'Playing it Safe' Is Killing the American Newspaper

We're all in a state of despair these days over our inability to monetize our journalism online the way we've been used to doing in print.

A big part of the problem is that we're doing a really poor job of connecting buyers and sellers on our newspaper Web sites. Solving that problem should be the top priority for the folks on the business and technology sides of our business.

But some of our shortcomings are purely journalistic. We need to come to terms with the fact that one reason we're having such a tough time is that we are still fundamentally failing to deliver the value of our newsroom to Internet users.

Our reporters and editors are curious, passionate, and voracious discoverers and devourers of information; talented storytellers; and smart people with excellent bullshit detectors. As long as human beings are curious about each other and clamor for trusted information, there's a place for us out there. The Internet hasn't changed that; in fact it's increased the market for what we've got: The Internet highly values people who know things, who can find things out, who can distinguish between what's important and what's not, who can distinguish between what's true and what's not, and who can communicate succinctly and effectively.

But we're hiding much of our newsrooms' value behind a terribly anachronistic format: voiceless, incremental news stories that neither get much traffic nor make our sites compelling destinations. While the dispassionate, what-happened-yesterday, inverted-pyramid daily news story still has some marginal utility, it is mostly a throwback at this point -- a relic of a daily product delivered on paper to a geographically limited community. (For instance, it's the daily delivery cycle of our print product that led us to focus on yesterday's news. And it's the focus on maximizing newspaper circulation that drove us to create the notion of "objectivity" - thereby removing opinion and voice from news stories -- for fear of alienating any segment of potential subscribers.)

The Internet doesn't work on a daily schedule. But even more importantly, it abhors the absence of voice. There's a reason why opinion writing tends to dominate the most-read lists on our "news" sites. Indeed, what we've seen is that Internet communities tend to form around voices -- informed, passionate, authoritative voices in particular. (No one wants to read a bored blogger, I always say.)

If we were to start an online newspaper from scratch today, we'd recognize that toneless, small-bore news stories are not the way to build a large audience -- not even with "interactive" bells and whistles cobbled on top. One option might be to imitate cable TV, and engage in a furious volume of he-said/she-said reporting, voyeurism, contrarianism, gossip, triviality and gotcha journalism. But that would come at the cost of our souls. The right way to reinvent ourselves online would be to do precisely what journalists were put on this green earth to do: Seek the truth, hold the powerful accountable, expose the B.S., explain how things really work, introduce people to each other, and tell compelling stories. And we should do all those things passionately and courageously -- not hiding who we are, but rather engaging in a very public expression of our journalistic values.

Obviously, we do some of that already. But I would argue that even then, we do so in a much too understated way. We stifle some of our best stories with a wet blanket of pseudo-neutrality. We edit out tone. We banish anything smacking of activism. We don't telegraph our own enthusiasm for what it is we're doing. We vaguely assume the readers will understand how valuable a service we're providing for them -- but evidently, many of them don't.

Shout it From the Rooftops

While we legitimately want to keep partisanship and polemics out of our news coverage, we need to stop banishing our humanity and the passions that made us become journalists in the first place. When we find a great story, why shouldn't we shout it from the rooftops? Web sites like the Huffington Post and Drudge succeed not just because they so intelligently aggregate the most eye-catching items from others, but because of the palpable joy they take in plastering a big headline across their homepages. That they prosper largely by linking to our work is not lost on us, but is too often leading to the wrong conclusions. It's not that we shouldn't let them link to us, it's that we shouldn't cede our passion to anyone.

And rather than play it safe, we should be brave enough to call things as we see them, and not be limited by the conventional wisdom or political triangulation. Indeed, playing it safe is often transparently bogus -- and boring, too boot. I would also argue that the notion that by hiding our voices we are maintaining political neutrality is a fig leaf. Much of what we do is inevitably political; choosing what we write about, who we quote, what ideas we take seriously and which we disdain and ignore. Making political decisions through triangulation -- trying to stake out a safe middle ground between the two political parties -- is still making a political decision. It's just often a not very good one.

Those who argue that truth-telling has become too political for us to engage in need to reexamine why they are in this business. Our job is to expose and combat lies and propaganda, not pass them along for fear of appearing partisan. That seven in 10 Americans at one point believed that Saddam Hussein had a role in the 9/11 attacks is a profound indictment of our reluctance to champion the truth when it is under attack. We should consider it a key part of our job to differentiate for our readers between things that are true and untrue, arguable and inarguable.

The high priests of the church-state separation may take offense, but the fact is that there's long been a confusing continuum in journalism ranging from straight news to opinion. And I suspect our hairsplitting distinctions have been lost on our readers. In the Internet age, the answer is not censoring ourselves in the name of obscure in-house rules, or trying to put inscrutable labels on everything. The answer is for us to call things as we seen them, and be up front about it.

