Neil Mcintosh, head of editorial development for guardian.co.uk, thinks part of the reason US newspapers are failing is because they haven’t mastered the art of making news more palatable for readers.
Here he is blogging from a conference at USC’s Annenberg school for communication in Los Angeles:
Taking a copy of the LA Times as an example, simply because it’s local and handy and described by one participant as the West coast’s most important news source, you have to say things could be better. For instance, this front page tale about safety checks on US airliners isn’t sure if it’s a human interest, business, aviation or travel story, and ends up being none of the above - at huge length. It sat, on the front page, alongside a long apology for, and probe into, a reporting cock-up on a story about an attack on rapper Tupak Shakur, also delivered at remarkable length.
Both stories were run without the design tricks we’re used to in Europe - big photographs, graphics, breakout panels. Because every angle had to fit inone long run of copy they struggled, structurally. Both were, as a consequence, real chores to read. They show, I’d suggest, that it’s not just the internet that’s driving readers away from print.
Meanwhile, Gawker Media’s Nick Denton thinks US newspapers’ ‘Pulitzer fixation’ is another cause for concern:
…The newspapers’ Pulitzer-chasing is most damaging because it distracts newspapers from their real challenge. Rather than impress colleagues with the seriousness of their reporting, US newspapers need to engage a readership that is drifting off to television and the internet. Pulitzer-winning journalism will win Pulitzers; it won’t save an industry which is experiencing double-digit annual declines in advertising revenue.
[...]The respect of peers is a luxury that US newspapers have enjoyed because, for much of the second half of the 20th century, they were local monopolies. They could afford to be respectable, because they didn’t need to pander to readers. In the UK, by contrast, 12 national dailies are in vicious competition. Editors fear the loss of their jobs, not their honor.
It is not as if the New York Times and Washington Post can magically invigorate themselves by eschewing the Pulitzers. America’s vastness, which mitigates against national newspapers and produces smaller local markets which can only support one title, is an unalterable fact. But, while the Washington Post and other winners may celebrate today, they should recognize a harsh truth: the same monopolies which have allowed a public-service mentality to flourish have also left newspapers unprepared for new competition. These Pulitzers are the totem poles of the newspaper industry; beloved relics of former glory.”
Related:
Pulitzer Wins for Washington Post (BBC)
America’s Pernicious Pulitzers (Gawker via Mediabistro)
Serious Journalism’s Broccoli Complex (Complete Tosh)
Newspapers: Buyers Beware (Forbes via Mediabistro)
So what do you think about this PD?
I can see where they are both coming from, but I don’t know whether I agree.
It will take me a while to sort out my thinking on this one.
If I get the chance over the next few days, I’ll try to put some thoughts down.
Now, back to deadlines and a leaky ceiling…
The problem with Denton’s argument is his assumption that a pursuit of the Pultizer and pursuit of readership are mutually exclusive, which isn’t true. The Washington Post story on Walter Reed got thousands of links, for instance, and the Post probably had one of its highest traffic days.
The other problem is that Denton’s own methods of “engaging readership” consist of posting an internet sex tap of one of the band members of Kiss (yes, in case you missed it, it was posted on Gawker Media’s Valleywag, which is supposed to be focusing on Silicon Valley).
I think that newspapers can be excused for not pursuing this line of “engaging readers.”