|
|
News isn't really the product: Why you'll never read news the same way againApr 10 '01 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Home Furnishings
The Bottom Line A solid editorial process will give on-line newspapers a chance. But, archiving could be the Achilles heel of cyber-publishers.
Did you see the O.J. Simpson chase? There's a lesson there for on-line newspapers -- and I have several for would-be millionaire publishers. Hear me now, believe me later, at least after reading this epinion. (Before I start to trying to convince you, let me first offer at least a couple credentials -- I am a journalism/English double major and worked for 5 years as a reporter and editor at a small daily newspaper. From this, I offer the epinion of a former insider, and I use that term loosely.) Everything Wrong With Journalism The infamous O.J. chase was everything that has gone wrong with journalism in the last decade. The O.J. chase wasn't the only example. Consider such atrocities as: The Branch Davidian conflict, every major disaster in the U.S., the last Presidential election. What do they all have in common? Sharp readers will point out that these were fiascoes that were catalyzed by broadcast journalists. "Not newspapers," you might quip. "And you'd be right," I'd say. "But that's why on-line newspapers don't offer as much advantage as they seem." "Huh?" you reply, wondering just what kind of path I am trying to lead you down. My main point is that on-line newspapers offer an enticing element that print journalists have not enjoyed, at least since the advent of radio changed consumers' perceptions: speed of delivery. But the advantage that the web brings is actually nothing more than a field leveler with the broadcast crews. People can get their news quickly by turning on the TV, radio or now -- their computer, PDA or pager. Ride-Along Journalism I've bemoaned for many years the demise of journalism because of the advent of a term I call 'ride-along journalism.' Broadcast, and now on-line newspapers, can take viewers and readers along with the reporters on the beat to report the latest news, in many cases, as it happens. And what we get is a boring car chase that goes on and on, a standoff that lasts for weeks and an audience ready to go back to their regular lives because they don't have time for this crud. Sure, many will stick around for the horrific ending. But in most cases, there is no horrific ending. Just an anticlimactic scene with reporters jumping to conclusions about what they may have seen and what might happen next. Again, you think I may be painting the field of journalism with too broad a brush. "What is the relevance to on-line newspapers?" you demand. Timeliness is not an on-line advantage My point is that what is supposed to be an advantage actually turns into no advantage at all. Most people would rather come back when it's all done so you can summarize that 2-hour chase in 20 seconds so they can spend their lives doing more important things. But that gets us to my next, and most important point (this isn't written in journalistic style so if you've stayed the course, this is your reward). Editing makes the difference On-line newspapers, like printed newspapers, rely on the editorial process. Just as restaurants aren't really selling you food, they're selling you the service of preparing it and serving it -- newspapers are selling the editorial process. The information is typically available in the public domain. Open records laws are a journalist's best friend. But the crux of those laws is that a journalist represents the right of the public (anyone, you or me) to access certain information. You don't need a press pass to get it. The editorial process simply gathers a bunch of the information out there, sorts it into categories, puts the most interesting material first, and then arranges it in the order the editors think is most important to the majority of people. So what newspapers are selling is a service, really. Whether they are on-line or printed, they have to have a better editorial process to offer than anyone else. They must take all the news that is available and present it in a way that is interesting and informative. The editor must make decisions for you in choosing what gets prominence and what doesn't. And I think if a newspaper can do that, even one on-line, it has a chance at success because people flat don't have the time to read each and every morsel of information available. Perhaps even more so in a digital world drowning in information. The Internet scared the hell out of a lot of journalists. "People can access anything, anytime. We're doomed!" We never said it, but I'll bet more than this one were thinking it. The reality turned out to be 'not exactly.' The Internet only changed our working environment. It gave us the chance for a near-broadcast timeliness. It gave us access to millions of readers in places we could only imagine. But the Internet needed us, too. An example of on-line news done right I'm a Yahoo! junkie. Love it or hate it, I don't care, but notice it has news that it presents. Notice it now has the "Top Stories" listed. Notice that you can go to My Yahoo and personalize the news by category you're interested in. But, even if you choose Business as your personal category, someone still has to make an editorial decision so you can see what the top Business stories are today. Computers won't know that Microsoft declaring bankruptcy is any more important than Apple launching a new wireless device known as the Newton. People have to make an editorial decision. There's an intriguing feature on Yahoo's news section that I like to use. There's a place in there that will list the top viewed stories and the most emailed content. Now that's a way to learn a little about the editorial process. It's quite obvious the editor can make an impact on what gets viewed and that he or she can actually learn a lot from watching what does fly and what doesn't with readers/viewers. But again, the point is that the editorial process should be superior for the majority of readers. Perhaps Yahoo! and others are on to something by having personalization features on their news. That lets them 'make' editorial decisions that please more people than if everyone were seeing the same page. That's a value add and that's something on-line news can offer that no other kind can. Is it here today and gone tomorrow? One thing on-line newspapers have to be wary of is shelf-life. If news is here today and gone tomorrow from a web site, the traditional newspapers have a leg up. People like to make clippings, keep the newspapers they didn't get to read, go back to stories they saw yesterday. So archiving could be the key to success. I'm confident the Achilles' heel here is not the business model. A solid MBA should be able to craft a business model that can make on-line news profitable. But I think it depends on newspapers' ability to meet as many reader needs as possible. By having a reliable, searchable, and relatively inexpensive archive, an on-line newspaper can wipe out the advantage of the traditional inkies. The Bottom Line People will pay for something useful. If a site is getting enough hits, advertising ought to make it profitable. If the site depends on subscribers, I think it can work, but it better have a solid editorial process and archive to compete with the traditional papers. If those two elements are done right, on-line newspapers will have a chance to survive because consumers will not see on-line as a lesser medium.  |
| Read all comments (4)|Write your own comment |
|
Ads by Google
|
