docpetervenkman84 said:
My name is Ben Meyers and I am a student-teacher (and former sportswriter/page designer at the Saratogian and Post-Star) and I am in charge of creating a new unit on blogging and its place in the future of journalism.
Here is are the questions I have been sending to some of my contacts in the industry:
1. What are typical things that you put into a blog post? Opinions, news, game stories, etc?
2. What are the type of posts that tend to garner the most attention?
3. How often do you post to a blog and what is the typical length of a post?
4. Do you enjoy blogging?
5. Is blogging the future of journalism?
But I wanted to know what everyone here thought as well.
If you could e-mail your responses back with a name and a publication you work for I will use them in class and post them on the blog I am running for the class: www.21stcenturybdown.wordpress.com
Thanks
Ben Meyers
[email protected]
[email protected]
(I also run a blog about fan behavior: The Fan's Voice Awards - www.fansvoiceawards.wordpress.com)
Ben,
Here are my thoughts, based on my experience with newspapers, blogging and the new, new-media world of journalism.
1). You can, theoretically, put virtually anything in a blog post. What actually is put in them (i.e. one-line, ongoing game updates), off-beat, outside-the-lines stuff, or short, light, humorous stuff, opinion or analytical stuff, or breaking news only, or even, something that is, for all intents and purposes, an actual story for which there just is no room in the print edition) generally will depend on what you or a paper/company/its editors decide and demand.
2). The things that will garner the most attention will vary, depending on the area, the beat, and the general interesting-ness and/or gossipy-ness of both the particular items, and popularity and recognition of the blog itself.
Some editors will ask that there be some actual and particular different opinion or take, or some critical thinking, or actual news value or "style" to the items, otherwise don't bother with them. Others will say don't waste a lot of time trying to come up with creative or different things, just do almost a bullet-points type update/score, or whatever, and be done with it -- but do it
continuously, and
immediately, and
forever...You get the idea, I'm sure, but this is why blogging has the potential to, quite frankly, take over a reporter's life, and is why most of us hate it. Or rather, we hate having to bother with it. Generally, we're doing it because we're being told to do it.
Now, that said, blogging, in itself and by itself, can actually be enjoyable and fun and different and OK to do. The problem generally is that is it oftentimes takes away from or interferes with
also having to do so much other work that is necessary and demanded of reporters. If a writer can develop sources, and a style, and a workable routine to doing it, though, he/she will start to see the value in it and see the whole enterprise from a perspective that is different from somebody who must also worry about so many other things in their jobs.
3). If you are going to blog effectively, and keep people interested and coming back, you are going to have to blog pretty often, as in, probably several times a day, at least. There has to be something new for people to read, see, think about and react to -- in other words, a reason to go there. And, to go there again...
It's like this site in that sense. This is not a blog, but still, most regulars here check in at least a couple times a day, and sometimes more, because we know that, even though we've seen the threads earlier, there are likely to be new responses, new discussions, etc. If you like what's on here just generally and as a matter of course, then there are always going to be updates and reasons to come again. That's what, ideally, has to happen with a blog, unless you want to be writing in a vacuum -- which, frankly, I still think is what a lot of bloggers are doing, even with the growth of this form of media dissemination. But, anyway...
As far as lengths, that will probably depend on a combination of the newsworthiness, the information at hand, the writer's own discretion, and editors' requirements/demands regarding the items. I think, however, that the general consensus usually calls for posts to be short (usually not more than five 'graphs), with the idea being that they are quick, easy reads.
4). I actually have enjoyed blogging when I've had time to work as I wanted and have had a chance to develop items, think things through, present things in the way I wanted and up to a certain standard that I think we all should have in any work we do. When I've just had to "come up with something" because it was demanded (in addition to other work), or when it interferes with other work that I have considered more pressing, more meaningful or more important in a journalistic sense -- whether that something was going in the print edition or was for the Web only, or both, then I have hated it.
5). The future is now. Blogging -- especially specialty blogging -- is seen as a big part of it. I say "is seen as" because I, myself, am not really sure that it actually is going to be that. There are millions of blogs out there -- but
very few that anybody has been able to turn into what I would call a recognizable success, particularly over the long term, or that is of interest to the general masses.
I hope that helps, and gives you some ideas/thoughts and provides some jumping-off points for discussion, either for you and your students, or for anybody else who cares about any of this stuff.
