Why Was It Bad For The Chicago Tribune To Find Out What Readers Wanted?
from the i'm-confused dept
There was a recent dustup in Chicago as news came out that the Chicago Tribune had been running reader surveys on certain news stories before they were published. This has upset a bunch of folks at the Tribune who claim that it somehow "breaks the bond between reporters and editors in a fundamental way." The Tribune has apologized and claimed the whole program was a mistake. But, for the life of me, I'm having trouble figuring out what's the problem. Actually finding out what your community wants? Getting feedback? Being more interactive and engaged with the community? Listening to them? Being open and recognizing a story is a living document? These are all things that any newspaper should be doing these days.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chicago tribune, journalism, marketing, surveys
Companies: tribune company
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The old fashion way: lie, con scam, and feed the readers a corp of so that the readers may be manipulated to produce the desired political results.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The problem is simply this: journalists think they're too good to listen to the people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hopefully...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There's enough 'focus groups' already entrenched in the industry, I'd hate to see this extrapolated to the general public.
All you'd see was sport and stupid criminal stories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm not sure what's wrong with doing post-print surveys regarding layout and particular feature focus?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It might be better to use the web page to gauge what is popular by reads and throw everything up there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In this case, yes, it is absolutely valid to use readers to get feedback on coverage. And frankly, newspapers could (and should) be doing a whole lot more in this area. Ditto embracing the whole 2.0 conversation, etc. They will never make that jump, as they were far too long used to being one of only a few access points for information.
But to actually test out stories before the fact is pretty boneheaded on a number of fronts. First, it gives away any informational competitive advantage the paper may have on a story. You never know where those focus group people may work. And in the age of Twitter, etc., a story can get out pretty quickly.
This can happen WRT to both competitors and the subjects of stories themselves, who would be only to happy to try to shape a story before the fact. Hell, they try to do it without the prior notice. Web 2.0 aside, there are lots of reasons not to telegraph your punches.
Add to that the internal morale issues it raises:
"We just fired half of your coworkers, so the rest of you should be grateful and even more dedicated! There will, of course, be no raises this year. And we will be sharing your stories with readers and sources before the fact. Now get out there and do some fine journalism!"
Not that anything newspapers can do at this point will change anything. It is all deck chairs on the Titanic now. But even so, previewing stories is about as tone deaf as running car dealership ads on the front page.
Sorry for the balance. Cue the accusatory "fanboy" responses in 3, 2, 1 ...
-DH
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Maybe so, but just because it isn't, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it so. excuse my overuse of negative contractions
Comment systems help to encourage the sharing of stances on issues, as well as independent bloggers sharing their views on issues; not just "the big three" perspectives (FOX, CNN, MSNBC).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The news
[ link to this | view in thread ]
People are stupid, that is the problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This place is not one-dimensional... there is a comment system the reader gets many more than one view on the issue. Exemplary commenters link to other sites that talk about the topic, thus giving more sides to an issue; in this case, newspapers. Your comment itself validated my point. You come from experience with newspapers and give your input. I learn from that. Thus, this is not a noe-dimensional site as you claim.
Or, what you are saying (could be missing the point though) is that people come here and only here, are Republican, and the bloggers have their heads up their asses.
I would venture to say that none of these things are true.
Hey, there's always cnet if TD isn't to your liking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There's nothing like starting off a comment by ensuring you won't be heard by those you're trying to convince, is there? Did you attend the Dick Cheney school of debate, or what? Don't insult, just convince.
"But to actually test out stories before the fact is pretty boneheaded on a number of fronts. First, it gives away any informational competitive advantage the paper may have on a story. You never know where those focus group people may work. And in the age of Twitter, etc., a story can get out pretty quickly."
Why? What are the chances that someone in the focus group run by the Tribune is going to work for the Sun Times? Or the Herald? And what is Twitter going to do to harm the story? When you accept that you are not in the business of selling facts, and instead sell something worthwhile, like the analysis, or the community, then the story leaking isn't a bad thing, it's a GOOD thing. You should be ATTEMPTING to get a Twitter message along the lines of "Did you see that story in the Tribune? They said blah blah blah". How does that do anything other than sell newspapers?
"Add to that the internal morale issues it raises"
That's the journalists problem, not the consumers. If the so-called journalists would stop seeing themselves as the dispensers of information, we wouldn't have this problem. They were overpaid for a very, very long time and now your seeing the industry shrink. Cry me a river, it happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Excellent point. QFT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An example of what went wrong.
