Readers want to know what they're getting. If you are a writer promising them news, well then, the information that you deliver had better be accurate, complete and fresh to your audience. That's how you build credibility and, over time, audience loyalty.
One of the ways that the journalism industry has tried over the past few decades to reassure the public that its information is accurate is by restricting the political activity of its reporters. But does that work? Does telling reporters not to campaign, not to contribute, or even not to vote, really help build readership?
If recent trends in newspaper circulation offer evidence, the answer is "no." But it's hard to separate political restrictions on reporters from the other variables affecting people's decision whether or not to read a paper.
So, the debate continues. In the build-up to the recent Super Tuesday elections, the editor of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, John Temple, ordered his newsroom's reporters not to participate in the Colorado caucuses. (Unlike primaries, in caucuses there are not secret ballots and people must declare their preference publicly.)
"Because caucuses are party activities that involve expressing your political position in public, you should not attend them, unless you’re covering them for the Rocky," Temple wrote, in an e-mail obtained and published by the Denver weekly Westword. Temple later reversed his decision,[Disclosure: I used to work for the Rocky Mountain News, though when I edited the Rocky's website, it did not report to Temple.]
Columnist Dana Parsons of the Los Angeles Times newsrooms have restricted their reporters' political activity:
"Believe it or not, we are trying to cover these controversial social issues with objectivity. And we still have the belief that people belonging to Greenpeace, for example, shouldn't be covering the environment.
No, that doesn't mean we don't have personal opinions. It just means we're schooled that you can have an opinion and still report both sides fairly.
And if being a party activist suggests you can't be impartial (which it would), better not to be one."
My USC Annenberg colleague, and popular blogger, , added his view in e-mail to me, coming down on the side of allowing some activity, provided that it is disclosed to readers:
"There is no set formula. My personal view is one of common sense i.e. that obvious conflicts of interest must be avoided. Someone actively involved in a campaign should not be writing about it as and objective observer unless, of course, your editor actually wants a first-person piece with a defined POV (This is common in the journals of opinion I have worked for as compared to most newspapers).
Whether or not a political affairs journalist should be allowed to make a financial contribution to a campaign is, again, a matter that is determined on an employer-by-employer basis. Some permit it. Some don't. Some won't even allow their reporters to put a partisan bumpersticker on his or her car.
Again, my personal view is that I would prefer political reporters be passionate and engaged in the process so long as they fully disclose their preferences. Their work can then be fully evaluated for its fairness. I am suspicious of political reporters who have no views. This, however, is a minority position within the profession."
My take? The winners in the Internet publishing business will be those who write with deep knowledge and committed passion for the topics that they cover. Given that few areas of life stand completely unaffected by elected government, every beat will have some political element. A journalist's job is to investigate and to report on controversies, including political ones. It's ridiculous to believe that their reporting is not going to ever lead them to conclude that certain parties' or certain candidates' positions are better for their audience than others'.
If that's the case, those journalists' reporting would be incomplete -- even misleading -- if it did not acknowledge and explain the reasons for those conclusions.
Asking journalists to remain silent on politics cheats readers by promoting the idea that a well-informed, "objective" source will have nothing to say about which candidates for elected office offer the best hope for a community. If a reporter's got nothing to say, why should anyone read him/her?
Furthermore, it's hard to rest any non-participation policy on the need for "objectivity" when there's a such a schism in America today over what "objectivity" even means.
Almost everyone working in journalism today ascribes to a post-Englightenment view of truth as deriving from empirical evidence. Collect the data, check them, test them, and we'll support the hypothesis that they support.
But there's a massive segment of the public that finds its truth not from empiricism but from creed and canon. In its most popular form in the United States, it is the belief by Christian fundamentalists that physical evidence can and is manipulated by the will of God. Therefore, mankind ought to find truth not through the transience of the physical world but through the enduring word of Scripture.
One of the ways that the journalism industry has tried over the past few decades to reassure the public that its information is accurate is by restricting the political activity of its reporters. But does that work? Does telling reporters not to campaign, not to contribute, or even not to vote, really help build readership?
If recent trends in newspaper circulation offer evidence, the answer is "no." But it's hard to separate political restrictions on reporters from the other variables affecting people's decision whether or not to read a paper.
So, the debate continues. In the build-up to the recent Super Tuesday elections, the editor of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, John Temple, ordered his newsroom's reporters not to participate in the Colorado caucuses. (Unlike primaries, in caucuses there are not secret ballots and people must declare their preference publicly.)
