This guy gets it

[OTD]

"Exactly when did cheapening the product and making it worse become the way to do things in the U.S.A.?"

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2276808,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03079TX1K0000584

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

I never thought I would say this: I agree wholeheartedly with John C. Dvorak.

Bookmark it, folks; I may never say that again.

 

[Joe Williams]

Someone needs to slip this article under the office doors of every publisher and editor-in-chief in America.

I especially like this:

"Increasing staff and producing a better product is the only way to fight redundancy, the true crux of the problem. People see that they can get the same news in 100 different places. This is where the Internet becomes the great equalizer.''

And, daunting as it is, this:

"And the cog-in-the-wheel reporters cranked out of j-schools should think about going into ad-copy writing, public relations, and broadcasting, if they want to make a reasonable living. Sorry, but that train is headed your way."

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

"Exactly when did cheapening the product and making it worse become the way to do things in the U.S.A.?"

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2276808,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03079TX1K0000584

Apparently this guy never dealt with the federal government's bid process.

 

[lone star scribe]

Why is it done this way in newspapers? You mean, why is it done this way in any business? Because the workers can't fire the bosses. To quote from Blazing Saddles, "We've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen!"

 

[spnited]

I love the fact that a piece on redundancy includes the phrase "exact same" in the subhead.

 

[Stitch]

Example of what's wrong with coverage. Suburban paper in my area features the NBA team with a large photo. Gamer and photo are AP. Completely useless when high school and college sports, like baseball and softball, are neglected. If a suburban paper thinks that a team is worth featuring on the sports front every game, then send your own guy 40 miles cover it. That's what Dvorak is hitting on with his column.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

I love the fact that a piece on redundancy includes the phrase "exact same" in the subhead.

Copy editor's fault, of course.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Hmmm. A 700-page report is released yesterday and a commentator manages to read all of it and file expert analysis the same day. That's part of what's wrong with journalism today, too.

And PC Mag is not a completely shoddy operation. When it comes to reviewing something like an iPod, PC Mag will not only try the thing out but send it to the lab to see if battery life matches the manufacturer's claim. This guy, however, mentions a report in his lead that he clearly hasn't read and offers commentary that contains nothing that hasn't been said dozens of times on this board. "Crap factor" and "redundancy" indeed. He may "get it," but he didn't do his homework and because of that he says nothing new. Unintentionally he provides a great example of taking shortcuts and producing nothing worth paying for.

 

[goalmouth]

"Exactly when did cheapening the product and making it worse become the way to do things in the U.S.A.?"

But when the buggy whip maker is being put out of business by the horseless carriage, is the best strategy for survival to try and make the best buggy whip?

 

[crusoes]

Example of what's wrong with coverage. Suburban paper in my area features the NBA team with a large photo. Gamer and photo are AP. Completely useless when high school and college sports, like baseball and softball, are neglected. If a suburban paper thinks that a team is worth featuring on the sports front every game, then send your own guy 40 miles cover it. That's what Dvorak is hitting on with his column.

Except for this: People talk about local sports, but are much more likely to be involved in rooting for a pro team, or the bigger colleges in the state. We do local stuff out the ear, and people just can't be bothered to show up. You skip even the Detroit Lions, and the bitching begins forthwith.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

"Exactly when did cheapening the product and making it worse become the way to do things in the U.S.A.?"

But when the buggy whip maker is being put out of business by the horseless carriage, is the best strategy for survival to try and make the best buggy whip?

The best strategy would be to try to convert the buggy whip maker to an auto parts maker. The problem is, rather than convert all the employees to this, the buggy whip company is cutting jobs, forcing the workers to make more buggy whips, and giving them less time to learn about making auto parts.

 

[bigpern23]

"Exactly when did cheapening the product and making it worse become the way to do things in the U.S.A.?"

But when the buggy whip maker is being put out of business by the horseless carriage, is the best strategy for survival to try and make the best buggy whip?

The problem with this analogy, is there no more use for the whip. The internet hasn't reduced the public's need for information. It has A) reduced the public's need to pay for that information and B) made it easier for to public to get that information from multiple sources.

