On line "news" vs. Journalism

[alfablue]

I'm kind of distressed to not find any really decent articles about either the local college F-ball game or the local pro F-ball game. While I'm in Michigan, it does not really matter the teams.

Our local paper recently disentegrated into what's called annarbor.com, which I personally can't stand- first of all, the format of the web page is streaming thought- so if some article comes in about man hole covers after some huge breaking news, the man hole covers gets put on top automatically. To me, this is incredibly lazy journalism, since there zero editing or formatting- it's just blogging.

My recent second problem is complete lack of depth in the articles. For both the Free Press and annarbor.com, the articles about UM's and the Lions's games were horrible- a couple of paragraphs about something pretending to actually cover the event. OR a few more paragraph from editorialists who think their opinions matter the most. Actual coverage is sinking to garbage. On top of that, the effort it takes to get those handful of paragraphs is rather high.

I much preferred the Ann Arbor News, where front page of each section had the full coverage of a given event, important ones in the front, secondary next, and fluff in the back.

I don't really know where to turn to get decent local coverage of local events.

And this isn't even including the fact that I HATE reading news on the web- sifting through 3 or more pages of crappy ad loads is unacceptable. I'd much rather read it in print.

Anyway, I'll rant about what I hate in the rant page- any suggestions on decent news sites where it's more coverage than opinion?

Thanks.

[Kepler]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I think you're overestimating the quality of sports journalism prior to the internet.

[moe24]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I wish you luck on your quest. But I doubt you have much hope of finding anything, regardless of the medium, that passes as being quality.

[thebrain]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I'm kind of distressed to not find any really decent articles about either the local college F-ball game or the local pro F-ball game. While I'm in Michigan, it does not really matter the teams.

Our local paper recently disentegrated into what's called annarbor.com, which I personally can't stand- first of all, the format of the web page is streaming thought- so if some article comes in about man hole covers after some huge breaking news, the man hole covers gets put on top automatically. To me, this is incredibly lazy journalism, since there zero editing or formatting- it's just blogging.

My recent second problem is complete lack of depth in the articles. For both the Free Press and annarbor.com, the articles about UM's and the Lions's games were horrible- a couple of paragraphs about something pretending to actually cover the event. OR a few more paragraph from editorialists who think their opinions matter the most. Actual coverage is sinking to garbage. On top of that, the effort it takes to get those handful of paragraphs is rather high.

I much preferred the Ann Arbor News, where front page of each section had the full coverage of a given event, important ones in the front, secondary next, and fluff in the back.

I don't really know where to turn to get decent local coverage of local events.

And this isn't even including the fact that I HATE reading news on the web- sifting through 3 or more pages of crappy ad loads is unacceptable. I'd much rather read it in print.

Anyway, I'll rant about what I hate in the rant page- any suggestions on decent news sites where it's more coverage than opinion?

Thanks.

I work in the media business. I don't work for a newspaper, I'm on the TV side. My dad's worked at the St. Paul Pioneer Press(Minnesota) for over thirty years. Things are not well in the media news business. You're actually the opposite of what they think everybody wants.

Everybody wants to read the news online, when they want, and most importantly, they want it free. This is not a long-term sustainable model at this rate. News organizations are going bankrupt all over the place. Newspapers are now focusing more on video for their website.

It's a scary time. A number of people are losing or have lost their jobs. News organizations are trying to get by doing things as easy and cheap as possible right now. They're using Associated Press articles rather than paying their own writers and photographers. Therefore, less coverage and in-depth articles.

I don't see reading newspaper articles for free online to be going too much longer. It's not sustainable long-term. When the news gathering organizations go out of business, what will be left? People aren't going to write articles for free.

I suggest you talk to newspaper and tell them how you feel. They need to know there are people like you still out there.

[alfablue]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I work in the media business. I don't work for a newspaper, I'm on the TV side. My dad's worked at the St. Paul Pioneer Press(Minnesota) for over thirty years. Things are not well in the media news business. You're actually the opposite of what they think everybody wants.

Everybody wants to read the news online, when they want, and most importantly, they want it free. This is not a long-term sustainable model at this rate. News organizations are going bankrupt all over the place. Newspapers are now focusing more on video for their website.

Yea, I do understand that, and for the "news" one tends to get, it's worth it for the most part. There's one local on line source that's pretty awesome, and they have a donation subscription-which seems to work for them.

It's a scary time. A number of people are losing or have lost their jobs. News organizations are trying to get by doing things as easy and cheap as possible right now. They're using Associated Press articles rather than paying their own writers and photographers. Therefore, less coverage and in-depth articles.

