Chicago Tribune eliminates Bears game stories

It is sort of like selling Chicken McNuggets six days a week and then having a pig roast every Sunday and wondering why neither seems to be working.

 

Exactly. We're trying to make every story readable to our entire audience, rather than making sure each story satisfies the portion of our audience that is likely to read it. In the process, we're turning everybody off.

Example: rather than do a review of the latest Pink album, why not do an in-depth feature/review of a more offbeat band whose audience would actually by the paper to read it, and whose reviews aren't readily available online? Or do a big picture story on the current state of pop music?

 

Assuming people already know the score isn't an egregious assumption, but assuming anyone who cares about the game was able to watch it is insane. It's also dumb to think anyone who cares about the game has already read the AP online article before seeing the local paper. It's also dumb to think that everyone who did read that AP story is satisfied with that story and wouldn't like to read something better.

 

"Factoids" are the worst thing to happen to the newspaper industry, maybe ever.

"Here ya go, dumbass. Here's a fact with no context and no connection to how it relates to the game. But it will only take you 3 seconds to read it, so you may as well, you dumbass."

 

Brilliant. So it has to be true because you can't be convinced otherwise?

 

I guess I'm saying do the differentiation the other way around.

 

DP, I wish I had thought of this question long ago.

What do you want?

I really would like to know. In this area, what is your perfect world?

 

How about something that reads as if two or three people read it and had some time to spend on it?

A lot of the stupid shit that gets into the Tribune seems as if it got written 10 minutes before deadline, read 5 minutes before and placed on the page 2 minutes before. I have little to no doubt that's what happened with the Eddie Johnson thing.

And one thing that should be clarified here -- we are not talking about good design for these game pages. It's the kind of shit corporations come up with to promote their "corporate synergy" -- lots of pillars and colors. It's garishly hideous.

Back to what I want -- stories that flow. I'm tired of having to work to get through 20-inch stories. The fucktards claim people won't spend time with the paper. No shit. They don't want to spend time deciphering lameass puns, correcting inaccuracies in their head or CONSTANTLY changing Eastern time to Central time.

The paper's been better with the time fuck-ups since basketball season started, but it couldn't get much worse than last season.

 

Fair enough. Asked and answered. I'd like to see that, too.

 

But that's a faulty construct. Most people don't read every story in the newspaper -- never have, never will -- and its silly to assume they do. THat's why it's silly to appeal to the lowest common denominator instead of the readers who traditionally populate your section.

 

It's also faulty math... 750 hours a year, 365 days a year. I think that's 2 hours a day not 30 minutes.
I doubt too many people spend two hours a day reading newspapers ... and they never have.

 

My dad does -- gets the local paper, the AJC and the NY Times at the house, Wall Street Journal at the office and USA Today comes in the afternoon.