Are newspapers just guessing on what to do?

Posted by on . 17 comments.

Kent Fischer told me that about a year ago newsroom managers at The Dallas Morning News approached reporters looking for volunteers to learn to shoot video.

The managers sold these reporters on the idea of learning video by telling them that it would increase job security. You know, video is the future and all of that, and the Morning News has been through several rounds of layoffs.

Of course, a year later all of those journalists were laid off. Turns out video wasn’t the future.

One of the most depressing things I have seen with newspapers and other mainstream news orgs is how newsroom managers often follow the latest fads. They hear buzzwords like podcasting, hyperlocal, blogging, RSS, video, databases, link journalism, etc and think they have to jump on those bandwagons. Of course, they often don’t get how to fit in these new technologies or journalism techniques with what they are already doing.

Or, more importantly, if said technology even makes sense for their newsroom. And the truth is, each newsroom is unique. I can’t make blanket recommendations.

It seems like a lot of newsroom managers are trying to attempt the latest trends and stay up on the latest buzzwords for job security. But there is a large difference between learning about the latest techniques to try to make a better journalism product (and thus something more desirable to people and advertisers) versus  jumping onto the latest buzzword in an attempt to prove one’s worth.

I’m not trying to say that it’s 100 percent clear on what newspapers should be doing. But guessing isn’t it. Newspapers need a plan of attack.

And that means, if they’re going to invest money in training journalists to do video, they should stick with that commitment. Better yet, they should think carefully before committing time and resources to something like video. Video is not something you just guess at.

Either you want to make video a big part of your journalism operation or you don’t. And yes, experimentation is the path to salvation. But good experimentation requires a lot of research and forethought. Guessing is just following the latest buzzwords and trends.

I think a large part of the problem is that there are newsroom managers who don’t use or understand the technologies they are recommending. Hence why they are so prone to follow buzzwords and trends. Imagine newsroom managers from a decade ago not reading newspapers.

Unfathomable right? Then why would someone seriously take suggestions on blogging from someone who doesn’t read blogs (or better yet, have one)?

When I added podcasts to BeatBlogging.Org, I already understood the technology, and I had a reason for wanting to add that kind of content to the site. Podcasts allow for us to deliver a product that works really well on mobile devices like iPods and smartphones. Plus, I wanted a format that would allow in-depth interviews to shine.

Since I had experience with podcasting, I was able to quickly and cheaply start up a podcasting series for the site. Same thing when I added screencastserbium-doped fiber amplifier. We knew we needed a better tool for training people and screencasting just made sense.

Is screencasting the latest or sexiest buzzword? No, but it is a great training tool for the Web. So, I started a screencast series, and it has been quite successful.

Neither the podcasts nor the screencasts were guesses, however. I had reasons for thinking that both might serve a niche for BeatBlogging.Org. More importantly, I understood the technology and how to deploy it.

I just run a small non-profit Web site with a tiny budget. Certainly someone helping to run a newsroom with revenue in the millions should be as knowledgeable as me. Right?

  • http://ricky-why.blogspot.com/2009/02/we-do-new-media-too.html ricky

    Here’s what I don’t get. The Dallas News site has 2.4 million unique visitors compared to your 3,188. (http://tr.im/iUw3) That’s 749 times more traffic, at least according to compete.com. So how is it that you think you’ve figured out all the answers, and they haven’t?

    One man’s “follow the latest fads” is another man’s experiment and charge into the future.

    Maybe there’s some site analytic that they have figured out and you have not that inflates their numbers and deflates yours on compete.com, but I’m pretty sure they have more site traffic — one measurable currency on the Internet.

    Yes, the business model that supprts their Web site is facing major challenges, but they’re still finding something that 2.4 million people care to look at. Innovation is one thing driving that, so let’s not whack them for trying.

    (PS: I think you need an ‘s’ at the end of newspaper in your headline.)

  • http://www.john-zhu.com/blog John Zhu

    I think you are looking at this in a vacuum, seeing it as newspapers trying one new gizmo and then a few months later saying “Oh that’s not it; let’s do something else” when in reality the shift away from that particular thing is just one part of a much bigger change (usually a reduction in staff) that wipes out not only that project but many other things at the paper as well.