So let's keep a stable of true "opinion" writers -- whose job is explicitly to take sides and polemicize on controversial issues. But let's allow the folks on the "news" side to give members of the public the kind of analysis they're craving. That means putting things in their proper context. It means not being afraid to explain that one position on an issue is better supported by the facts than the other, when that's the case. It also allows for the advocating of basic human and journalistic values. I don't think that conveying outrage over nondisclosure of public records -- or children going hungry, or torture -- disqualifies someone from calling themselves a news reporter. In fact, it's what people expect from us -- and are probably disappointed that they don't get.

The Extraordinary Value of Beat Reporters

If we believe our newsrooms have value, then the greatest prizes are the reporters who know and care about their beats. In 2004, not long after I stepped down as editor of washingtonpost.com, I wrote two essays in the Online Journalism Review about my hopes for online newspapers, my frustration at the pace of change and my belief that beat reporters could be our secret weapon online. I argued then -- and I still believe now -- that if we can better exploit and market the deep, full-bodied understanding that beat reporters have of their areas of expertise, we hugely increase our value proposition to our readers. So we should celebrate our beat reporters, and take advantage of online opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge.

Knowledgeable beat reporters aren't just stenographers, they are translators, educators, referees and analysts. If we've got people in our newsroom who really understand how a certain city or county works, or who are experts in certain policy areas, they should be sharing and showcasing their expertise in live discussions and blogs; should be answering reader questions and composing FAQs, should be on Facebook and Twitter, should be publishing and allowing readers to contribute to their beat notes, and should be writing and updating primers on key players and key issues. And much of the material they create for online should end up in the paper as well -- quite possibly instead of the dry incremental news stories they currently produce. They should essentially become the anchor for a community of people who share an interest in that beat. And by making it clear that our beat reporters are not faceless drones, but knowledgeable and accessible figures, we can reconnect with readers who may otherwise decide they may as well go somewhere else for their news.

A renewed emphasis on beat reporting would be good for our newsgathering efforts overall, as well. It would remind us of the value of keeping experienced, knowledgeable, well-sourced journalists covering the same communities or topics over time; and it might encourage us to revisit our beat structures for the new era, as well as create mini-beats for urgent topics that we otherwise only cover reactively.

My Five-Point Plan for Reconnecting With Readers

So much of what we do, we do because it's always been done that way. But here are a few examples of how writing for a new medium can encourage us to rethink things we do that make us seem boring and aloof.

• Embrace transparency. Daily newspapers are notoriously non-transparent, an old habit that at least in part stems from our lack of space. We historically haven't had the column inches to "waste" on an explanation of how we got a story, or what the problems were in reporting it, or to defend it once it's attacked. We just "let the story speak for itself." Space seems to have been at a particular premium in the corrections box. But the Internet both demands and facilitates transparency. We should be much more willing to admit errors and explain ourselves -- with a guiding principle being that the more people understand how we operate, the more they will trust us.

• Raise unanswered questions. The daily newspaper paradigm is all about reporting what we know. But sometimes, the most important things are the things we don't know. I would like to see reporters routinely append a list of important unanswered questions to their stories. Not only would that engage readers, but it might put more pressure on sources to divulge what they know.

• Stop the stenography. Part of effectively calling the B.S. is not covering non-events. Some press conferences and public meetings don't generate anything worth writing about. Conversely, sometimes the news is not what it initially appears to be. If a source tries to sell us some outrageous spin, perhaps that's the story right there. Readers will thank us for our honestly.

• More accountability journalism. Reporters should be doing watchdog stories on every beat, not just ones that have "investigative" in the title. Accountability journalism differentiates us and reminds readers online and off of why journalism deserves some of their attention every day.

• Unleash our readers' voices. In addition to collecting readers around our voices, we should make sure our readers can find theirs, too. And when they are saying something worthwhile, we should make sure our readers are heard, as well. To that end, we should move aggressively to adopt best practices in mass Internet participation. Our goal should be a system that allows good ideas, relevant personal stories, informed opinions and perhaps even consensus on some issues to bubble up to the surface -- and even into our reportage.

In conclusion, if our newsrooms don't change, our future is pretty bleak. It's my hope that the answer is not smaller newsrooms, or reinvented newsrooms, but newsrooms where our dedicated and hard-working editors and reporters don't hold back in the name of anachronism and inertia, but deliver their full value to the next generation of readers.

This essay originally appeared, in four parts, on the Nieman Journalism Lab Web site.

 

Follow Dan Froomkin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/whitehousewatch

Comments

[Agent420]

Newspapers do not print news. They print stories. Most of them start like a romance story.

[chabnormal]

This is what I've been saying all along. And I'm just a layperson. The Fourth Estate isn't living up to its purpose and people have stopped supporting them.

