Journalism is killing itself with shallow coverage
It’s not the Internet that is ailing journalism and newspapers.
We’re killing ourselves.
I was always struck by what Mark Felt, AKA Deep Throat, said to Bob Woodward. He said didn’t like newspapers because he “thought newspapers were too shallow and too quick on the draw. Newspapers didn’t do in-depth work and rarely got to the bottom of events.”
William M. Hartnett writes that his brother and sister-in-law were reporters in a top-50 market up until a few years ago. Yet, even they don’t subscribe to the daily newspaper anymore:
All of which is to say that they were not driven away from the printed newspaper by disruptive digital technologies, at least not primarily. No, they were driven away by our industry’s old problem, the one that was killing us before we found a more convenient villain online: We’re boring. Predictable. Thin in our coverage, and often intellectually lazy and shallow.
Unessential.
These are former reporters. They are not digerati, and yet even they have found little value in the daily newspaper. My girlfriend, a former copy editor, finds the coupons to be the best part of the Sunday Post. She has already read/viewed the news in a much more timely fashion, and the Web allows her to get incredible depth on subjects that newspapers or cable news never could.
The irony is that the local reporting is where newspapers and journalists could be hitting home runs. Instead, we find decreasing amounts of good, local reporting. Journalists are being asked to do more with less — AKA produce shallower content.
I also see many papers with business, tech, health, living and other niche sections. The problem is other publications and Web sites cover those areas much more throughly. With CNET, TechCrunch, etc why would someone want to read shallow and cursory newspaper coverage of the tech industry? Business? Motley Fool, MarketWatch, Wall Street Journal, etc, etc have that covered.
The average daily newspaper, however, could have a monopoly on great local coverage. Local coverage has become so bad lately that we have had to come up with a new term to describe actually covering local events: hyperlocal journalism.
Hyperlocal journalism is real local journalism. The fact that we had to come up with a new term shows how far many journalists and journalism companies have strayed from the beaten path. People care about local journalism, which is why national outlets like ESPN are getting into high school sports.
Sean Blanda writes about how he is tired with token young people stories (or as my professor called them, “the kids these days” stories):
One would think that with young people flocking from their medium, newspapers and other mainstream media outlets would at least take a second to look at how they cover their hemorrhaging demographic. But instead, we see the same recycled stories with no real depth. Allow me to save them the trouble of thinking of “new” story ideas by presenting every story ever written about young people.
Blanda goes on to list eight tired story ideas like “LOL! they use text speak in paperz!” and “We are a bunch of pampered babies.” Stories like these are the zenith of shallow and lazy journalism.
I’m not sure if newspapers ever really connected with this demographic, but patronizing stereotypes aren’t going to win anyone over. And one day “young people” will be “old people,” which is the core demographic of newspapers. Do you really think people who were made fun of by journalists and newspapers when they were younger are really one day going to come around?
To quote my British alter ego, “Not bloody likely!”
May 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
The thing about young people is they’re so candid. It always amazed me how open and honest the high schoolers I would interview were. Many don’t filter or censor their thoughts, so if you ask them a question about a topic they’ll tell you everything they think. At the same time, they may not want it all to be published for their friends, parents and teachers to read.
I was working on a project at my old newspaper, assigned to me by my editors. I spent three months hanging out and interviewing three teenage boys from the same high school. One was black, one was white and one was Hispanic. The article was meant to provide a glimpse into what it’s like to grow up in a primarily white/resort/retirement community with a different background. My editors were all for it. And the boys spoke openly and honestly about their feelings. When it came time to write the story, my eds gave me two days to work on nothing but that. When I finished it and turned it in, I was somewhat happy with it. I knew it only scratched the surface, but it definitely provided some insight into something that our readers weren’t used to reading about. But my editors killed the story. They were concerned that I didn’t get at the heart of the matter. Maybe I didn’t. It wasn’t an easy story to write. I remember crying in the parking lot from disappointment.
