Comments on: eightyone’s last issue

By: JGFitzgerald

JGFitzgerald — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:09:24 +0000

Less policy, and more a matter of belief, or perhaps ideology. The newspaper must believe that it is printing the truth, nothing but the truth, and the whole truth. (Never mind the paragraph that got cut in the composing room.) Otherwise, it might be taken to be libelous, dishonest, sloppy, lazy, understaffed, and/or unreliable. And since a newspaper is selling two things, credibility and ads, it can’t afford to be any of those things. So the catechism is that it’s not.

It’s not an easy thing to understand from out here, and even harder if you’re in a newsroom and have an IQ above room temperature Celsius. But it’s the great underpinning of the church of journalism, sort of like the Trinity and the Resurrection. Without it, you might as well be a Wiccan.

From that standpoint, there is no reason to discuss or explain your news stories. The stories themselves are the discussion and the explanation.

MSM without end, amen.

0 likes

By: seth

seth — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:47:44 +0000

(…or inciting petty bickering)
:)

0 likes

By: seth

seth — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:28:01 +0000

i’d be interested to know exactly what the policy is and why. i’d always assumed it had something to do with professionalism though (read, i can get on here and make an ass of myself by showing my ignorance or being baited into petty bickering now and again, but if my job were to be an objective provider of news, those sorts of things would affect my ability to do my job).

0 likes

By: JGFitzgerald

JGFitzgerald — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:39:45 +0000

A principle behind newspaper stories used to be that the story was the final word (unless a correction was, heaven forbid, necessary). A lot of people have gone beyond that. The DNR is a little bit old-fashioned. (These are, after all, the people who invented massive resistance.)

0 likes

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:07:02 +0000

Brent, you’re right, and maybe that’s why so many established newspapers are struggling: Tribune filed for bankruptcy, Seattle P-I closed, so did Rocky Mountain News, Wash Post earnings down 70-odd percent in Q4 2008… (I’ll stop there.)

Sticking with outdated means of distribution… treating news as a product rather than a process… along with tons of other reasons… is killing off newspapers as we know them. The DNR will probably hang in there for awhile because it’s a niche publication – it serves a very defined market and has no real competition for what it provides. Problem for the DNR, in my opinion, is more and more people don’t want or need what it provides… and it isn’t changing to serve a changing market’s needs. “Innovations” like allowing people to comment on its stories online doesn’t accomplish anything other than to give the 20 or 30 people who seem to comment on every story a voice.

That’s what I think, anyway. Then again, I thought there was no way anyone would watch American Idol.

0 likes

By: Deona Landes Houff

Deona Landes Houff — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:31:38 +0000

The Hook’s reporters often take part in the online discussions of their stories. Sometimes to clarify, sometimes to encourage commenters to behave, sometimes to ask for those with additional info to e-mail them privately. How very sensible.

0 likes

By: Brent Finnegan

Brent Finnegan — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:18:26 +0000

Jeff, good points. I agree. But that would require a fundamental shift in how editors and reporters treat stories. It would mean stories as a process, rather than a product. I’m not sure older, established news orgs are ready or willing to make that shift.

0 likes

By: Deona Landes Houff

Deona Landes Houff — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:06:28 +0000

Yes, I started eightyone in 1998 in a duplex that sat next door to Jeff Haden’s house in Rockingham County, off Port Republic Road. (Hi, Jeff.) I don’t live there anymore and I don’t think Jeff does either.

Of course DNR reporters should be able to comment on their stories.

0 likes

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:00:14 +0000

I think DNR reporters should be able to comment on their own stories if for no other reason than it would be good business.

Say a reporter writes a story about Rosetta Stone, readers comment, and the reporter provides additional info in response to those comments (info that didn’t fit in the original article due to word count constraints.) That would make the “paper” a lot more engaging. Of course, doing so takes time… but would also make the DNR site more like this one, where stories aren’t static… and means it might bring back some readers the DNR has lost.

Or take it a step farther. What if the DNR site knew what you’re interested in and what changed since your last visit? Say you read the Rosetta Stone story a few hours ago; the site could show you updates the reporter filed since then, along with the better responses from readers. The home page could be populated with content it knows you’re interested in through permission-based tracking. In theory reading an online newspaper should be more rewarding than reading the paper version through customization.

Would that solve the DNR’s problems? Not by itself… but creating a better and more engaging user experience would be a great way to start.

Otherwise you’ll go elsewhere – which more and more people do.

0 likes