Can those two cultures exist side by side at the N&R?
Posted on January 6, 2006 3:51 PM
Hi Lex,
This is a list of information that's relevant to me:
• Goings-on that happened in my area (that is, the 5 or so mile radius around where I live)
• Happenings from groups I was or am a part of (this includes my high school in Portland, Oregon, college in Evanston, Illinois, and recreational soccer team in Chicago)
• Local government issues that affect my life (I don't own property and haven't lived here long, so it doesn't seem like there would be much in this category)
• The election of the politicians that make decisions that affect my life (this depends on the answer to the category above)
• Calendar events that are coming to any place I would go (I regularly drive to Chapel Hill and Asheville to see bands that I like -- however, if it's something I'm less interested in then the event would have to happen closer. The most relevant way to deliver calendar items would be by category and by distance. What can I walk to? What could I bicycle to?)
• Crazy sports stories (That 3-point shot with no time left from the free-throw line on the opposite side of the court? I love those kinds of stories)
• What are other people who are like me doing with their time / life?
That's all I could think of.
What do you think? Also, Lex, what would your list consist of?
Posted on January 6, 2006 5:25 PM
Outdated: A quick answer -- ever since we got into the online bidness in '94, I've taken the position that we need to be evolving into a platform-neutral provider of news and info. By that I mean the people who gather the news at the N&R need to be "fluent" in every medium and capable of telling each story, or providing each set of information, in the medium/media most appropriate for that particular story or information.
Got to run, but will expand on this later.
Joe: Thanks for your response. I'll answer later.
Posted on January 7, 2006 6:00 PM
Outdated: To continue my response ....
Newspapers in general are hierarchical, but our newsroom is pretty flat -- the editor's office is 20 feet from my desk and I can stick my head in pretty much any time -- and lines of command and communication are pretty informal most of the time. The mindset we need to change is one of understanding everything the Web can do and recognizing the opportunities each story presents to take advantage of the Web's capabilities. And if you think our newsroom isn't fast, you've never been in it after a double fatality has occurred on a Saturday night. That is to say, we're capable of great speed; we simply need to recognize that speed will be needed more often for the Web, and organize and train ourselves accordingly.
The key factor in all of this is that we have to CHOOSE to do these things; they won't happen on their own. But I believe that's what we'll do.
I hope that answers your questions.
Joe, on a typical day, my list would look something like:
-- What's going on around my home (say, 2-mile radius rather than 5, however) and office.
-- What's the weather going to be like.
-- Any traffic problems on the routes I normally take to get my kids to school and myself to work, or for any other traveling I might be doing that day or in the next few days.
-- Anything -- really, almost anything at all -- on the Carolina Panthers. Headlines on Davidson and UNC men's basketball teams and Atlanta Braves.
-- News involving friends and relatives.
-- News involving my employer and, more generally, my line of work.
-- News involving my kids' schools and extracurriculars.
-- Anything going on at the local, state or national level in govt. that could affect me or my family directly. (Fun fact: At the federal level, I currently get a lot more of this from blogs than anywhere else, although much of what they post originates in Web sites of traditional media outlets. In that sense, I guess the political blogs I read regularly function as my national govt/political news aggregator.)
-- A couple of snippets of weird news, randomly selected, just so I don't go (any more) nuts.
-- Movie news. I hardly ever get to go to see movies anymore, but I like to know what I'm missing. (I've given up even trying to keep up with what I'm missing on musical performances, by and large.)
Obviously, N-R.com doesn't provide all these things, and there are good business reasons why it shouldn't try to provide some of them. But others? Well, cracking that nut, I suspect, will determine whether we stay in business for the long haul.
Posted on January 9, 2006 11:11 AM
Lex, I hear what you are saying. I’m just not convinced that printed newspapers have the will, the time, and the money to invest in a new business model while at the same time trying to grow a printed product. Do you foresee in 25 years an N&R that has both a printed and online product?
Posted on January 9, 2006 12:18 PM
Outdated: It's a good question. However, I think the problem isn't whether they have the money -- most newspapers, including ours, are still quite profitable -- but whether they're willing to spend enough of it, particularly right now, to manage the transition gracefully.
