the internet is good for journalism
tommyEditor’s note: Tampa Tribune Executive Editor Janet Coats wrote a commentary entitled Journalism On Brink Of New, Exciting Era. Before I published (but after I wrote) my ensuing diatribe, I sent Janet an email asking a bunch of questions. This below is what I gathered from the email exchange. This is the second of two parts.
After reading Janet Coats’ commentary, I wanted to hear more of her thoughts on how journalism, and Media General is (or should be) reacting to these changes, so I sent an email asking about a million questions. Janet was gracious enough to take some of her valuable time to give long, thoughtful answers. And then I asked even more questions. I’ve highlighted some of her thoughts here, but we have posted the entire unedited interview with Tampa Tribune Executive Editor Janet Coats.
In it, she says the print media should quit trying to impose their traditional conventions on a digital world, and realize (and utilize) the advantages of the internet, such as interactivity and immediacy.
Immediacy is being addressed in part by TBO’s Continuous News Desk. This initiative allows journalists to build stories online as they happen, and add details as they get them. Because of this, reporters are getting more feedback from both in house and from readers. Writing this way gives editors the ability to watch stories being built in real time. They can ask questions and focus on the direction of each article. Similar to “thinking the story out loud,” the end result is better for both the print as well as the online versions.
The interactivity part is slower in coming along.
Although journalists have always tried to help disparate readers see the impact of any given story, Janet says editors and publishers have never been good at understanding their audience. But they are trying.
Readership metrics have traditionally been shared with editors only, but the Tampa Tribune has begun sharing that information with the entire staff.
Likewise, the community web sites like brandon.tbo.com are beginning to see more interaction between reporters in the bureau offices and readers who want to submit their own content. Some journalists have embraced these ideas, and in turn they have created powerful work.
In fact, a recent story about contracts between the state and convicted sex offenders came about directly because of comments left by readers on a previous story about a sex offender’s release.
Still, they haven’t been as vigilant about connecting reporters to readers as they should be.
Because individual readers are so disparate, the current economic model of media makes it difficult to justify the required commitment of time and resources it takes to look at stories from every possible angle. It’s about using editorial judgment and resources wisely, and Janet believes local, community news coverage, as well as explanatory and investigative journalism deserve more attention in print, while day-to-day topics (such as reports about specific crimes) get less print attention.
But that inter-connection doesn’t flow simply between reporters and readers anymore. Competitors as well as independent websites all chime in on a given subject, and in the interest in uncovering the entire story, this makes for some very murky waters.
Independent bloggers are additional eyes and ears in the community and are able to delve deeper than journalists on topics they are passionate about. They add value to the community conversation and enrich those who make a living through journalism. But should they be acknowledged for it?
Janet says when those bloggers contribute substantial factual data that forms the heart of a story (genuine reporting), journalists should acknowledge that work. If another website (even a competitor) adds value or context for readers, journalists should also include a hyperlink. But there is some editorial judgment to be made, too.
If another site simply generates a story idea, or suggests a follow up, or even a tip that needs deeper reporting, then acknowledgment is less necessary. But as readers, bloggers, and traditional media come closer together, the idea of recognition is evolving as well.
An equally muddied picture surrounds journalists’ opinions and their participation in online conversation. There is commentary and analysis all over journalism, and to a certain extent the distinctions have to do with the subject matter (think sports page). But there is a promise to readers about credibility. As a result of searching for fact, and observing and collecting informed comment from other voices, journalists put that together in a format intended to enlighten and to let the reader decide.
None of this precludes journalists from participating in conversation. Janet suggests that reporters can connect very nicely by listening, by offering comments that spring from observable fact, by being informative rather than opinionated. Journalism is better if reporters participate primarily as listeners instead of as speakers.
(again, we have posted the entire unedited interview, if you want to see more)
*****************
So you can see that the Tribune and TBO are beginning to utilize the conversational aspects of the internet. But with some local newspaper reporters fired for comments on websites, some being let go because of the “current economic model,” and the sometimes hair-splitting distinction between “opinion” and “observant commentary,” you can see why individual journalists are hesitant to join any sort of documented conversation.
Still, I wish more reporters would feel comfortable adding their own social commentary. It would give journalists the opportunity to connect with their readers, and allow them to stress the importance of some of their work.
Loading ...
October 19th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
im left a bit brain-numbed from all that blather….
the botton line is this:
media general profits were off a brain-numbing 88 percent in the 3Q.
the company’s tampa tribune is looking awfully lame lately compared w the rival st pete times, which is not necessarily trying to reinvent itself.
ms coats/weaver or whatever talks a good game, but i dont see much evidence of anything better in the company’s actual products.
and informing us that, for example, most rapes are done by people known to the victim is a fact known now for decades and repeated ad nauseum in print stories by the bale.
the truth is nobody knows how in hell to save the vast majority of crappy newspapers like the trib while a handful of to products like the nytimes.com etc thrive.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
If Janet Coats wants to quit “imposing traditional convetions” she should scrap the Trib’s outmoded design which was supposed to be retro but is now boring. I still subscribe for funnies, coupons, GOOD photos and well though-out columns. The rest of it I can get either way. (I still refuse to take a laptop to the toilet. That might be fine for others. Either way, please wash your hands before returning to work!)