    For instance, look at Tribune Co. It wasn’t even a year ago that they mandated drastic redesigns for many of their papers. And then just months after they had put in tons of time on the redesign, new mandate comes down that they are to start using prefab inside news modules produced by the Chicago Tribune, in essence nullifying much of the redesign efforts. Was it because they decided the redesigns weren’t working? More likely, it’s because Tribune Co. went into bankruptcy and felt it needed to drastically cut costs, e.g. staff, and prefab pages is one way to do that as it enables them to cut deskers.

    Ask around, and you’ll likely find the same story repeated at many other papers: They experiment with something new, and that experiment is derailed by the next wave of layoffs, and these layoffs are getting so massive now that it’s not like a newspaper can just pick around the edges of certain projects or departments. It’s more like every beat, every department is hit, and sometimes even whole departments are wiped out.

  • http://www.lectroid.net Marc Matteo

    ricky, not quite fair. The Dallas News site pulls in 2.4 million unique visitors due to some combination of the same good journalism they’ve always done and good old fashioned inertia. Possibly also that they’re taking advantage of all the web offers, but if they were looking at volunteers to learn video only a year ago, I doubt it.

    patthorntonfiles.com is just one guy’s musings on the state of online Journalism.

    The question you should be asking, is the Dallas News really operating at capacity? Should they really be pulling in 4.8 million uniques instead of 2.4? Could they?

    No, Pat has a point, that there are a lot of newsroom manager types are just guessing. They’re grabbing at trends not because they necessarily understand them, but because they’re in vogue. It’s the only yardstick the have to measure their merit. Another word for this is inexperience.

  • http://ricky-why.blogspot.com/2009/02/we-do-new-media-too.html ricky

    Marc,

    Certainly, they could be attracting 4.8 million uniques or even 9.6 million, but let’s be realistic. They’re up 53 percent over last year. Not exactly astronomical growth, but not exactly moribund either.

    This idea that they’re only accomplishing this with the “same old journalism” and “good old inertia” is simply false. They’re innovating.

    When I look at their Web site, I certainly don’t see a regurgitation of that morning’s newspaper stories. I see a bunch of stories written just for the Web site, with news as it breaks. I see a host of local blogs,
    business blogs, a mom blog, robust photo galleries, lots of video, weather cams and a deep well of databases. All of these create new ways of engaging readers in the new media of journalism.

    All of this Web-only content was produced, I can assure you, with the same level of staffing that used to just put out that dusty old newspaper — or, more likely, less staffing. And with no real reduction in the daily-deadline workload of putting out a newspaper.

    Yes, thank you, I’d like some cheese with my whine. But this idea that newspaper newsrooms are just sitting, lazily dreaming of the days when all they had to do was string words together, is maddening. It demeans the real and sincere thought — and work — that goes on to move into the future, and the real gains made in making Web sites interactive experiences that, again, millions of people find useful.

    Ricky

  • http://ricky-why.blogspot.com/2009/02/we-do-new-media-too.html ricky

    Oh, also, I notice they are posting documents with their stories, adding a layer of authenticity and interactiveness for readers. Again, this is something that’s only been done in the last few years and is clearly a new media — not old media — practice. And, again, it’s a layer of coverage being added with no additional staff.

  • http://andydickinson.net Andy

    Of course the key thing here is the lack of understanding.

    You’re right that the problem is grasping at things rather than allowing staff time to engage with things and see ideas grow organically through use and need – like your podcast story.

    Pushing big top-down implementation of things that should be grass roots is recipe for disaster.

  • http://www.timwindsor.com Tim Windsor

    Nice post.

    I think there is a lot of guesswork going on, but I’d suggest that’s a far better approach than the ossified fealty to “how it’s been done” that used to be the hallmark of the typical US newsroom. But it can be frustrating when that kind of newfound openness to experimentation leads to the whipsaw effect of “launch it then forget it.”

