Slashdot Mirror
Chicago Tribune Reporters Don't Want Readers' Pre-Approval
theodp writes "Irked by the Marketing department's solicitation of subscribers' opinions on stories before they were published, 55 reporters and editors at the Chicago Tribune signed an e-mail demanding the practice be stopped. 'It is a fundamental principle of journalism that we do not give people outside the newspaper the option of deciding whether or not we should publish a story, whether they be advertisers, politicians or just regular readers,' the e-mail read."
Hey, I didn't approve this story, why was it released?
WTF do they think a newspaper is for? The minute you try to "democratize" is, politicians and PR types will try to game the system to make sure that only stories beneficial to them will get published.
I piss off bigots.
I read it the other way. Basically, if we just follow what the majority want, then many stories that appeal to minority groups will be snuffed out. I can't speak for this newspaper, as I have never read it. If they are already just trying to provide sensational titles, with very little actual content, then sure, they don't care about the stories and are just about lining their wallets.
They're not selling the newspaper, they're selling ad space. The paper isn't the product, you're the product.
Why should the reporters care what you think of their stories? They're here to report, not to butter you up.
If I want news report that aims to please the masses, I'll go watch Fox News.
"In other words, the reporters don't care what the readers think of their stories."
The readers indicate their care by either purchasing or not purchasing the newspaper.
In other words, the reporters don't care what the readers think of their stories. As long as they get to over-hype whatever story they want (a brown nose Obama story, or a effusive global warming rant), they don't care if nobody wants to buy the paper.
I read it as the reporters wanting to publish news, rather that was fits best with the marketing.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The Tribune's expose on Anonymous will not be published, after receiving 50 billion no votes.
Or perhaps they have things to say that people don't necessarily want to hear or believe.
And I read it as the reporters using the idea that you just said to accomplish what the parent suspects. They're smart enough to know that that is a very real drawback to the plan, but they ought to be smart enough to take the feedback and do something with it.
It might be a case of readers collectively wanting to suppress something, but it might also be a case of readers wanting information about something else and wanting resources to be freed to get that information.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
This "review" process is already taking place -- it's why subscriptions are falling off a cliff. The product is crap, the readers know it's crap, which is why they're not buying it. Solution: Stop printing crap.
Clearly, their feedback mechanism has gotten seriously out of tune. I think also that they recognize this, and that the idea of allowing direct reader feedback on stories in the queue was born out of some desperation to correct their editorial priorities.
Here's a hint: Try to keep ideology at bay, and follow the facts wherever they take you. Yes, it's often uncomfortable. I imagine Woodward and Bernstein had many sleepless nights. Yet we are the better for their work. Emulate that. Oh, and spike any "story" about Paris Hilton.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
No, it's not just having your readers decide the content. It's a stupid marketing idea from people who don't understand the Internet.
Let's say there is some public corruption by a popular political figure. Should an organized group of partisan poll voters be able to spike the story just because they don't want to hear something bad?
If you remember the purpose of newspapers, and journalists generally is to "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" you'll understand why you really don't want readers to be able to choose which stories get published any more than you want some multi-national corporation that owns the media outlet to squash a story that shows one of its cronies in a bad light.
Can we agree that not all "Social Network" ideas are worthwhile just because they happen to involve the Internet?
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you remember the purpose of newspapers, and journalists generally is to "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"
Goodness, you have a long memory! For as long as I can remember, the purpose of newspapers has been "Make as much money as you can, by any means you can get away with".
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
You, sir, are an idiot.
What a democratically decided newspaper would put on the front page today (via Yahoo search traffic):
Swine Flu
Christina Applegate
American Idol
Kristie Alley
Jon and Kate Plus Eight
Sarah Jessica Parker
Twitter
Hi-5
Lady Gaga
NBA
Source: http://buzzlog.buzz.yahoo.com/overall/
Three observations:
1) There are media outlets that cover pretty much exactly this list. Good for them. I don't read those and never will. I question their contribution to democracy.
2) I get news from a variety of social media filters, and almost none of the information I get from these very useful selection processes are from this list (the flu outbreak is the exception). That's not to say that my information is better than yours - just that it's what I happen to want.
3) Therefore: A more useful "democracy" strategy might be to help readers select from the vast array of information coming out of organizations like the Tribune and put that on the "front page" akin to Amazon's personalized homepage metrics.
As a journalist, I will say that allowing anyone outside the organization to spike a story pre-publication opens to the door wide open to self-censorship. Critical journalism requires independence, or it becomes PR. Critical journalism is rare enough as it is without this.
I once worked for the Dallas Observer, a largely editorial news weekly rag. The music editor wrote an opinion piece that stated things largely as he saw them. It insulted, in some way, one of the paper's advertisers. The music editor lost his job as the advertiser would accept nothing less.
This is a true tragedy in the world of journalism. The editorial and sales sides are always at odds with one another, but I have never seen editorial win... not ever.
To their credit, the journalists at that paper truly work in the spirit that the press is supposed to work under. I have witnessed the animosity first-hand. But too often, money wins.
That's the goal of the owners and marketers. I suspect most reporters hold with the older ideals. And take a look at who implemented this idea, and who spoke out against it...
For as long as I can remember, the purpose of newspapers has been "Make as much money as you can, by any means you can get away with".
There was a period before that, when the purpose of any newspaper was to advocate a political agenda. Every party or movement had its own newspaper, and they were quite up front about where they were coming from.
This idea of the "impartial" journalist was mostly a 20th-century affectation.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."