We have to start looking at ourselves as conduits for information again. How we disseminate that information, whether on the web or in print, is up to us, but we have to make sure it's information A) the public wants, B) the public can only get from us and C) the public is willing to pay for it.

So if you are trying to charge the public for the same information it can get online for free, you ain't going to be doing business with the public very long. As Dvorak points out, you can't produce more exclusive information with less staff. If you're relying on AP, the way four other papers covering the same teams, cities, etc., are doing, the public isn't going to come to you for that information when it can go online and get it for free.

Beef up your reporting staff, cover stuff the other papers aren't getting to and aren't putting online for free, then find a way to make your exclusive content profitable on the internet. That's the only way for newspapers to survive. Covering less is not going to make the public want to read our content, online or in the paper.

 

[bigpern23]

"Exactly when did cheapening the product and making it worse become the way to do things in the U.S.A.?"

But when the buggy whip maker is being put out of business by the horseless carriage, is the best strategy for survival to try and make the best buggy whip?

The best strategy would be to try to convert the buggy whip maker to an auto parts maker. The problem is, rather than convert all the employees to this, the buggy whip company is cutting jobs, forcing the workers to make more buggy whips, and giving them less time to learn about making auto parts.

Well said, Baron.

 

[EE94]

Hmmm. A 700-page report is released yesterday and a commentator manages to read all of it and file expert analysis the same day. That's part of what's wrong with journalism today, too.

Unintentionally he provides a great example of taking shortcuts and producing nothing worth paying for.

So why don't you provide play-by-play text of the football - or baseball, basketball, hockey whatever - game you are covering.

Its his job to boil it down to its most relevant piece of info

And perhaps the report was released along the lines of a government budget. In those cases, reporters go into "lockup" and are given precis on the relevant points.
In this case, it might have been an advance copy so something CAN be written on the day it is released.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Hmmm. A 700-page report is released yesterday and a commentator manages to read all of it and file expert analysis the same day. That's part of what's wrong with journalism today, too.

Unintentionally he provides a great example of taking shortcuts and producing nothing worth paying for.

So why don't you provide play-by-play text of the football - or baseball, basketball, hockey whatever - game you are covering.

Its his job to boil it down to its most relevant piece of info

He ought to read it first.

In this case, it might have been an advance copy so something CAN be written on the day it is released.

Nope.

Sorry. It was lazy work that offered nothing we haven't seen before.

 

[Editude]

It's funny about the wires and what people want. Other papers use our stuff to supplement their local/regional coverage, and if I lived in a mid-size place, I would welcome an attempt (if done well) at a one-stop product. To ignore the millions who appreciate a relatively comprehensive, digestible form is counter-productive.

 

[STLIrish]

It's funny about the wires and what people want. Other papers use our stuff to supplement their local/regional coverage, and if I lived in a mid-size place, I would welcome an attempt (if done well) at a one-stop product. To ignore the millions who appreciate a relatively comprehensive, digestible form is counter-productive.

I don't think he's really talking about the print product here, though. Online, wire is wire, no matter where you read it. And the odds most readers will go to their local for national wire news isn't that high. So, if online is the future, we ought to focus on quality local, or unique national that no one else is doing. I think that's what he's saying.
Personally, I thought about writing the man a thank you note. As Frank notes, this may not be anything new to Poynter addicts, but it's nice to see in a tech magazine.

 

[chazp]

Example of what's wrong with coverage. Suburban paper in my area features the NBA team with a large photo. Gamer and photo are AP. Completely useless when high school and college sports, like baseball and softball, are neglected. If a suburban paper thinks that a team is worth featuring on the sports front every game, then send your own guy 40 miles cover it. That's what Dvorak is hitting on with his column.

You're right. They can read AP stuff on hundreds of websites. Local first, then add the AP stuff. Make local the centerpiece. Make local the front page, otherwise there's no reason for readers to buy your paper.

 

[Tenhut]

If he actually "gets it," then he will never be a department head in the newspaper business. Or he will be very lonely in meetings. And there will be many, many meetings.