"Because caucuses are party activities that involve expressing your political position in public, you should not attend them, unless you’re covering them for the Rocky," Temple wrote, in an e-mail obtained and published by the Denver weekly Westword. Temple later reversed his decision,[Disclosure: I used to work for the Rocky Mountain News, though when I edited the Rocky's website, it did not report to Temple.]
Columnist Dana Parsons of the Los Angeles Times newsrooms have restricted their reporters' political activity:
"Believe it or not, we are trying to cover these controversial social issues with objectivity. And we still have the belief that people belonging to Greenpeace, for example, shouldn't be covering the environment.
No, that doesn't mean we don't have personal opinions. It just means we're schooled that you can have an opinion and still report both sides fairly.
And if being a party activist suggests you can't be impartial (which it would), better not to be one."
My USC Annenberg colleague, and popular blogger, , added his view in e-mail to me, coming down on the side of allowing some activity, provided that it is disclosed to readers:
"There is no set formula. My personal view is one of common sense i.e. that obvious conflicts of interest must be avoided. Someone actively involved in a campaign should not be writing about it as and objective observer unless, of course, your editor actually wants a first-person piece with a defined POV (This is common in the journals of opinion I have worked for as compared to most newspapers).
Whether or not a political affairs journalist should be allowed to make a financial contribution to a campaign is, again, a matter that is determined on an employer-by-employer basis. Some permit it. Some don't. Some won't even allow their reporters to put a partisan bumpersticker on his or her car.
Again, my personal view is that I would prefer political reporters be passionate and engaged in the process so long as they fully disclose their preferences. Their work can then be fully evaluated for its fairness. I am suspicious of political reporters who have no views. This, however, is a minority position within the profession."
My take? The winners in the Internet publishing business will be those who write with deep knowledge and committed passion for the topics that they cover. Given that few areas of life stand completely unaffected by elected government, every beat will have some political element. A journalist's job is to investigate and to report on controversies, including political ones. It's ridiculous to believe that their reporting is not going to ever lead them to conclude that certain parties' or certain candidates' positions are better for their audience than others'.
If that's the case, those journalists' reporting would be incomplete -- even misleading -- if it did not acknowledge and explain the reasons for those conclusions.
Asking journalists to remain silent on politics cheats readers by promoting the idea that a well-informed, "objective" source will have nothing to say about which candidates for elected office offer the best hope for a community. If a reporter's got nothing to say, why should anyone read him/her?
Furthermore, it's hard to rest any non-participation policy on the need for "objectivity" when there's a such a schism in America today over what "objectivity" even means.
Almost everyone working in journalism today ascribes to a post-Englightenment view of truth as deriving from empirical evidence. Collect the data, check them, test them, and we'll support the hypothesis that they support.
But there's a massive segment of the public that finds its truth not from empiricism but from creed and canon. In its most popular form in the United States, it is the belief by Christian fundamentalists that physical evidence can and is manipulated by the will of God. Therefore, mankind ought to find truth not through the transience of the physical world but through the enduring word of Scripture.
The writing has been on the wall (or screen !) for some time, and it is not just Newspapers, Magazines (and all printed media) are experiencing the continuing drift to digital/online.
The only real thing that is currently preventing even faster migration is the lack of portability in displaying images and text digitally (computer size).
However with the advent of handheld devices, such as Kindle, Sony ereader, mobile phones and of course flexible epaper it REALLY is only a matter of declining time before the balance is tipped heavily in favour of digital delivery.
It is time to wake up and smell the coffee and all publishers should be devoting serious time , research, effort and resources into their digital strategy and STOP worrying (or trying to protect) the print medium.
With the advent of sites like www.issuu.com and www.yudu.com giving the ability to quickly convert printed media like Newspapers/Magazines etc) into online digital editions FREE - there is now no excuse for NOT having a digital edition presence.
From 74.192.5.204 on February 22, 2008 at 7:41 AM Morris Newspapers out of Augusta, GA
From 66.242.37.156 on February 22, 2008 at 7:50 AM While there will always be some "conglomerates" in the newspaper business, the strongest operations will be the ones locally-owned or members of small holding companies.
Newspapers -- as it's been repeatedly shown -- have the strongest local websites of any local website. Newspapers need to focus on their communities -- don't lay off editorial staff, move them to focus on the online content, not the print versions.
