Online Journalism: An introduction to the blog by Rachelle Money, 20 May 2008
In journalism, the question of how print reconciles itself with the challenges online news has brought is a hotly debated topic. In our new blog on online journalism we will be joining the conversation and looking at what newspapers are doing to grab online readers, but first here's an introduction to what you can expect from the blog.
The death of the newspaper at the hands of the internet is the modern day equivalent of the debate people had in the Fifties as to whether television was killing radio. The decline of newspaper circulation has editors, journalists, and even news vendors on street corners deeply concerned. As journalism shuffles its way into a new online era, the industry has had to look deeply at how it can satisfy a readership which is changing the way they get their news. It is now clear that simply having a website is not enough. The means by which newspapers develop their sites to effectively satisfy current readers and entice new ones is a fascinating issue which will serve as the pivotal discussion point for the blog.
At present, editors know with absolute certainty that readership figures of print are down as more people log on to read the news. The central questions I would like to explore in the blog are; in what way do newspapers make these steps into online news? What are they doing to diversify and react to a growing online readership, and how are they developing sites to satisfy a readership that demands that news be brought to them more quickly than ever before.
Citizen journalism on the march
Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, free newspapers for commuters, Google news alerts and mobile phone technology have become newspapers' biggest rivals. In the good old days the media would set the news agenda. Not anymore - now editors look to their readers and ask them what they want. The boot is well and truly on the other foot. When former Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith died last year, a US newspaper changed its front page splash when it realized that the story on Smith’s death had become one of the most read that day. This proves that readers now impact news content, sometimes even deciding which stories make the front page. This is a very important seismic shift that warrants further discussion - again, something I want to address in the blog.
The type of content I would like to feature on the blog are examples of how newspapers, magazines, television and radio are changing the ways in which they deliver news. A recent example of this would be when California was struck by devastating forest fires in 2007. San Diego TV station, News 8, took down their entire website to replace it with a rolling news blog, linking to YouTube videos of key reports and providing Google Maps to show people where the fires had spread. This exemplifies how a major television station used successful resources like Google and YouTube to enhance the news they provide and entice readers to log on, not just once a day but maybe even a few times a day. It’s this kind of quick response to breaking news stories that has print journalists quaking in their boots.
Newspapers online - challenge or opportunity?
Many editors and business managers of newspapers wanted to ignore the internet, but as readers have deserted print or simply satisfied themselves with free papers, they have been forced to sit up and take notice. In a recent conversation I had with a journalist, a former technology editor for a national UK newspaper, I asked him why it had taken some newspapers so long to react to these industry changes. He said that it was because the culture change for big companies such as newspapers is like "turning a massive tanker in the ocean". It takes a long time and a lot of patience, and it has to be executed with precision to prevent mistakes being made at huge cost.
This is exactly the kind of question I want to throw out to the blogosphere. Why have newspapers found themselves squashed by social networking sites that have sprung up after newspapers went online? Why haven’t they been able to get a slice of the kind of success MySpace, Facebook and Google has had in recent years?
I would also like to use the blog to create debates around practical issues newspapers will have to address as they develop their online presence. As a journalist the newspaper I contribute to already has a website, however they (like many others) know it’s not enough. The very way readers find news these days is by googling a subject. This has left newspapers placing new demands on journalists and sub-editors to write articles which lead online readers to their stories.
A new way to attract readers' attention
For example, if a headline is to truly work online, it must have a keyword in it. More often than not the sub-editor will do this for print, but the reader has more information in their hands - they have a photograph, picture captions, the full text is in front of them (they don’t have to scroll down to see pull-out quotes), and they will have subheadings to read. All of this information builds a picture in the reader's mind - he or she slots all the pieces together like a jigsaw and can make sense of the story straightaway.
A good example of a headline which worked very well in print is 'Super Cale Go Ballistic Celtic Are Atrocious', but if a reader were to Google 'Inverness Caledonian Thistle football score', it’s very unlikely that this story would have made the first page. If this headline were to be made today, the sub-editor may very well be asked to write a different headline for their online edition. This is a challenge sub-editors will have to overcome if stories are going to be found by online readers. It’s interesting to see this happen and to notice what choices sub-editors are making in relation to their online and offline headlines.
I would also like to use the blog to invite discussions about what newspapers could do to improve their websites. One reason cited for the decline of the newspaper industry has been the rise and rise of the citizen journalist. Why go to the bother of writing an article, pitching it to an editor, and running the risk of it never being read? Now that practically everyone has access to a computer, there have never been as many opportunities to communicate and share opinions with others. Should newspapers find a way to embrace this new culture? Should they provide platforms for citizen journalists to discuss whatever they want and contribute to a national newspaper?
