Work smarter, not harder

You have to be willing to piss some people off, but personally I think that's a good idea. Just do the good stuff. We can't do everything anymore. No one's got the resources. So cut the "paper-of-record" obligatory crap -- or if you can, outsource it to freelancers and stick it on a website -- and focus on writing the best stories the best you can. With any luck, you'll be happier and the paper will be less boring and predictable. Those both seem like good outcomes.

 

Not smart. The news editor won't know what he's doing and will be pissed he has to do it.

Not smart. Your resources are stretched too thin. Cut some of the teams you cover.

A decent start; however the time will not be cut down, it will be merely replaced by arguing with the coach about why you're not putting as much information in the paper yet charging the same amount.

Ironically, your entire department will end up working much harder, yet won't feel like it's ideas are working so they'll feel dumber.

 

Two quick things with so-so results

In the old days we would send a reporter to the junior hockey game. He would get there an hour before the game, stay two hours plus during the game and an hour afterwards. He would then have two hours to pump out a gamer. Total time about entire shift. Now we have someone on the desk for three hours and they go to the game near the end of the second period. Works OK unless a team scores eight goals in the first period or a pre-game brawl breaks out.
We've also reversed it where reporter goes an hour before the game, does a feature on a player/trend, comes back, writes it, then does a summary brief from the game sheet.

Also as a small daily we started sending our reporters with cameras to the games. Works out so-so. Some take great pictures, others still can't take a picture no matter how much training they get. Also get complaints about missing things because they have to take pictures.

Just my two tales.

 

Maybe a poor choice of words to start, but a good topic nonetheless...

We've had some deadline issues at our 50K daily, so we have reduced the number of schools in our coverage area. Dropped about 10 schools that were on the fringes of our circulation area, those with maybe 150 subscribers or less. We'll still take their results if called in, we'll still cover them on occasion when they're playing a more local team, but we will not feature them or chase down their results. We just don't have the time or manpower.

On Friday nights, we want to take box scores from the football games we don't cover, which is a far greater number than in years past, but at a certain point we'll just take the score and a detail or stat or two for a decent writeup (and by decent, sadly that means a graf or two) because of time constraints.

The games we do cover, now about 8-10 vs. 15 or so in years past, we limit the word count. We want 8-10 inch stories vs. 15 inches in years past. This helps the writers because they more often than not don't have time to get post-game quotes and it helps the designers because they know the story length ahead of time and also don't have to jump stories, which saves us a minute or two which can be spent editing the stories.

Sure, this all sucks and provides our readers much less than they've gotten in the past, but the complaints have quieted down and our coverage has grown throughout the season. Sure, it's probably mostly smoke and mirrors, but we're doing the best we can with the hand we're dealt. It's not our decision and the higher-ups are aware of what we've had to do and if the bottom line is getting done on time, that's what we'll do. That's all we can do.

Sucks, but at least we're home by midnight sitting on the couch with a beer in hand. At least we can get to a bar long before last call. Find the positives, that's all we can do.

 

Edited for your 50K daily.

 

Some news editors know just as much about sports, if not more, than their sports counterparts. OK, maybe just one news editor. But still, stop generalizing, damnit.

 

I've suggested writers take cameras to day events, like baseball, track, golf and softball, where you don't have to fuck with digital lighting, etc. It's getting mixed reviews, like suddenly it's invading the sacred space of a photographer. Hell, I think we're doing them a favor and saving on hiring out for photo correspondents. Plus, by cutting more gamers and going with roundups, which our people still haven't had the brilliance to figure out yet, you can get as much info through a coach with 2-3 agate takers than you can by sending a halfass reporter correspondent to the game who can't beat deadline. Plus, it costs considerably less.

Of course, we're part of a company that buys competing papers and then lets them compete with dwindling resources rathter than merge the operations, cut ad staff which ain't working worth a shit anyway and it strengthens your breadth of coverage. I will never ever ever buy the argument that local newspapers aren't relevant because of what they do. They're irrelevant because they cut back on local. Readers find it boring, they quit reading, advertisers see the decline in readership and they cease ads.

Again, however, i did not set out to offend people with corporate talk. I loathe that level as much as anyone.

 

Print, if you're working where I think you're working, may the higher power have mercy on your soul.

 

You've been touched by that evil, you think?

 

This isn't a better use of resources, it's just being cheap.

You can't cover a game if you only watched the third period.

 

Zeke changed to a different Pearl Jam avatar ... Bring back Eddie, dammit!

 

In due time...