1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

LAT goal: "A 24/7 operation that breaks news all the time online"

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Idaho, Jan 24, 2007.

  1. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Case in point about LAT.com not being very user friendly -- you click on an outside link that brings you to their site (a current Drudge link about a burning body is the latest example) and you are dumped immediately into a signup page. I'm a member, so I load in my info and bam --- I'm dumped into the home page, not to the page I'm trying to get to. After that, I give up in disgust and google news search "burning body Los Angeles" and find all the details.

    Screw the LAT!
     
  2. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    I'm sure they're a big fan of you, too.
     
  3. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    I enjoy the LAT sports section. It's gotten worse with the departure of Tim Brown, but I like their Lakers blog, and they even have a fledgling Clippers blog. Their piece yesterday on the latest with Reggie Bush was nice.
     
  4. brettwatson

    brettwatson Active Member

    Where the Times (and other strong newspapers) will excel is what they publish the day after something important occurs.

    After absorbing the breaking news online and then seeing the updates throughout the course of the day, the reader will have a good sense of the facts. But the depth and perspective that an intelligent reporter can provide in a well-crafted news feature or enterprise story is what will keep the audience coming back for more.

    That is the new business model...not just taking all of the nuts and bolts stuff that has been online all day and publishing it in the newspaper the next day. Anyone who follows that practice is doomed to fail.

    Readers want insight. We can provide that in a careful, logical, easy-to-read story that our competitors (radio, TV, even bloggers) can't do.
     
  5. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

  6. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    We're all kind of guessing, but my guess is you're dead wrong. I don't think most people are eager for insight, at least not in a daily product that they have to pay for. I think this is apparent from the free dailies that have popped up in and around major cities, which focus on hard news in short form, something to be consumed on the run like their McBreakfasts. They are banking on the fact that while the Internet exists, some people still prefer something tangible they can hold in their hands. And the fact is, currently the print product is more user-friendly than the Net.

    Also, I base this on my own habits. Although I spend quite a bit of time online and can and do use our password to access yourap.org from home so I don't even have to wait for a newspaper's Web site to update, I am not especially interested in analysis in the competing daily that we have home-delivered. Which is to say ... ummm ... I do not read these long, analytical pieces. I do not have time, I do not find these pieces especially useful or enlightening, and frankly I find the bare facts to be sufficient for my purposes. I want to know what's going on in the world, I have no desire to become a policy wonk.

    Historically, too, we've found that in competitive situations, newsy wins. Every time.

    The beauty of it is, we can hedge our bets because we have a newspaper and one or more Web sites. We do not have to choose to make one newsy and one soft. We do not have to emasculate the news product by making it so academic that no one wants to read it. We can make both of them newsy and vital and let the market decide, just like some companies did with their AM/PM newspaper combos. They got as much mileage out of the PM until it no longer made economic sense to publish it, and by that point most readers and advertisers were already locked into the AM. But the PMs that withered fastest were those that took a featurey, analytical focus. Because that is not what readers want from us.
     
  7. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    One thing I think IS going to be important is this micro-local coverage by dailies, on the web or in print.

    For example, we had a major deal when I was on my way to golf the other day; road was closed because a helicopter was landing at a major intersection in my town to take away people hurt in a car crash. I'm talking maybe the main east-west and north-south intersection in town.

    Next day, nothing.

    Now, it might have been a minor accident, or it might have just kind of been lost. But I think a reader of a local paper has a right to expect at least a few paragraphs when the main intersection in his town is closed for 20 minutes to allow a helicopter to land. And the best local papers that thrive will have that "everything that moves" coverage.

    For sports writers and editors who only want to deal with major sports and adults, this might not be good news. Because "local" might include a step back to more prep coverage, not less, and maybe even more rec and youth sports.
     
  8. brettwatson

    brettwatson Active Member

    Frank Ridgeway...if readers don't want insight, then what role will newspapers of the future play?

    Someone needs to tell them not only who to vote for, but why.
    Someone needs to tell them why it matters that we finally will have a black head coach working an NFL Super Bowl sideline.
    Someone needs to provide news graphics that show how a knuckleball knuckles.
    Someone has to expose corruption at the driver's license branch.

    That's what we're here to provide. And it doesn't work nearly as effectively on the internet. Sorry.
     
  9. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    brett, we are NOT here to tell people what to think.

    We're here to give an even-handed presentation of facts, and then let people make their own judgments.

    In the case of the black coaches, for instance, our job is to put the fact out there that, yes, that's a first. But to tell the reader why he should care...
     
  10. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    You don't think informing and guiding people, offering opinions and commentary works as effectively on the Internet? With all due respect, Brett:

    Are you high?

    Let's see:

    At it's most basic, both are written words.

    With print, the paper is printed at 12:30 a.m., and that story is done with. No more changes, Somebody doesn't agree, has a comment or a gripe or a question, they can write a snail mail (or an e-mail to the editor). Story changes? Sorry, can't call the trucks back.

    On the 'Net, the story is a living, breathing thing that can be updated unlimited number of times as news warrants. The only time the story is dead is, well, never. It's simply rendered ineffective when it's no longer linked to on a site -- and even then, it can be found through a search.

    It can have message boards, polls, commentary about it in blogs, video, audio, podcasts, chats -- instead of a one-way story on a particular issue of great importance -- or not -- it can be a two-way dialogue between the newspaper/website and its readership; questions asked and answered, gaining insight with each exchange.

    Brett, you've always seemed like an extremely reasonable poster, and reasonable people can agree to disagree.

    But this comment is so far off the mark that I'm rendered speechless.

    Oh, sorry. Obviously not. :)
     
  11. brettwatson

    brettwatson Active Member

    I think you are missing the point I'm trying to make...probably because I'm not making it particularly well.

    Of course I think our job is to inform and I think we will continue to do so both online and in print. To me, that's a given.

    What will separate us from the noise out there is perspective. Call it spin or insight or analysis, but beyond the basic facts, where depth resides, that is where I believe intelligent people will turn to us for the answers. It's why we bring experts into our stories. These can still be objective journalistic endeavors, but I see the landscape changing. The line is already blurring between objective and subjective reporting, and I would imagine it will get even cloudier. But I don't know if that is such a bad thing.

    Maybe I live in a dream world, but I think there are enough people with brains out there who will still demand intelligent discourse. And that's where I hope we come in.
     
  12. Editude

    Editude Active Member

    I agree that there is a lot of quality content on the Internet, but what I hope separates papers that survive with those that don't is consistent, well-selected content. I still can trust that much of what's in a daily paper of note was carefully written, chosen, edited and presented. The challenge papers face is translating that same quality control to the shifting medium online.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page