-
#1: editorial workforce. If adding journalists has proven unable to reverse the trend in reader depletion, in any given market, the more numerous the journalists are, the better the newspaper industry holds. The chart below covers seven countries, with two superimposed data sets. First, in blue, the number of journalists per 100,000 daily copies sold; second, in red, paid circulation per 1000 inhabitants.
-
A welcome departure from fear-based journalism, these hyperlocal sections are looking for inspiring human interest stories about ordinary people positively affecting our neighborhoods and communities, like news of a recent block party in honor of a retiring postman. Hargro agrees: "I don't want you to be scared. I want you to be informed and empowered."
Since major events can now become "old news" within hours, it's of utmost importance for journalists to stay on top of breaking news via social networks, news feeds, and email alerts; explore personal slants to straight news stories; and look for offbeat stories that's directly relevant or indirectly relatable to readers' lives. But that's not all.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Dim Sum Digital 
Here’s a few pointers in addition to what you wrote there Sarah:
Since your colleague at the Guardian, Nick Davies, is quite knowledgable about the declining quality and sales across many rags and mags perhaps you should consult him on how to blog an extensive write-up on reversing the trend of steadily-more-awful churnalist rubbish?
One thing I’ve experience with myself is getting out there and finding stories out and about. I don’t mean in the pub with the regulars either. Old school journalism is so uncommon nowadays that you could have a week’s worth of any major rag and come across a handful of these individually garnered tales. Yeah they aren’t often great stories, but any hack worth his salt can put together some anecdotes, and even do quick interviews – a lot in the trade would be surprised what good manners and a press card can do.
Stop the constant vigil of the AP wire; sitting there waiting for something to pop up that you can convert to fill columns is the most soul-destroying practice any person in this trade can do. For the youngsters it means all that interesting stuff learnt at uni goes out the window and is replaced by grinding, repetitive and soul-destroying work. For the more experienced it is often a waste of talent; but as their own laziness is partly to blame I reckon it’ll take considerable tightening of the financial noose around collective throats till they pull the finger out.
Lastly, actually communicate with readers. A lad I know has been writing polite, courteous e-mails and ideas to the Guardian and Times for months. None get a reply, and when he got frustrated with the unresponsiveness he called Graun newsdesk. A polite, firm fobbing off followed – and no you can’t speak to the subeditor as he’s busy, sorry!
Sometimes stories can just walk right at you, rather than needing to be found. Pity the cannibalizing, pigheaded journos can’t grasp this and regularly turn away stories that arrive via e-mail or phone or even people who show up at offices ready to talk.
Oh and that ‘hyperlocal’ thing isn’t even new; it’s what the local press did do back in the day. Also the term itself is about as adhesive to my brain as county cricket overs when stone sober.
LikeLike
Hi Peter, thanks for your comments. There’s some interesting points there although I feel I should point out that I haven’t written any of the items you are commenting on. As the title points out, these are links to others blogs, things of interest I wanted to share.
LikeLike
I’m intrigued by the statement in the piece about ‘old news’ that,
“Since major events can now become “old news” within hours, it’s of utmost importance for journalists to stay on top of breaking news via social networks, news feeds, and email alerts”
While I agree these can be excellent sources of information for journalists, I disagree with the ‘old news’ comment. The point I’d make is: who cares? In a world where information can be revealed on, say, Twitter before anywhere else, surely the old obsession with when a story first broke or who can be the first to break a story is now a bit redundant.
I used to work for Sky writing those much-mocked breaking news straps which appear on the bottom of the screen. As such, I was under huge pressure to put my strap on the screen before those of the BBC, ITN or whoever, even if there were just seconds in it. I always wondered whether this was because there was some mythical viewer sat at home watching all three channels just to see which ‘broke’ the news first. I soon realised that the only people who watch all the channels at the same time are the senior executives of the news companies, and as such the desire to ‘break’ a story first was basically so they could get one over on their rival news executives.
