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!

Tampa drops a really big shoe...

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by steveu, Apr 14, 2008.

  1. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    My take is, some of it was obviously sarcastic but some of it was not: Plenty of people feel like the newspaper that hits their front porch in the morning is old news, compared to what they've been exposed to already. I feel that way myself most of the time. And my perception is that, very few people, indeed, want in-depth coverage -- if they did, we wouldn't be in such a pickle.

    Sure, the "all those words" part was clearly a joke, in this case, but I think there is a growing resistance to reading the news and, certainly, reading a newspaper for pleasure.
     
  2. mediaguy

    mediaguy Well-Known Member

    The way I read it, it's 50 percent from the entire company, including a lot of smaller entities, which I would think get hit harder than the biggest paper in the chain. I doubt the Trib's newsroom sees anywhere near 50 percent offered a buyout.
     
  3. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not sure about that, Jay. I'm hearing that the hammers will swing hard in St. Pete soon (and they've been chipping away for a while), and I really wonder if being owned by a non-profit journalism think tank is doing them favors. Even when other papers' fat corporate parents are struggling, at least they're still fat corporate parents. I'm hearing too much junk from that side of the bay to think they're immune, though of course I hope I'm being misled.
     
  4. captzulu

    captzulu Member

    I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that few people want in-depth. My question is, are they getting anything more in-depth in the paper than they are getting online, especially when they can get everything in the paper online for free already? Sometimes we equate newspaper with in-depth and most other formats, including online, with quick but shallow news. But the fact is that with unlimited space and the ability to link to an infinite number of other sources, the Internet has the inherent built-in mechanisms to be even more in-depth than the print product. If we're saying that the advantage for newspapers is the experience and credibility of the writers, well, since papers are already putting all their writers' stuff online for free, that kind of negates the advantage of the print product (which is a whole other discussion).
     
  5. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

    and with that, i will ask if you're high.
     
  6. captzulu

    captzulu Member

    high about which point exactly? That fewer people want in-depth, or that the Internet can provide more in-depth than print?
     
  7. Lollygaggers

    Lollygaggers Member

    You're right on about St. Pete, Playthrough. At least if you work for a New York Times regional paper or a Media General paper or a Tribune paper in Florida, and your advertising tanks b/c of the housing market, the chain has other revenue streams to kind of offset the losses. St. Pete is on its own and is feeling the full brunt of it. Not that all the other papers are doing great, obviously, but St. Pete can't weather the storm as well, in my opinion.
     
  8. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

    90 percent of every in-depth piece i've read online has come directly from newsprint.

    we are in the situation we're in -- newspapers in general -- because society has an ever shrinking attention span. it may want more, immediate information, but it only wants to process sound bites.

    there's my opinion. please feel free to ask if i'm high.
     
  9. This is depressing. I'm logging off to look for a new career.
     
  10. captzulu

    captzulu Member

    I think people want faster delivery of the news, but as far as actual consumption of the information, I've seen enough people read long pieces online, and I've seen enough long pieces provided online, both by newspapers and non-newspapers, to think that people still want in-depth. If we're talking about teens and kids having short attention spans, well, in what era did kids not have short attention spans? But among adults, I think there is still a significant interest in in-depth. My question is how much of what people are getting in the print product that shows up on their doorsteps is actually more in depth than the story they read online six hours ago, shortly after the event happened. Considering newspapers' deadlines, I would venture to say not much. So newspapers can't compete with online in terms of timeliness, and much of newspapers' breaking news coverage isn't really more in depth b/c they aren't spending those extra six hours updating the story in the paper. So we look at the deeper, investigative/enterprise pieces. First, newspapers are doing fewer and fewer of those due to thinning staff and changing priorities. Secondly, as I pointed out earlier, since newspapers are putting their stuff online anyway, why would someone buy the paper just for the occasional enterprise piece when they can read that for free online? That's why I don't believe newspapers are struggling b/c people don't want depth in their news. It's more about where they are consuming their news. Of course, the shift to online consumption is also contributing to the decrease in the number of people being hired by newspapers to produce stories that comprise much of what is worth consuming online. But again, that's a different discussion for a different thread.
     
  11. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

    then we'll leave this discussion with differing opinions.
     
  12. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    This whole "in-depth in print" vs. "shorter online" argument is interesting to me.

    Both TP and captzulu make good points. But here are some things that generally ring true to me:

    1) That print newspapers are supposed to be more "in depth" is generally accepted. But I know my local paper can't be nearly as in-depth as it used to be, because space is being cut back so drastically. Online, meanwhile, has unlimited space.

    2) Here, we always tell our writers that they have unlimited space, but please don't use it. And that's the way they write; for people who don't want to wade through 10 pages. The nice part is there's never "You wrote 18 inches, but we only have room for 16."

    So anyway, I think there's quite a paradox here. The place where almost all newspapers will be capable of handling the most "in depth" copy certainly will be online, vs. the perception that online readers don't have time for long stories.

    I think eventually, it's going to flip on itself. On huge topics, you'll see shorter summary stories in the print edition -- directing readers who want the full 100-inch story and all the sidebars to go online.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page