People who run newspaper companies are, in effect, told: "Here's an enterprise generating a 20% (or better) profit margin every year. Don't screw it up." Making the kinds of changes I'm advocating as quickly as I'm advocating making them is, to a large extent, betting the (very profitable) company. Which is why, late at night, I sometimes lie awake and think that the changes will be made only by people who aren't betting the company ... because they don't have a company to lose.
But then I wake up the next morning and see the sun shining and think, "Yeah, we can do this." :-)
Posted on January 9, 2006 12:46 PM
Lex, last question for you. What will happen to the transition when print media advertisers fully develop and implement data mining in micro marketing directly to their target audience rather than relying on mass market penetration that has been historically used? Can the margins you mentioned be sustained?
I have enjoyed this conversation!
Outdated
Posted on January 9, 2006 1:14 PM
Outdated: First, let me answer your earlier question that I overlooked: I believe that at some point economics will dictate the end of the print edition (or at least home delivery of same). Whether that happens sooner or later than 25 years from now, I can't say, but I'm pretty sure it will happen at some point.
Can 20%+ margins be maintained under micromarketing rather than mass marketing? I don't see how. But I hope and believe that our ongoing transition eventually will arrive at a business model with a lower but sustainable margin.
Just fyi, worrying about that issue is not currently part of my job (thank goodness), although I talk frequently with some of the people in the building whose job it is. All I can do is trust them to do their jobs well and pass on to them any info I think might be helpful, and I'm doing those things.
Posted on January 9, 2006 1:24 PM
> "the problem isn't whether they have the money -- most newspapers, including ours, are still quite profitable -- but whether they're willing to spend enough of it, particularly right now, to manage the transition gracefully."
Reminds me of Peak Oil; you're still within spitting distance of Peak Profit, but...
(this observation likely isn't original, btw)
Posted on January 10, 2006 3:49 PM
Hey Lex, thanks for the answer. I think some of the items on your list would be pretty easy for local news sites to provide -- but how many local news sites out there could even provide you with one of the items on your list? (Besides the weather, I mean)
The problem IMO has been getting newspapers to admit there is more than one news filter out there that matters. (That and newspapers taking an arrogant approach to the online medium.)
Posted on January 12, 2006 11:42 PM
Anna: In hindsight, we arguably passed peak profit back around 1988. Of course, at that time the WWW hadn't even been invented yet.
Joe: I don't think you're quite right, in this sense: I think most newsrooms DO, by now, understand that there's more than one filter that matters, but they're not being given the resources to act on that fact. And the people who control the resources probably do get it but are more worried about maintaining short-term profitability than laying the groundwork to still be in business 25 or 50 years from now ... a failing not confined to the newspaper industry.
And, finally, I think there is some arrogance involved, but don't disregard the impact of how new the Web is to many newspaper people. Sounds odd, I know, but for example ... we got into the Internet business in '94 and launched our first Web site late that year, but we didn't replace the mainframe terminals on most news people's desks with Web-connected PCs until late 2002 or early 2003, if memory serves. A lot of folks who either couldn't afford or felt they didn't need home PCs work in newspaper newsrooms and have only been online a few years. Many of them have never been on Usenet, where a lot of the current online culture, part. blog discussions, really took shape, let alone on BBSs.
Posted on January 13, 2006 9:07 AM
Lex -
I'm not surprised that you're finding e-mail is a better communication tool than your blog comments, which have unfortunately been dominated by a couple of one-note singers. If I really wanted to get in touch with you guys, I'd read the blogs, but I'd skip the comments and go straight to Outlook.
Posted on January 17, 2006 8:27 PM
Yeah, e-mail is more efficient for one-to-one. But I think each has its place. A discussion that is ostensibly between one writer and one reader, but that would be of interest to lots of other readers, is useless if it doesn't take place in public. Hard (not impossible) to do with e-mail; much easier in a blog's comments.
Posted on January 18, 2006 9:16 AM