And, for gosh sakes, find ways to monetize your online content. There are numerous ways to do it.-- Mike DriehorstSE Michigan(former daily newspaper reporter, now in PR)
From on February 22, 2008 at 8:23 AM The Albuquerque Tribune will shut down this week, publishing its last edition on Saturday after 86 years. It's hard to imagine where this is all going. As an Internet journalist, all I care about is that the public has an active group of journalists working on its behalf as the check on government and power it's designed to be.
From 71.75.116.200 on February 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM With all due respect, I hardly think companies raking in 25-45% profits are ever going away. What will happen though is the greed-heads in charge will continue to cling to their outdated ideas of what newspapers are and continue to chip away at their print product's true assets (their people) until they reach a critical point and a cliff and fall off. At that point, the profit margins disappear, and they'll swing back to supporting their products (i.e. their people) and continue on with a new version of business as usual.
They'll all survive (consolidating into one or two big companies and a thousand little ones), but what their print products will evolve into vs. what their multi-media services will be remains the question.
From on February 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM I think that newspaper companies with the ability to deploy strong national or global topic-driven online publications will be in the best position to prosper in the long term.
Non-geographic online pubs have an advantage because they play to the 'net's strength as a global medium. They also face less competition because print and distrib. costs made national and global circulation difficult for niche topic pubs in the pre-Internet era.
Eventually, the transition of advertising from other media into online will develop to the point where a locally-focused, geographic online pub will have more than enough ad revenue to survive. But newspapers will have to survive until that point arrives. And... they will have to learn how to operate in a more competitive environment.
The chains that can use their niche topic pubs (such as Scripps with their cable nets), can buy themselves time and develop the infrastructure they need to serve the emerging local online ad markets. But companies that pursue a local-only strategy online are going to continue to suffer.
From 209.96.67.239 on February 22, 2008 at 1:07 PM The questions I'd like to see answered are these:Which American city will be the first to have no daily print newspaper at all? When will it happen?
From 144.142.21.43 on February 22, 2008 at 1:29 PM Robert ... you've GOT to be kidding. The papers with the national and global reach are the ones who are suffering the most right now and that bleeding doesn't look to stop anytime soon. You're forgetting one thing here in your equation -- advertising. Local advertisers don't care a whit about the news out of Lithuania. Unique content (read local) will be what keeps newspapers afloat and the smaller the market the better as advertisers learn they have local eyeballs on their product. Big newspapers trying to reach globally will never survive as the costs of producing the news is way too high and the readership is not there.
From on February 22, 2008 at 2:09 PM Chains are a different beast than indie shops. What I am saying is that if you have a chain, and the resulting corporate overhead, you better use that national reach to develop topical Web products that can allow you to make enough money to pay for that corporate overhead while your local markets grow to the point where they can sustain themselves in the post-print-monopoly era.
You make my point about advertisers -- local advertisers don't care about out-of-market customers. So... why not develop targeted products for niche advertisers who *do* need to appeal to people out of the market? Advertisers that papers couldn't get because they couldn't offer enough readers who cared about that firm's products in the paper's limited geographic area? Use the Web's strength as a global publishing medium. Then, when the market is there, on both the consumer and advertisers' sides, to run a high-revenue web operation, you'll still be in the game to take advantage of that.
Some indie local papers are in great shape, and providing strong models for how to run online/print news businesses. But they're not the focus here -- it's the big chain companies that seem to be having the problem.
It's interesting the the NYT and WaPo are out to a lead here -- those are two properties that have stronger national identities than local ones.
From 74.130.17.0 on February 22, 2008 at 8:52 PM I have been out of the industry and working on a Masters in Human-Computer Interaction for the last two years. When I came into the Masters program I had thought I might go back to the Journalism industry. After hearing of people I worked with being laid off and seeing how shaky things are I am heading toward software and major web sites instead. I am hoping things will stabilize soon because I still have a lot of friends working in the industry and I still believe in the principles of Journalism. It is just a scary time to be looking at jobs in Journalism.
The only real thing that is currently preventing even faster migration is the lack of portability in displaying images and text digitally (computer size).
However with the advent of handheld devices, such as Kindle, Sony ereader, mobile phones and of course flexible epaper it REALLY is only a matter of declining time before the balance is tipped heavily in favour of digital delivery.
It is time to wake up and smell the coffee and all publishers should be devoting serious time , research, effort and resources into their digital strategy and STOP worrying (or trying to protect) the print medium.
With the advent of sites like www.issuu.com and www.yudu.com giving the ability to quickly convert printed media like Newspapers/Magazines etc) into online digital editions FREE - there is now no excuse for NOT having a digital edition presence.
