Guy in Starbucks: "It's not even worth it to pick up a newspaper anymore."

And doctors suck. And service workers suck. And a lot of people think police suck.

I think maybe firemen are the only ones immune.

 

maybe I just have had different experiences because of the sizes of papers I've worked at. I have always known the publisher and all the editorial board members. I have actually called people out in both shops for certain news content concerns. I have had both favorable and unfavorable reactions to my questioning. One time I was even mocked for being a sports guy who thought he knew anything about news. It's not even stories from writers at given papers that can pose a problem. But given the lack of manpower it is hard for some places to give every AP story a thorough read and edit. And despite AP or Scripps or any other service being the possible culprit it is the paper that runs the story that gets the criticism. Also as mentioned above, the human element is always in play. Whether we are willing to admit it or not there will always be a little bit of our own personal beliefs or experiences that come out in what we write.

 

Until they need one, that is. Then there's never enough of them around.

 

I'd have to agree with that, Red. And I hear you on being labeled "just a sports guy." I was a little bit lucky in that I moved over to the dark side from the news side, so I guess I had a little more street cred with my coworkers when I would question things.

You can't help but bring your own personal feelings to what you write.

We can't check our hearts at the office door.

I remember when I started out covering the police beat, and fire, and accidents and such. One of the long-timers on that beat told me, "If you ever get to the point where the things you see out here don't wake you up in the middle of the night, it's time to go do something else."

The Wall Street Journal does an excellent job of erecting a wall between the op-ed page and the news side. Check out the news pages and compare them with what comes out of the opinion page.

It can be done. I've done stories on people I absolutely despised - slimy politicians who made me feel like taking a shower when I was done interviewing them. But I always went out of my way to be fair to them .. .maybe more in their case.

 

I wonder when the Starbucks asshat ever consistently picked up a newspaper. He doesn't seem the type. And newspapers trying to change themselves to appeal to that audience -- which is never going to read a newspaper anyway -- is probably partly responsible for the mess we're all in.

 

For what it's worth:
Last week I went to interview a primary source for a feature.
We had Q&A chat for 90 minutes. Good stuff. Left me confident story will be good.
I put the notepad away...
Then he asked: "What's happened to your paper? It used to be good..."
And he proceeded to tell me what he thought was wrong with our paper.
Here's the thing: He's just Joe-average sports fan, but he knew our business better than most non-sports newspaper people such as publishers, executive editors, etc. I could not argue with 80 percent of what he felt was "wrong."
Without getting into every detail, his commentary just confirmed my belief that, as an industry, we long ago lost touch with what the readers want. We're only now feeling the wrath, and it's exacerbated by everything else -- internet, layoffs, etc. -- that's hitting us.
So maybe instead of all the reader surveys, we should listen to the guys on the soap boxes at Starbucks.
Or 7-11 or Quickcheck or WaWa.
Particularly if they actually have a newspaper in their hands when they're pontificating.

 

RedSmithClone, don't think that the "calling out" on content only happens when you newsroom conservatives have to rebuke the crazy liberals for their bias. At my shop the right-wing top editors routinely have to be reigned in, including on Election Night, when one wanted "Obamanation" as the headline.

Bias exists. But as was pointed out, the way to handle bias is to be aware of bias, not try to deny it exists.

 

There are a couple of issues here. One reason newspapers are dying is because too many waited too long to move into an online world.

Another thing: Suits don't want to listen to readers because they have an idea of what they want. More stories of substance will require more man hours and in many cases more expenses for travel.

It all boils down to money now. Most newspapers are bringing in less ad revenue. Any chance shops owned by big companies could survive disappeared with the addition of more debt by buying newspapers they couldn't afford. Now they're cutting like crazy because they don't have any other ideas. I fear the end for many such newspapers is near because of that.

 

The problem with that argument is that it is unlikely your newspaper changed. I'll bet it was largely the same thing it was 20 years ago, just much less timely. People know the news before the paper hits their door. Except the local stuff.
We get people who say the same thing. I always ask what's missing or what was it about our paper you used to like.
The typical response I get it is that there is nothing it in, (not what they likd about the old paper) which I think is due now to a 24-7 newscycle and and the Internet. Your newspaper hasn't changed . ... .... ... Of course, maybe that is the problem.

 

Actually, I think the opposite is true. I think the suits sometimes spend way too much time listening to readers. They put much more faith in readers' opinions than those of their experienced editors and reporters to cover the news.

Of course, there's rarely a consensus, right? And that's the problem. It reminds me of an excerpt from a Chuck Klosterman column. Here it is:

"I worked in newspapers for eight years, right when that industry was starting to disintegrate. As such, we spent a lot of time talking with focus groups, forever trying to figure out what readers wanted. And here is what they wanted: everything. They wanted shorter stories, but also longer stories. They wanted more international news, but also more local news. And more in-depth reporting. And more playful arts coverage. And less sports. And more sports. And maybe some sports on the front page. ... When it comes to mass media, it's useless to ask people what they want; nobody knows what they want until they have it."

http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0806KLOSTERMAN_60#ixzz0JGHXVeUs&D

 

At our place, it's simply fewer people to churn out stuff, so half the time what hits the sports pages has little to do with sports and would have wound up in the features section 10 years ago. We'll do something on, for example, a local guy who won something from a pro team's promotion.

We don't cover that pro team's games anymore half the time, but we do something on the local guy. Are you local and did you sing the anthem? Centerpiece!

It seems to be the theory of getting everyone in the paper somehow. If you send us an email and you are around when we call, odds are you are getting in the sports section. Go on a hike in Europe and take a high-res photo and you could wind up above the fold.

And I hear everywhere I go about how the paper has nothing in it anymore, and in particular that (aside from high schools) the sports section has no sports. Our market is not a small town, but the paper now operates as if it covered Mayberry.

What do all these stories have in common? They landed in our lap and they are easy. But I am afraid they are driving readers to other news sources.

 

In the end, money speaks louder to the suits than anything. Some might listen too much to readers. In my experiences, too fewer suits give a damn about their employees and the future of the business.