Blog maps out changes in STL P-D coverage

Eff Lee.

 

Graham's good people and I consider her a friend, but I wouldn't have done this. The readers can judge for themselves the content of the paper without us telling them, "We're cutting back, and here's what's up with me."

 

I like the general concept of transparency. We'll usually write a column or at least throw in a fact box each year about this time to remind readers, "Okay, Tuesday's paper has a lot about Team A because Monday is their press conference. Wednesday's paper has a lot about Team B for the same reason."

That, and a few packaging cues, and we get a lot less phone calls saying "Aren't you going to write anything about Team B this week?"

A lot less.

 

Bad idea.

"We're not doing too good a job right now, and you've probably noticed. We hope to get better, but we might not. Sorry."

 

It drives me fucking crazy that papers think downsizing will help matters in the long haul. It's a quick fix for greedy fucking corporate assholes that will ruin things in the long run.

 

That was sort of my biggest problem with this -- not that Graham wrote this, rather that the P-D made some of these decisions. Illuminating the public: I have no problems with that whatsoever. Maybe if a few thousand people cancel subscriptions because the paper's downsizing pages will set off a light bulb for at least one exec.

 

Don't know Graham but I praise her for this. This is exactly what newspapers should be doing. Nobody should be ripping her at all.

We as reporters want our bosses to be open about changes and we want our sources to be open and honest with us. Newspapers often think they're above this shit, but we're not.

She'll get ten times more respect from readers for being candid. I guarantee it. I've done similar things on my blog and it's always paid off. It builds trust.

 

She might build respect, but it won't make her coverage any more vital to her readers. If her coverage is cut back, what does it matter whether she's being honest about it or not?

For the vast majority of readers, it's about the product, not the byline on the product. If they're getting less it wouldn't matter if Jesus wrote it, they'll go elsewhere to get what they need if there's another place to go.

 

It's not her fault the newspaper is cutting space. She's dealing with it in an admirable way ... by being honest.

 

I think this entire "transparency" thing is being overdone. We do not have to expalin (make excuses for?) everything we do and why coverages change.

This graf is particularly disturbiung to me:

You will, however, notice that some of the stuff I’m writing this year will be shorter. We lost a few pages in sports because of money issues and now I have to share a smaller space with all of the pro sports and sometimes Illinois (though we’re trying to alternate days for coverage)...


99% of the readers will not realize if a story or notebook is 13 inches instead of 16 ... to say we've lost space "becuase of money issues" is a flat out dumb thing to tell readers.

 

Not if it's true. The average reader of the P-D, or any metro, is going to notice that the paper that lands on their porch every morning is thinner than it was 5 years ago, that it has less in it, even though it probably costs the same. We might as well be honest about that, about why that is, and about the fact that for space (i.e. money) reasons, you're going to see less Mizzou coverage this season, or whatever.
We certainly hype it when we add coverage. To pretend readers aren't going to notice when we subtract it underestimates their intelligence. And underestimating their intelligence is more likely to drive readers away than honestly saying that we can't (or won't) do everything we used to.