From 74.192.5.204 on February 22, 2008 at 7:41 AM Morris Newspapers out of Augusta, GA
From 66.242.37.156 on February 22, 2008 at 7:50 AM While there will always be some "conglomerates" in the newspaper business, the strongest operations will be the ones locally-owned or members of small holding companies.
Newspapers -- as it's been repeatedly shown -- have the strongest local websites of any local website. Newspapers need to focus on their communities -- don't lay off editorial staff, move them to focus on the online content, not the print versions.
And, for gosh sakes, find ways to monetize your online content. There are numerous ways to do it.-- Mike DriehorstSE Michigan(former daily newspaper reporter, now in PR)
From on February 22, 2008 at 8:23 AM The Albuquerque Tribune will shut down this week, publishing its last edition on Saturday after 86 years. It's hard to imagine where this is all going. As an Internet journalist, all I care about is that the public has an active group of journalists working on its behalf as the check on government and power it's designed to be.
From 71.75.116.200 on February 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM With all due respect, I hardly think companies raking in 25-45% profits are ever going away. What will happen though is the greed-heads in charge will continue to cling to their outdated ideas of what newspapers are and continue to chip away at their print product's true assets (their people) until they reach a critical point and a cliff and fall off. At that point, the profit margins disappear, and they'll swing back to supporting their products (i.e. their people) and continue on with a new version of business as usual.
They'll all survive (consolidating into one or two big companies and a thousand little ones), but what their print products will evolve into vs. what their multi-media services will be remains the question.
From on February 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM I think that newspaper companies with the ability to deploy strong national or global topic-driven online publications will be in the best position to prosper in the long term.
Non-geographic online pubs have an advantage because they play to the 'net's strength as a global medium. They also face less competition because print and distrib. costs made national and global circulation difficult for niche topic pubs in the pre-Internet era.
Eventually, the transition of advertising from other media into online will develop to the point where a locally-focused, geographic online pub will have more than enough ad revenue to survive. But newspapers will have to survive until that point arrives. And... they will have to learn how to operate in a more competitive environment.
The chains that can use their niche topic pubs (such as Scripps with their cable nets), can buy themselves time and develop the infrastructure they need to serve the emerging local online ad markets. But companies that pursue a local-only strategy online are going to continue to suffer.
From 209.96.67.239 on February 22, 2008 at 1:07 PM The questions I'd like to see answered are these:Which American city will be the first to have no daily print newspaper at all? When will it happen?
From 144.142.21.43 on February 22, 2008 at 1:29 PM Robert ... you've GOT to be kidding. The papers with the national and global reach are the ones who are suffering the most right now and that bleeding doesn't look to stop anytime soon. You're forgetting one thing here in your equation -- advertising. Local advertisers don't care a whit about the news out of Lithuania. Unique content (read local) will be what keeps newspapers afloat and the smaller the market the better as advertisers learn they have local eyeballs on their product. Big newspapers trying to reach globally will never survive as the costs of producing the news is way too high and the readership is not there.
From on February 22, 2008 at 2:09 PM Chains are a different beast than indie shops. What I am saying is that if you have a chain, and the resulting corporate overhead, you better use that national reach to develop topical Web products that can allow you to make enough money to pay for that corporate overhead while your local markets grow to the point where they can sustain themselves in the post-print-monopoly era.
You make my point about advertisers -- local advertisers don't care about out-of-market customers. So... why not develop targeted products for niche advertisers who *do* need to appeal to people out of the market? Advertisers that papers couldn't get because they couldn't offer enough readers who cared about that firm's products in the paper's limited geographic area? Use the Web's strength as a global publishing medium. Then, when the market is there, on both the consumer and advertisers' sides, to run a high-revenue web operation, you'll still be in the game to take advantage of that.
Some indie local papers are in great shape, and providing strong models for how to run online/print news businesses. But they're not the focus here -- it's the big chain companies that seem to be having the problem.
It's interesting the the NYT and WaPo are out to a lead here -- those are two properties that have stronger national identities than local ones.
From 74.130.17.0 on February 22, 2008 at 8:52 PM I have been out of the industry and working on a Masters in Human-Computer Interaction for the last two years. When I came into the Masters program I had thought I might go back to the Journalism industry. After hearing of people I worked with being laid off and seeing how shaky things are I am heading toward software and major web sites instead. I am hoping things will stabilize soon because I still have a lot of friends working in the industry and I still believe in the principles of Journalism. It is just a scary time to be looking at jobs in Journalism.