[textynn]

People are dying and suffering in poverty and without adequate health care, if any. Our wars are killing and displacing people everywhere and most newspapers give us this almost indifferent pablum.

America is screaming for action and real leaders who actually make definitive statements with real action verbs. But our biggest newspapers are actually accessories to the worthless rhetoric that so many of our politicians are famous for. They are all too happy to act like some of the worthless double speak and empty promises are real news and real job activity by these leaders.

Heroes who take risks are ignored and big corporations that hurt people are barely scathed by newspapers. Their product is weak and stands in the way of action. They deserve to go down in flames if they don't grow some nads.

[johnwinner]

The newsmedia had been staunchly rghtwing in the '20s and '30s, but bowed to the popularity of Roosevelt and the necessities of WWII to begin finding an objective middle ground as the basis of reporting. The media dipped right again, and almost lost credibility, during the McCarthy '50s, but by 1960 was recovering and by the '70s, despite attacks from Nixon, had established itself as the effective standard of political truth in America. Then came Reagan, and another swing right, along with trivialization of news content during the Bush 1 and Clinton years. In 2002, the Press surrendered to the right completely over Iraq, and we had nothing but lies and apologies for Bush 2 all the way up until last fall - but we still get so much rightist trash from the media, no one really believes it any more, people either get their information elsewhere or follow their hunches or biases. TV can survive this, because we all know it's just entertainment, but this is the end of the newspaper. You cut your own throats - expect no pity here.

[leatherneck1971]

Just as the automobile made changes in the old blacksmith making them almost a thing of the past, when horse and buggy became not a necessary choice of transportation anymore, we still have traveling blacksmiths, often called Ferriers, so today paper printed newspapers are on edge of change, and that change is electronic media, from computers, blackberry's, and almost any cell phone has internet access and with that access to electronic newspapers! I am reminded of a paper which came out in Las Vegas, Nevada in 1970's it was called Nifty Nickel, a printed, handed out for free advertising paper where its revenue was totally from advertising, the traditional newspapers laughed and said no paper can exist unless it is sold, well last laugh is on the now dying paid for newspaper industry which never realized the unique idea of giving the paper out free and concentrating on income from advertisers! Nifty Nickel has been copied in other states under other names in Arizona its called "Dollar Savery" in Florida its under the name of "Penny Saver", and this 1970 idea has already gone on line in electronic form, unfortunately newspapers are like the old blacksmiths, adapt or disappear since without a doubt its moving towards paperless electronic media but some market will always be there for print format, but imagine a smaller printed paper wit more readers whom get it free from newstands or how ever and its income be based on advertising income solely!

[swift goat pet for truth]

Good job.
I have given this topic some thought, but nothing like a professional opinion to define the issue.
I am intrigued by the solutions as well.

[rabrophy]

One fact that seems to be missed in all these "Why don't people love Newspapers anymore?" stories is the incredibly piss-poor job the papers did during the Bush/Cheney 8 year horror show. That's when I switched from the NYT and WP to the Internet. I found the Huff Po, Tom Dispatch and a few others - and never looked back.

[greghaught]

up on barrons website, alan abelson's column is free. today, saturday, he covers this same topic. quoting .....

"After pulling thoughtfully on their chins and squinting wisely, the venerable sages proclaim the source of the papers' travails is that the press moguls lack a good business plan (as makers of buggy whips early in the last century could have told them, sometimes the only truly good business plan for dying businesses is interment)."

lol. i think that pretty much covers it.

[BLBass]

a reader's perspective:

"who can distinguish between what's important and what's not, who can distinguish between what's true and what's not"

These are mostly what I find missing from the news, wherever it's written. As you alluded to, truth-telling is not a political act and reporters should stop shrinking from that duty. "Accountability journalism" is job number 1, and the main thing that gets me to trust a news-gathering organization. (Sam Stein is a great example.) I think the main reason journalists cling so jealously to their mantle of objectivity is to protect their access to sources -- a personal/corporate incentive that hurts their readers. As far as journalists' voices are concerned, with the unlimited inches available on the web why not prefix every article with a description of its intent? Let all journalists and columnists make their opinions known, if they wish, instead of keeping a "stable of opinion writers".

The question of importance is a great one, and I hope that writers/editors are constantly engaged in those discussions because that's how we readers get most of our information. Listening to readers' voices you take such pains to enable is one way to find a market, what we think is important, but something that's stuck with me is a description of newspapers as "news you don't ask for", but that one needs anyway. The more you can get that to readers without shipping dead trees all over the country, the better you're doing your jobs!

[BLBass]

A further thought about opinion/news:

If you're concerned about being mis-attributed or called non-objective, publish under some variation on a Creative Commons license. That way you could require your intent statement to be readily available in any further use of your work.

