The downfall of CBS Sports

I don't think readers pay that much attention to bylines on actual stories. That's where Twitter and social media come into play.

But, to address another point, why does it have to take so long to get breaking news out there? Reporters ought to be able to type it up and post it themselves, done. Is it ideal? No, but it's quick and then the desk -- at outlets where there are still copy editors -- can just backread after the link's out there. If the site's that concerned with breaking the news rather than driving traffic to whatever they get whenever it's there, it'll require more streamlined processes.

 

The video thing really pissed me off especially when it first took off on newspaper Websites. It's like publishers of print suddenly wanted to be TV. It's like they said, "nobody wants to read newspaper articles. We're going to take our print reporters and be our own TV station!" It backs what I've said forever about publishers and managing editors devaluing their own product. Newspapers trying to become TV stations and talk radio stations with vlogs, etc., truly amuse me. Video the salvation? Yeah right. Let TV do the videos, folks. Oh wait, it's too late. Newspapers are dead thanks to years of bad, bad decisions from, frankly, very stupid people combined with butt-kisser managing editors who agreed with all the consultants rather than show some balls.

 

Most newspapers let their reporters do just that -- post unedited breaking news. This is very reckless and dangerous, but nobody in charge seems to care a bit about that. Post it and post it now! And if you post enough you might get a 1 percent raise every 2 years. Who am I kidding. Take out the part about raises.

 

The newspaper execs were wrong about video.

It's much harder to get somebody to click a video than a written story.

Why?

It's about control.

If I'm looking for information, I desire a written story. I control which graphs I read. I control if I want to read it at all. I control if I want to skim certain parts. Bottom line: I control my time.

With video, somebody else is in control of what I hear and see. And if that person isn't very skilled and very to-the-point-- fuck it-- I don't have time for that.

When I'm looking for information, (for example, looking for information on last night's GOP debate) I look for written stories, not video.

After having read that Cruz had an awkward moment at the end, I might look for a clip of that... But I haven't yet.

The written word is very much alive and in demand.

 

Excellent post lugnuts. Do you agree with me that publishers (mostly clueless) and big newspaper company execs (mostly clueless) have always devalued the print product? The fact they wanted to BECOME TV stations and totally copy TV and sports talk radio is so utterly bizarre a business strategy to me. Then sell your newspaper Mr/Mrs Publisher and become a TV station. They are still doing it. Look at all the horrible videos out there. Great post, lugnuts.

 

Thanks and I agree with you, Fred. I don't know why anybody in his right mind would want to buy a TV station.

TV stations are in bad shape.

In terms of the "print product"... Printing a word on a piece of paper is dead.

Words themselves are stronger than ever.

You know what's a surprise to me that I didn't see coming at all ?

The enduring (and even escalating) popularity of the still photo.

 

My girlfriend is in Dubai right now visiting family. I can assure you: This is decidedly not true.

 

It was the case when I was there, big boy.
You can buy alcohol at the duty-free but you may not drink it legally in public.
Nobody is going to ask to see your license in a restaurant or bar, but legally you require one.

 

Several years ago Gannett made an honest effort to buy good equipment and train everyone in shooting and editing quality video. It was good training and a good idea.

But -- as Luggy stated -- it's hard to get people to click on the video unless it some freak viral thing, maybe a live press conference, etc.

After a couple years, the good equipment went by the wayside and the smartphone was the video camera of choice for all but the photographers.

It's worth a try with video. You might get something great. But I am one of those who rarely will click on videos.

 

I rarely have the patience to sit through a 20- or 30-second ad, and when I do, I'm invariably disappointed by a shallow video report.

 

Correct. If a report online has the video icon with it, I don't bother clicking it.

 

Right... as our attention spans get shorter...

We just don't have time for a bunch of crap.