Business class a class half way between luxury and cattle car consisted of some 15 to 20 seats.
All seats are filled. I am to only non journalist.
A composite story was written by the collective news hoard that projected what they conceive the Eastern European situation would be in the upcoming week including a Soviet tank division on the Yugosalvia border.
Buying the national and international publications the following week I was amassed to find that the stories were exactly what I had observed in the composition stage.
Now you do not know if that story is true or not. You was not there but I was and I know it is true.
So the question is after being presented with numerous such events and actions by the press which I know are true why should I believe anything they have to say?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As opposed to changing/adjusting/modifying the story based on their bullshit agenda? When are people going to understand that thoughtful analysis and a reporting of the facts died long ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then they should accept their death with dignity, instead of trying to rip apart foundations which have evolved from this model or trying to get consumers to delay the inevitable with marked-up costs with no return on value.
The newspaper industry isn't the only one, either.
"News" is no longer news. It's fear-mongering, celebrity style reporting. Yes, this is apparent even in newspapers.
My local "newspaper" wrote up a series of reports based on the changes my community is going through. The write-ups seemed more about pushing the agendas for investors rather than newsworthy items relating to the needs of the community. It's just a good thing I didn't have to pay for this crap (funded by ads).
Going from this, I'm often dumbfounded when Techdirt uses the New York Times as "reference" material when posting its own blogs. This once preferred source of "news" has turned into biased-shilling garbage, more times hiding facts rather than report them.
What I see today is a shift in using blogs as news items, rather than newspapers. For example, the recent swine flu news. Blogs have (correctly) stated the common flu has killed more people than this swine flu all the while newspapers feed on the fear mongering to sell their crap.
If a message was asked to me if a newspaper should run a story on the swine flu, I would say "no". This has been covered so much, it's rather hard not to find a source of this "news" anywhere.
I find myself staying away from typical news outlets anymore. It can't be helped as they killed themselves off with idiotic coverage. When the "chase" scene from the O.J. Simpson fiasco was broadcast on every damn channel, that was enough for me.
Good luck with your blog. Let's hope you stick with what made newspapers years ago worth the price of purchase and not the "media sensation" idiocy just to get viewers to your site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: People are stupid, that is the problem
The majority of newsreaders aren't going to vote that they'd rather read about legislation, government budgets, zoning issues, insider trading, the direction of industry, "boring" environmental issues, and so on.
They're going to vote instead for stories about already-dogged celebrities, litters of new puppies, and other useless space filler.
It's all well and good to be a screaming populist, but think of the wealth of information you stand to lose if it all comes down to a text-message vote among the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: People are stupid, that is the problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta testing articles
Techdirt - Swedish Newspaper Has Tremendous Success 'Beta Testing' Article On The Pirate Bay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@David Hobby
On the other hand, filtered RSS readers are stomping newspapers because no one has to read shit to get to the good stuff, and much of the content comes from douchebags rewording stuff on the businesswire or other articles that were published first. That's not adding value, and I welcome the demise of anyone who tries to make a business model of out that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: People are stupid, that is the problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: People are stupid, that is the problem
No, Fox News is determined by it's audience. Its audience is determined by the political agenda of its editorial and management team.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let the public provide the opinion; just provide the facts and all of the facts that you have access to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think you missed something
To address some of the things posted on here, I agree that asking a readership what they want is like assuming that the current Billboard Top 40 is a reflection of what people SHOULD be listening to rather than what they PREFER to listen to. The RedEye is a prime example of this: Fluffy stories mostly about nightlife, the hot celebrity, the Cubs, the hot neighborhoods and maybe, MAYBE, the current hot topic on all other news outlets. Most media outlets have become sensationalist entertainment channels, rather than giving the cold, hard facts and letting everyone make their own opinion. Crap like Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room" add drama to things that already, inherently have drama, or blow things up more than they need to because CNN needs the ratings to keep their advertisers happy.
People need to stop expecting everything to entertain them. News should just be facts. This is what happens, this is what we know. Period. No blazing intro text that brands a news segment or series (ie: DECISION '08, AMERICA UNDER ATTACK, etc.).
Finding out what your readers want is great, IF you're readers actually cared about anything outside of their small sphere of existence. We're too comfortable to care about what is really going on in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe. Who cares what Blackwater does? Why should I spend any energy reading about some conflict in Darfour? How does that affect me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think you missed something
Secondly, I have a problem w/the idea that there is something people SHOULD be reading. Who gets to make that distinction? You? Me? The Government? People should read whatever the hell they want to read and if they are uninformed as the result, they should suffer the consequences of being uninformed.