This type of debate is likely to rumble on as print journalism finds a way to reconcile itself with new media. I personally doubt this is the end of journalism, but with many out there dancing on its grave, has the industry left it too late?
If you'd like to read more of Rachelle's articles on online journalism, go to the Wordtracker Online Journalism page.
About Rachelle Money
Rachelle Money is a freelance journalist based in Scotland, UK. She graduated from the Scottish School of Journalism in 2005 where she was awarded an internship with two national publications - The Sunday Herald newspaper and The Big Issue magazine. Rachelle has been working with Wordtracker since August 2007 and is a regular contributor to the newsletter.
6 comments
In response to your article re the newspapers demise. I have been in this Internet space since 1995 ( prior to that in advertising & fashion) and thus you can well imagine how many and what industries I have had to influence to stop looking backwards. It has been a very difficult but exciting decade. Many CEO's thought the internet was a fad that would just go away. I personally pitched several very large music chains to create a web platform 95-96 without success.(though there was proof already in the trends) They are no longer in business. The companies that came on board took "risks". The decision makers were on the whole within sight of thirty and were eager to have a scenario painted to their benefit. And no matter how far fetched, the idea, they gambled to test.
My suggestion to the newpaper industry is to create a lab of qualified people, with diverse interest,including a number of sh-- disturbers and push for a culture of RISK. Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast,and keep going! This requires an investment in money, and courageous people. They can and will figure out what, and how to deliver the news. Let them make believe they are someone else. Let them meander in uncomfortable places and ending up in unexpected situations. Some help in the research area would be great. But I can tell you that sometimes you have to take calculated risks with very little information. The honcho of this lab must be given all the support necessary to accomplish this huge task.
Yes citizen journalism is here. A few of us including me lack publishing English amongst the many many skills that are necessary to engage an audience. SO you do have some major ASSETS that will assist in your task. Just keep trying. As Mr. Gates said " fear the two guys in their garage".
Thank you Annabelle for your input. I am in total agreement with you - newspapers have to learn to take risks. There seems an awful irony in the fact that journalists have been reporting on the very music companies you talk about, how they couldn't cope with the competition online, how they failed to react and paid the ultimate price. Why did newspapers not sit up ten years ago and say 'hey all these other industries are suffering, maybe we will be next so let's do something to protect our product.' But they didn't and a decade on we've suddenly found our readership has fallen drastically, and journalists are being asked to drop their pens and paper and pick up a camera and podcast equipment.
I really appreciated your article and look forward to reading more post on your blog.
When my wife and I first started our newspaper we had these grand ideas of fame and riches. We thought we would just print several thousands copies of our newspaper, stand in a spot in front of a train station and people would come running.
We thought that everytime we made a call to a local business they would be delighted to advertise in the paper. Boy were did we miss-calculate, There is so much more to running a newspaper than that.
The Internet and having an online pressence just complicates it even more. While there is the potential to reach a far greater number of readers, the effort that is needed to run a sucessful newspaper has more than doubled.
Once again thanks for sharing your thoughts and expertise.
Johnny www.csswpaper.com
As a former newspaper reporter who went through several downsizings of newspapers over a period of years when increased television news coverage was seen as a drain on readership, I heard countless discussions of what newspapers could do to keep readers.
USA Today serves as a model for the answers that many newspapers of that time arrived at; shorter stories, lots of teasers, snappier headlines and more color. In essence, the ideas could be summed up as 'give people what they want' or what newspaper management thought they wanted.
Most of the decline in readership then and now though, at least in the U.S., I believe, lies not in the failure of newspapers to figure our what their readers want but more in a failure to do the job most of their readers believe they were designed to do - deliver the as thoroughly and in as unbiased a manner as possible.
While newspaper management has long believed that television and more recently the internet, was siphoning off their readership, a Sept. 7 Washington Post op-ed by George Mason Univ. assoc. prof. of history, Rick Shenkman, debunking the "myth ... (that) young voters are paying a lot of attention to the news" goes on to say that according to a Pew research poll, "How many young people (aged 18-29) read newspapers. Just 20 percent.
"But surely," Shenkman adds, "today's youth are getting their news from the internet? Sorry. Only 11 percent of the young report that they regularly surf the internet for news." Along the way, Shenkman also notes that "studies consistently show that people who do not pick up the newspaper-reading habit (I would make that getting news from any source requiring reading) in their 20's rarely do so later."
