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!

Posting game stories

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Vinny Chase, Sep 7, 2007.

  1. Good post, glad to see that some get it. For a newspaper it shouldn't be "Web vs. Print" in some big showdown. It should be a joint effort to provide readers with the best coverage, flat out.
     
  2. It's not "the party line," it's the reality we are headed towards.

    If someone really isn't going to read the newspaper because they read ONE prep story online the night before, then we don't need them as readers of the print edition.

    When do most newspaper stories go up? Midnightish or later? How many people are up ready stories that late? Probably not many. It's up for those that want it, but most will wait until the morning. I can't imagine how you see this as such a bad deal. I know it's new and different, but change isn't always bad.

    As someone from the generation that is causing this to happen (18-30 or so), I get almost all of my news online first. And I mean for everything from sports to politics to weather and even my friends (oh facebook). Obviously I still read the paper and I know plenty my age (not working in journalism) that do as well, but I am sure they read online first. That's where the more in depth nature of the print edition that has already been discussed comes into play. I don't want to read a 60 inch feature on the Net, my head will start to hurt, but I'll read one in the paper. Readers look online for breaking news (because nothing in a print edition can really be considered breaking news, unless 8+ hours later is really breaking) and read the paper to learn what it means.
     
  3. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    There's part of the problem.

    Yes, we DO need them.

    Newspapers are so willing to throw out the 45-64 crowd when if they did things right, they could keep that demographic AND the thirtysomethings.
     
  4. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

    two different audiences ... hello 2007.
     
  5. farmerjerome

    farmerjerome Active Member

    The debate between print and on-line is a toughy.
    Frankly, I like sitting down and reading the newspaper. But I also like the fact that I can curl up under a blanket on a sub-zero morning in January and not have to leave my house to buy a paper.
    I read Yahoo! for national news and our paper for the rest.

    Honestly, I see no problem with posting gamers they second they're edited. The stuff is going to go up in a few hours anyways. Why not?
     
  6. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    Because, fj ... why buy the cow when you're getting the milk for free?
     
  7. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    I think that the vast majority of newspaper readers want more than a prep football game story 10 or 11 Friday night/Saturday mornings a year. Just because they can see that story the night before online, they are still going to want the print edition for everything else.

    Heck, even if every single element of the newspaper was online at 11 pm, I don't think people would sit there late at night clicking aroudn the internet to read it all. There are still going to be things that interest them when the paper lands on their driveway in the morning.
     
  8. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

    the demand for it is there shotty. newspapers simply need to find a way to turn a profit for supplying readers with what they want.
     
  9. I hope that was a joke, because that is one of the biggest misconceptions in the business. I'm not a bean-counter, but I finally figured out (like, last week) that newspapers like the New York Times wouldn't be putting content online if they also couldn't sell millions of dollars of ads on their websites. I kind of look at it like network TV.

    A whole lot more people get their NYT content online, for example, than in the paper. It's the smaller places that struggle to catch up, but I think they're gaining ground. My hometown paper carries a lot of banners and popups now. I live too far away to buy the paper, but I'm contributing to its health by clicking on the site to get my high school's football scores.
     
  10. Idaho

    Idaho Active Member

    Then either take down the web site, post the stuff a day (or 12 hours) later or make the website a pay-per-view deal.

    I, for one, am in favor of faster, more frequent posting of news. Of course, I agree we need to figure out a way to make some money off that rather than 'give it away.' But are we really losing print subscribers at a higher rate because news is posting online at midnight instead of 8 a.m.?
     
  11. farmerjerome

    farmerjerome Active Member

    I don't think a couple of late-night hours are going to make a huge dent in sales. I might skim the stories just to see who won, but I'll buy the paper the next day to read at work.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page