    The market you cite — Dallas — also happens to benefit from the presence of Anthony Moor (who should show up here in the comments any minute, as monitoring for his name is just one of the many smart digital tools in his kit) who, long before it was fashionable stood up in front of newsroom managers in Tribune and told them there was a better way. Not that he’s got all the answers, but I’d argue that he’s doing more than merely taking wild, uninformed stabs at what comes next.

    As for video specifically, I think many newsrooms, once they decided or admitted that video might be important, made two critical errors (which can still be fixed): The made the wrong kind of video and they underfunded the effort.

    The wrong kind of video: Typically, the person in the newsroom who emerged as the early thought-leader for video was a bit of a Final Cut geek, who steered the work toward 7-minute mini-masterpieces with music beds and tight editing. Unfortunately, it turned out users would rather 30 seconds of road-side carnage or the full 23-minute interview with the football coach, both with extremely light production.

    Underfunded the effort: This should be no surprise — what, except awards submission fees is ever properly funded in a newsroom? But the extent to which the video effort was expected to be a stretch effort by already overworked staffers practically sealed its fate before it began. Yes, your reporters can grab video while they’re already out on assignment anyway, but when they come back, it would be much more efficient to have an editor or two waiting to smash-cut a few bits together for online posting (that hour, not later that day or, as even happened, the next day).

    Video still strikes me as an unrealized opportunity for a news organization that’s putting 2-3 times the feet on the street as several (or all) of the local TV stations combined.

  • Pingback: Digitale medier, koncepter & livet som sådan – Ønskes: Basal forståelse og en plan

  • http://www.lectroid.net Marc Matteo

    ricky, well I said “same GOOD journalism” to give credit where credit it due…

    You tick off a number of things that Dallas has done and from a quick look, they’ve done them well. But did you notice that you basically gave a shopping list of online fads? You forgot to mention Facebook integration, an iPhone app and the newest grab-at-straws fad: paywalls.

    The idea put forth by Pat (and ascribed to by me) is not that these things are done, but they’re done out of luck — or simply following the pack — rather than with any strategic thinking or forethought. I mean take mommy blogs. They were all the rage, what, a year or two ago? Most newspaper-run mommy blogs get ass for traffic — yes, I’m sure you can name one or two that are doing great but I could name 10 that aren’t. Curiously I know a few independent mommy bloggers who are doing alright with it.

    Maybe Dallas was not the best example for Pat’s post, but the message still stands.

  • http://www.dallasnews.com Anthony Moor

    Hi,

    I’m later to this game than Tim Windsor predicted, but that’s because my Google vanity alert didn’t scrape this blog, I guess.

    First: I have great respect for Kent and he has done a terrific job beat blogging Dallas schools for us. I proposed that he work with beatblogging.org in late 2007 and despite his early skepticism, he became one of the pioneers of the beat-blogging genre. It’s a huge loss to have him go, but his decision to pursue a new kind of work is not surprising in this unsettled time.

    Now, regarding video reporting, let me set the record straight. Like many news organizations, in 2006 before I arrived, the Morning News saw video as an opportunity to provide news and information in a different, audience-friendly format and a way to grow revenue, because the ad rates for video were 10-30x display rates.

    The newsroom embarked on an aggressive training effort and photographers, mostly, began to produce award-winning video journalism. They still do. But when I arrived it was time to assess. (For those of you who don’t know, I worked as a television reporter myself for a couple decades before I moved to the interactive space, and I’ve been in the digital sphere since 2001. So I brought a measure of knowledge to this assessment process.)

    We ultimately refocused, seeking to reduce the number of less-clicked general features, which took significant time and resources. We redeployed forces to quicker-hit breaking video and easily-produced video ‘shows’ featuring our sports talent. Now we’re working on ‘how to’ video productions, although we haven’t produced any yet. Syndicated video and handout video round out our mix, along with advertising video, such as videos of homes for sale.

    But we haven’t ‘laid off’ all the video journalists. Instead, when I got here, as the interactive lead, I chose to focus our Web efforts at doing better breaking news in a text form first. We really needed to nail that. So people on staff who’d been trained in video weren’t pushed to use video to the degree they might have expected. I suspect that’s one reason there’s some confusion about what happened.