So anyway, I’d like to think that the ambition to write stories that extend beyond “look how much teenagers spend on prom these days” is prevalent among reporters. It’s just not always easy to get the time to break out and do these types of stories. And you’re right, it’s getting harder and harder as editors try to squeeze more and more copy out of reporters.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Should be interesting to see how many regional and smaller newspapers send their own reporter or photographer to the Olympics this summer. It will almost be a test of sorts for editors: Are you really committed to covering your own backyard, or do you still believe you’re running a mini-USA Today or New York Times?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
We’ve been discussing this for the last few weeks. I’m always amazed that the idea of “hyperlocal” exists. You’re correct. It used to be called reporting.
With databases and social media, this should be easier than ever…and yet…
May 20th, 2008 at 2:55 am
[...] Hyperlocal Journalism – Fehlanzeige! (The Journalism Iconoclast, Patrick Thornton) “The irony is that the local reporting is where newspapers and journalists could be hitting home runs. Instead, we find decreasing amounts of good, local reporting. Journalists are being asked to do more with less — AKA produce shallower content.” [...]
May 20th, 2008 at 6:33 am
[...] Journalism is killing itself with shallow coverage - The Journalism Iconoclast “Local coverage has become so bad lately that we have had to come up with a new term to describe actually covering local events: hyperlocal journalism.” (tags: newspapers journalism local community commented-on) [...]
May 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
William, not sure what your point is, exactly, but I did cover the Los Angeles Games in 1984 for a regional evening paper in the UK (found the old accreditation ID the other day while clearing out a room). And I provided news and features about people from Bristol and the West of England who were competing for - and winning - medals. It was ‘local news’ they would not have heard from any other quarter, which is why it was worth doing.
The general point is well made, however. You have a better chance of selling newspapers if the news is relevant to the readership. If it’s a lightly warmed up version of what’s on the TV networks and thep popular dailies, then forget it. If you haven’t got the content to offer readers, it doesn’t matter whether you are losing money in print or online.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Hyperlocal journalism is the opposite of global journalism.
Macro vs. Micro.
Global journalism has the potential to appeal to a larger audience than hyperlocal journalism, and thus, has the potential to generate more revenue.
Of course, it requires a completely different way of thinking, i.e. a completely different philosophy, to succeed. And we all know too well how improbable it is to expect journalists to alter their philosophy.
So they go in the opposite direction, i.e. hyperlocal, because it’s not too difficult and it’s something most people can grasp their heads around.
Nevermind that a hyperlocal audience might only appeal to 100,000 people at most, as opposed to an ever-growing global audience of a billion or more.
That’s not to say that hyperlocal journalism isn’t relevant or doesn’t have it’s place in the market, I’m actually all for it. But I will say, hyperlocal journalism discussions/debates do not require half as much philosophical depth as global journalism discussions/debates. Guess which one gets talked about more. We already know.
There’s an old saying in science, “Act locally, think globally.”
May 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
@Kevin C: I only used the Olympics as an example because it’s a particularly prestigious assignment. My employer has sent a reporter to recent Olympic Games and they, too, provided interesting, locally connected coverage. But these days a reporter here in South Florida is hard-pressed to get an overnight flea-bag motel stay in the northern part of our own state approved.
So I guess my point in invoking the Olympics was really this: Will we pay for a dozen comparatively mundane but unquestionably newsworthy local reporting efforts, or one expensive, prestigious splash in Beijing? I don’t begrudge an editor who can afford both in 2008, I just don’t know who they might be. And I have a feeling that even given the current economic climate, a surprising number of editors will still choose the big, prestigious splash.
@Patrick Y: Who says the h-word (sorry, but I already vowed never to use the word again is easy? More importantly, which part of the global audience should The Olathe News of Kansas or The Grand Island Independent of Nebraska target? Presumably, not the part currently occupied by The New York Times, The Guardian, BBC, CNN, etc. An audience of 100,000 people ain’t too shabby if there are only that many residents in the entire three-county area you’ve served for 100 years.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:38 pm
[...] Journalism is killing itself with shallow coverage. Much-pointed-to-post from Pat Thornton, in which he argues it may be time for newspapers to give up on the stuff that is better covered elsewhere and, instead, concentrate on what it really does well and exclusively. [...]