[dsws]

Reader comments on sites like nytimes.com don't add much value, as far as I've seen. There are hundreds of them on popular articles, with no back-and-forth and no sustained individual voice for a particular reader. That could be improved by compartmen­talization­: when you sign up with a news-and-forums website, you get assigned to a forum. (Perhaps you would be assigned at random, perhaps according to your answers to some questions about whether you prefer a forum with more or fewer comments per article and so on, or perhaps on some other criteria such as areas of subject-matter interest or geographic location.) Then you can read comments by anyone else in the same forum, and they can read yours. Some of the best comments, both readers' favorites and editors' favorites, could be readable by everyone.

[luziannagirl]

And:

1) Tell the reader why this story is important to him or her, and place it into the "big picture" context!!!!!! Even something as familiar as an orange is an unrecognizable alien landscape when one little bit of its skin is seen under an electron microscope Stop giving us electron microscope stories!

2) Stop waiting until some precipitating event or anniversary occurs before you provide us with important information. That's what I call chicken-@$%# journalism.

3) Forget this "opposing viewpoint" and "fair and balanced" crap, when the opposing viewpoint has little basis in fact. Let them buy air time and ad space and get in line with everyone else who has something to sell.

[chabnormal]

Is it our fault the truth and facts have a liberal bias (most of the time).

[larry278]

Regardless of how traditional, print on paper media or MSM changes itself, I'm not going to go back to using it; unless I don't have access to a computer 24/7. Changes to the www to improve the www are introduced gradually &/or give web users a way to use changes in the www. I have no idea if those who use the changes in the web on their site are very subtle about teaching their users to adapt to changes to the www or the web itself tells users of the web how to adapt to the changes in or to the www. It could be an implicit thing or, maybe, intuitive. The web is easier to use than a traditional, print on paper, newspaper. Web sites constantly update the news.
Traditional, print on paper, newspapers can't up-date anything unless they print another edition to include the up-dates. That takes hours to print a new ed. The user of a newspaper must pay the full cost of the new ed, with old & up-dated news mingled. Not many people buy each edition the Johnson Family Daily Blute prints in a day.
Some of us never trusted newspapers since we learned to read. The bias of a newspaper is obvious to a 1st grade reader. You often can find a web site that has your zeitgeist or a zeitgeist that has is close to your zeitgeist, well, close enough for jazz or govt work.

[the964kid]

I always liked Froomkin, I read his columns regularly when I subscribed to the Washington Post, but after a series of terribly reported news stories during the 2008 campaign coverage I ended my subscription.

The main point Froomkin is making here is completely on point. Who wants to read, and pay for, such watered down coverage. News should be slanted, especially when there is such a clear distinction between right and wrong. This inability for the major news organizations to call it like it really is has led to failed coverage on such major issues as the lies that led us into the Iraq War, and lack luster coverage during last year's presidential campaigns. After years of trying to appeal to everyone, the news papers now appeal to no one, why are they surprised?

[chabnormal]

So true! You hit the nail squarely on the head.

[greghaught]

it's hard for me to believe that the net ads aren't very lucrative for online news publishers. something is wrong with this picture.

why do i think so? there are some information services that i would enthusiastically subscribe to immediately and pay a reasonable premium for, IF i could get completely ad free content. for example, the wsj and barrons and others. BUT completely ad free content isn't offered and every time i've inquired about it, i get silence. no reply. i wont subscribe to ads. period. i can get dancing monkeys, unruly flash, misspelling, bad grammar, and rambling unorganized structure anywhere without a subscription.

online publishers wont give up their ads. let them keep their ads and continue whining. i'll keep my money.

[BLBass]

Interesting. It does seem odd that large outlets such as you mention aren't willing to go that way, but an upstart like the Young Turks settled on exactly the model you're hoping for. There needs to be a way to smoosh together the reader-centric practices of the web with the reputation of the big players, and so far the big guys have failed at that. Remember TimesSelect?

[greghaught]

yes BLBass i remember TimesSelect. it was NYT closed subscriber content. it produced $10M revenue it's last year.

NYT shut it down and opened the content to grant access to search engines, and increase traffic and increase ad revenue.

that confirms my original post. net ads are where the money is, IF the content is worth reading.

[ppp1604]

I have a friend who was a reporter for the local paper for more than 20 years. She recently lost her job.

I used to subscribe to the paper. I stopped several yeas ago main because I was purchasing a lot ink that I simply did not want. The paper could not adjust. The paper kept publishing all that information I as a subscriber did not want. Now, there may have been subscribers who wanted the information I did not want.

i would get the Sunday paper and throw 75% away. Why not target the paper to my needs? To the subscribers needs?

Print Newspapers have simple not adjusted their business model to modern times. GM...Chrys­ler...etc.­, etc.,....

[chabnormal]

You mean subscribing to individual sections as opposed to the whole paper? That's a good idea.