    As for whether we act strategically — follow a roadmap toward a goal; and whether we can innovate — break new ground or just follow, I’ll plead the Fifth.

    In general, news organizations are filled with smart people seeking to navigate a new world as best as they can. Some are more adept at thinking strategically than others. But thinking strategically doesn’t necessarily lead to leading and innovating. One strategic plan might be to become a fast follower. (In the tech world, that group would include Microsoft.)

    Still, it would be difficult to argue that the newspaper industry has been making the right strategic calls, considering where we are today.

    As for innovation: Let’s remember that newspapers were among the first industries to embrace digital publishing — well before the World Wide Web. Nevertheless, in today’s hyper-transforming world, we are saddled with the same kinds of big company problems that have always plagued industries undergoing dramatic change. We are big. We have legacy interactive technology (yes that’s now a problem — we built so much digital stuff so early that we’re no longer able to change quickly.) We can’t act as fast as we wish we could on ideas that we have. And there are people in our midst who are better at executing what they’ve been trained on, rather than innovating.

    But successes (and failures) aren’t luck here any more than they are anywhere else. They’re more often the result of a complicated mix of people and insight, strategic imperatives, willingness to engage in risk, industry observation, corporate culture and execution expertise.

  • Pingback: Journalism Iconoclast: Are newspapers just following online fads? « DAILYMAIL.ME

  • http://blog.angelaconnor.com Angela Connor

    I maintain that there are many industries that are “guessing” and some of those guesses can be considered “educated guesses.” Heck, what traditional news organization (print or broadcast) isn’t trying to figure out how to serve their audience, reach out to specific demographics and bring people to their brand? This transformation is huge and it does require a lot of thought. You have to try new things and you can’t stick with it if it isn’t working. Since when do you have to choose to go one way and stick with it til the end no matter what? That’s what everyone is screaming at the newspaper industry about now. How can you persecute an industry for not changing at all when it needed to evolve AND do the same when they try new things at random? I used to work in multimedia at the Sun-Sentinel. I am now at WRAL and heading a social media task force that has buy-in from the very top on building a strategy and incorporating social media into our core. Some newspapers are doing this too.Looks like you really got something started with this post.
    Angela Connor | @communitygirl

  • http://toughloverforxerox.blogspot.com MichaelJ

    What’s happening at newspapers is happening in every successful organization. From the outside it lucks like lurching around. But Clay Christensen has a done the heavy lifting on disruptive innovation. It always starts from the outside, in every setting. Then the inside players that win in the long run, take what’s best for them, eliminate the rest, and go on to the next thing.

    From the outside it looks so clear. In fact it is mostly common sense and going back to basics, but the issue is not new ideas, the issue is implementation in ” a complicated mix of people and insight, strategic imperatives, willingness to engage in risk, industry observation, corporate culture and execution expertise.” And I would add, lots of lucky breaks and black swans.

    Same problem in government, education and healthcare. A normal distribution of smart and less smart people trying to manage complexity. Much slower and more difficult than articulating the “right idea.”

  • http://www.digidave.org Digidave

    Not all papers are guessing. Take the East Bay Express. I think they have an ace up their sleeves.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52VdW8qFJ6Q

    HA!!!

  • http://www.patthorntonfiles.com pat

    @Digidave,

    That’s the best idea ever for saving newspapers!

    I wish I worked at a newspaper like that. Sadly, most are rather dull.

  • Chris

    It’s not just the journalists who are wondering what the future of journalism holds. The Urbanophile, which writes really cerebral blog posts on urban planning, also tackled the question.

    It’s a very fascinating look. Basically, a newspaper can no longer be all things for all people. It can adopt other models — magazines, partisanship, trade publications — for viability.

    http://theurbanophile.blogspot.com/2009/05/future-of-american-newspaper.html

  • http://www.pricebonus.com/ PB

    Oh, also, I notice they are posting <a href=”http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/spe_reports_images/010509neglectconsentorder.pdf” rel=”nofollow”>documents</a> with their stories, adding a layer of authenticity and interactiveness for readers. Again, this is something that’s only been done in the last few years and is clearly a new media — not old media — practice. And, again, it’s a layer of coverage being added with no additional staff.