Deciding not to bother with a story because the subject is even just a few hours ‘old’ seems like a dubious argument to me. My impression is that journalists, influenced by the culture of newsrooms, often get bored of stories faster than readers, listeners or viewers. Perhaps journalists mistakenly believe that people read, listen or watch every single article or report they produce, as well as those produced by rival news companies, and therefore think that covering a similar topic again soon afterwards will be a turn-off. Personally, I don’t believe very many people consume media in that way.
Even if our journalistic instinct tells us a story might be ‘old’ or that we did something too similar recently, I don’t think that’s really a good enough reason not to do the story. Readers, listeners and viewers don’t care.
LikeLike
At risk of moving into journo cliche 😉 it remains true that ‘it’s not old till it’s told’! and this more so with such a host of outlets. Also anyone with a blog knows that ‘old’ material proves to be valid to new readers all the time. I was reading something earlier which had been flagged up via a blog and was three years old. The information there was still relevant, it was new to me. Problem? No. Access and context made it important.
LikeLike
I made the assumption you wanted additions and comment on the things linked/quoted. Sort of like the popular tech site Slashdot.org, whose submitters commonly debate comments on the things they linked to in a story.
One thing I’ve done in the past are stories on important modern history. I did a piece on the advent of containerization in urban docklands, and how that affected hundreds of thousands up and down England’s coastal cities proper. It’s easy to find people, usually older blokes in their late 50s/60s who recall the change going on and all the lay offs. Then you do a bit of research; nip to a museum or (god-forbid) read some of an ebook.
Bit better than ‘pedophile injects heroin in hospital’ or the perennial ‘staff horror as man robs (shop)’ isn’t it? But then again, crime or scare stories are cheap and easy. So is rambling sports analysis, astrology and games pages – surprise surprise all these feature heavily in today’s local and national press.
They have for generations; but go to a big library and dig up a few circa 1970 issues of your favourite regional paper. You don’t have to be nostalgic to realize why circulations were healthier back then. Content is king; and it is this fact that hacks can’t seem to grasp as they churn out more of the same trash day on day, week on week.
LikeLike
Of course comments are most welcome, I just thought I should correct your opening statement.
There’s a lot to agree with in your analysis although it does seem to contain a lot of generalisations about what journalists do – or rather, don’t, do. As for the change in regional papers, noone could deny that those great powerhouses of news (I’m thinking Express&Star, YorkshirePost, P&J, MEN, Northern Echo et al), some of which I’ve worked on in the past, don’t hold the position in society that they used to. Not all of that can be laid at the door of journalism (or journalists) though – even the way people communicate and how they identify themselves has completely changed from the days of the ‘miners’ bible’ or the ‘friend popping in’ of newspapers.
LikeLike
You are correct; my comment was extremely general in tone. There are exceptions to this in the form of competant old schoolers, a couple of which I’ve had the luck to meet and talk to over the years. Also the tendency isn’t completely eradicated amongst a few younger hacks; the occasional fresh graduate will emerge with his 2.1 and an attitude all his/her own with how to do journalism. An attitude that often partly approximates to how a past adept did the job.
Those types are often on the freelance circuit but are also sometimes under fixed employment if there’s a permissive editor who likes to augment a paper with quality investigation alongside the usual quantitative stuff. I agree with Richard about time; there isn’t a rush for news – and when people rush under stress they make mistakes and produce subpar work.
But – you probably know all this already Sarah. Point is is that there’s still quality out there, but rarely is it on the first few pages of any paper. As a people we haven’t changed too much character-wise since say…1960, but the continued decrease in physical labour has led to moderation in temperaments. Lifestyle, yeah we surround ourselves with gadgetry and websites plus are richer than 50 years back; but despite this people still love books, ebooks, and good magazines and will buy them if they deem them quality and worthwhile:
Eg. Private-Eye bucked the trend for circulation loss, simply for being what it is in these rich, satire-prone times; a mag of good content, unique stories, quirkiness etc.
LikeLike