My own habit of reading newspapers was formed very early on because my father read them daily and encouraged me to do the same. While I still read the newspaper of a daily basis, with each year I become increasingly turned off by the amount of bias that is clear in many so-called news stories, often the lack of any attempt to balance a piece by reporting on both sides of an issue and the clear demonstrations in many articles that many reporter, as well as editors who are supposed to make corrections, don't know many simple historical and geographical facts, something that would not be the case if they came to their task with the natural curiosity that was once a requirement of journalism.
So, with only an estimated 11 percent of internet users from 18-29 even bothering with the news on the internet, even if newspapers captured that entire audience, that would not reverse their fortunes. What I believe they need to do is to 1. stop pandering to who they think their audience is or may be, clean up their acts by delivering thorough, balanced and factually accurate news (on paper and the internet)that will compel people to read it and 2. initiate long-term marketing programs through schools and associations involving parents to encourage newspaper readership.
Hi Rachellle, very helpful article. i am a journalist but particularly focused on shipping in indonesia. we have done with so many magazines, but it's costly so i am initiating online service. but certainly you have given the clue, of how to write and choose search engine friendly words.
i BELIEVE YOU ARE THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM AND NEWS I am a journalist who finds himself doing more training, teaching, and writing technical courses for Forensic Science Students and Professionals needing CEUs. I have been a professor for over 20yrs and have found an interesting contradiction. The general belief and educational research shows that over the past years there has been a steady decline in reading ability, students avoid reading textbooks at a much higher rate that 20 years ago. Students also have declined in ability to write. the contradiction is that these same colleg students read and write constantly, they spend much more time reading and writing (or texting, tweeting, wizzing etc.) than any students in recent history. They also can find information they are interested in with greater skill and speed than any other generation. The problem is the students really don't understand why they would read boring texts and they are not interested in writing formal papers. The new language of email, texting, tweeting and whatever is next is a usefull tool for the user. The problem is literature and science is not written in this language. The belief that information of interest can be found and that only the interesting test, in whatever language, is of great value if it is truthfull reporting. The question is how bloggers should or could cater to this "quick e-speak" reader. The problem rises when the "QeSpeak" reader can not judge the quality of the journalism i.e. Chomsky V. Fox Blogger. The ability to discriminate and judge arguments is found in our ability to use language. Tradionally we forced students to read 'BOOKS' that forced them to struggle with language and arguments. Challenge is the protein of thought, it is necessary to develop formal logic and the ability to evaluate opposing opinions. The "QeSpeakers" are probably limiting the development of their cognitive abilities to think at formal and post-formal levels. I say probably rather than speaking direcltly and stating; I KNOW WHAY IS HAPPENING, which I believe, but as an old geezer, I don't actually know what the new "QeSpeak" written language has built in it's structure. It is possible that this new "QeSpeak" has a deeper stucture than it appears when I see students testing Gossip in class during my fascinating lecture. The belief and reluctance to read anything that is not of interest to the individual, including news, worries me. I see what I believe is a culture of ADDH reading and writing that has the potential to create a pop culture that becomes multi-generational, with parents and children who have no interest in learning what is difficult or boring in the first five minutes. The citzens have the potential to be disinterested and poorly educated and the servants or puppets of the ruling class. These citizens may not even know or care that they are the wage slaves of the master class. It is , in my opinion, the final stage of what the corporate elite have always fought to have, "slaves that are unaware of their chanes, not interested in freewill, and will accept what ever the corprate masters dictate. As online journalists it is your job to serve up real journalism in "QeSpeak" that will trick the "QeSpeakers" to think and even consider opposite opinions. You are closer to the "QeSpeaker" and you might even use it, that is the hope for this generation. If you do your job well, making things interseting and not wordy and tedious, while still sparking a thought in the "QeSpeaker" that eats at her or him and sends him after information (a skill they have down). Those of us who don't text, tweek, and cant see our Blackerry well enough to use voice mail, much less messaging, mobile email, and text messages are junk by definition. It is your turn, inspire and use and improve the language I have named "QeSpeak" so that it can be used to teach and worry people when they are tricked into considering their life. Good luck, i am confident you can do it . Read Vygotsky and Chomsky to learn how language forms and limits thoght. You must be the mentors who bring the cognitive ability to think at higher levels of logic and hopefully can bring your readers to the level of dealing with conflict. The skill of reading long laborious texts may be passing away but I can't say that short span "QeSpeakers" don't have the potential to use their chosen language at high levels of philosophical thougt and sciece. Good Luck Bloggers. DrScotty Freile