Yes the news media today fans the flames wherever they can in order to gain viewers. They are in the business of MAKING news, not reporting it, which is a shame. But it's on you and me to recognize what it is and not be taken in.
Chi-Town love.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some concerns seemed legit
I would say that's bad for journalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes, and we definitely don't want that, now do we? I'd much rather get my news when you're good and ready to give it instead of while it's actually happening.
/sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @David Hobby
Yet, here you are.
(it's easy to get attention when you're just bitching about everything everyone else is doing).
There are many posts on people who (finally?) get something right. Just because the applicable industries get things wrong more often than they get them right doesn't reflect poorly on TechDirt.
Have a wicked decent day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @David Hobby
TD gets what is now wrong with newspapers, but often lumps it in with the knee-jerk assumption that just because a newspaper does something it is wrong. They trot out the occasional "hey, they got something right" posts, but that is generally the exception.
Newspapers were an outstanding business model for many generations, but got leapfrogged by technology. Yes, there will still be journalism after papers. But there will be less in-depth coverage on important issues -- especially local issues that are not covered by national media.
Just because the web is more efficient does not necessarily make it better in all cases. And frankly, if you can make a lot of money cranking out snarky posts about why newspapers are dinosaurs, why should you bother to spend six months investigating hormone and antibiotic levels in the drinking water around the local chicken farm?
I make my living from -- and value -- the niche-oriented, instantaneous info model of the web. But I was also deeply involved in the newspaper model, and know just how much this new efficiency is going to cost us.
I believe in the power of the web, blogs, Twitter, Google, etc. But I sometimes feel compelled to add a little balance to widely read posts about the newspaper model which are written by people who likely never worked at any newspaper of substance and may not have ever even subscribed to one.
Not a big fan of absolute dogma from either side. I am more like one of those political moderates who would be as unwelcome at a Howard Dean fundraising dinner as at a racist-taunt-yelling Sarah Palin rally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hobby
I also follow the publishing industry and have been reading Romenesko even longer than TD. I think they have a good handle on why the old media is failing. Some of it does have to do with an outdated business model and a plethora of other news/entertainment/etc. options. However, I also have gotten a strong sense of being 'above it all' and being 'better than our readers.'
Romenesko's Journalism Education program is a great start at reversing the previously mentioned limitations of old school journalism. http://www.poynter.org/
The old newspaper industry is at odds with crowd-sourced journalism. While not necessarily good at the Deepthroat style of reporting, the masses are (mostly) capable of reporting events as they happen with a reasonable level of accuracy.
I'm confused/amused that you would compare TD to Fox and label anyone who disagrees with you as a 'fanboy.' As best I can noodle out, you don't like extremes of opinion (although you seem to be happy with your own). I realize that the unmoderated opinions of other readers can bypass your normal filters. This may happen should you scroll down below the article summary. If this scares you enough that you make knee jerk assumptions about the readership then I suggest reading another site or not scrolling down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @David Hobby
So the purpose of newspapers is to make sure people have to read shit before they can get to the good stuff? No wonder they're struggling!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I asked a journalist
My background is in social science, so my perspective is that while it would certainly benefit newspapers to have a better picture of what their readers want, it would be very difficult to craft a survey that could really tell you that. The difficulty would be in determining what they want to read, without asking what they want to read about.
I think this is a subtle, but important distinction.
If you ask people what they want to read, you get a sense of direction for your paper. Do the readers want a paper that uncovers complicated and intriguing stories, one that has fun-to-read articles, or one that just keeps them abreast of local happenings. Do they want all three?
I think when you start asking about specific content, you really don't need an editor, or a paper anymore.
Admittedly, its a model i would like to see tried out, but i don't think its one that's necessarily good for the industry as a whole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To say it is all doomed is entirely short sighted, especially so considering this viewpoint with which I clash came from a fellow newspaper journalism practitioner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This being the Fox News of Web 2.0
VRP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
final answer
A. It is scary that the marketing dept was involved.
B. The protested surveys were okay because they were
done after completion of all story research
and fact-checking.
C. The protested surveys were okay because they were
done before completion of all story research
and fact-checking.
D. The timing of the surveys, relative to completion
of all atory research and fact-checking, was --
at best -- obfuscated.
X E. A and D
My answer = E.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
men of devorice
[ link to this | view in thread ]