The problem is that they are de-contenting the paper to match the web, as opposed to offering more on print. I understand that print costs money, and I also see local print surviving on honest local coverage and businesses. They are TRYING, as opposed to cutting. If I had any journalism knowlege, I'd consider buying the name Ann Arbor News and re-starting it.

I don't see reading newspaper articles for free online to be going too much longer. It's not sustainable long-term. When the news gathering organizations go out of business, what will be left? People aren't going to write articles for free.

I suggest you talk to newspaper and tell them how you feel. They need to know there are people like you still out there.

Fully agree- many of the car magazines are doing exactly the same. Except for a couple- which are some of my favorites. The ones I like seem to try to cater to the core readership- and knowing a lot of the owners and readers, it seems to work for them.

I have contacted the paper, even told them why I'm stopping. No response, and I know others are doing exactly the same- responding, hearing nothing, and just going away.

What is bad is that we are an experiment. The annarbor.com thing was outlined in Time, talking about old papers going away, and the claim was that our community is more "web savy"- which may be true, but does not mean that we all want to read our news on a screen. I just don't see it working, and we will be left with almost nothing. We will see.

Still, what I see is a path that doesn't make sense- cut content, raise prices, and give away identical content on line. How about adding content, and just give basics on line? I seriously doubt that most readers want to read a 10 column article equivalent on line.

[thebrain]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I agree....Newspapers and other local media need to get back to being local. Finding and telling stories that you won't be able to find anywhere else. Stories of interest to people...But that cost money and with the auto industry in the toilet, they aren't making money. The Minneapolis Star Tribune tried or is trying a thing where they don't put certain Sunday big articles online until Monday. There were people that were mad about that. I agree with that move. Tease it online, Twitter, Facebook, and drive them to your print sale. Make the freeloaders(I admit, I am one) wait...

[blockski]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

Everybody wants to read the news online, when they want, and most importantly, they want it free. This is not a long-term sustainable model at this rate. News organizations are going bankrupt all over the place. Newspapers are now focusing more on video for their website.

The thing is, people always get their news for 'free.' The cost of a newspaper barely covers the raw inputs for newsprint and ink. Buy a paper, and you're literally buying just the paper - the content printed on the pages is then free.

The advertising is what changed. Online access means papers don't have a virtual monopoly for local coverage, thus ad revenue is spread thin.

Anyway, don't put this on consumers for wanting information and wanting it cheap.

[The Rube]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I agree....Newspapers and other local media need to get back to being local. Finding and telling stories that you won't be able to find anywhere else. Stories of interest to people...But that cost money and with the auto industry in the toilet, they aren't making money. The Minneapolis Star Tribune tried or is trying a thing where they don't put certain Sunday big articles online until Monday. There were people that were mad about that. I agree with that move. Tease it online, Twitter, Facebook, and drive them to your print sale. Make the freeloaders(I admit, I am one) wait...

Bolded: This is why I hate newspapers like USA Today. For all the stories they have, it's basically a bunch of headlines with a short blurb. Gives me almost no info.

For the local papers, as in the Star Trib, Chicago Trib, etc, give me local and maybe regional. National stuff I can read anywhere, and most likely for free.

This may end up as the result of all this online stuff, and many papers will go broke. Hopefully, new papers will spring up; ones that have adapted or go into the "new media market" with a modern attitude towards coverage of the news.

Heck, everyone knows about Kanye, Swayze, etc already. Less people know about the MN cops killed in the past week. Or that some local city is passing whatever ordinance/law that could affect a lot of people. Or that some accident that killed 5 people because of (insert ridiculous stupid reason).

Yeah, thanks to more national coverage in local papers, do you really know which one(s) is/are a true story/ies if you live in the Mpls/St Paul metro area?

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I've been tempted to start a website to follow local San Diego sports, using the numerous contacts out there to keep people informed about the games around SD County that the UT does a terrible job of following.

[alfablue]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

I've been tempted to start a website to follow local San Diego sports, using the numerous contacts out there to keep people informed about the games around SD County that the UT does a terrible job of following.

I'd almost be willing to bet that you could do a newsprint publication that advertisers and readers would be willing to pay for, if the information was comprehensive and interesting to read. It may be small, but good.

Although, sports can be better on the web- like that OSU article Darkness posted a link to from rivals- had the writer included teleprompted highlights- it would have been an even more interesting analysis.

Anyway, locally- a new group of papers- called Heritige something- started covering local ONLY- not even the college scene, except for editorials so far. It's actually an amazing amount of material within 3 smaller cities of JUST High Schools stuff. There's more than enough content out there to support what you want to do.

Again, that's where I saw the AAnews fall apart- local coverage got cut out completely, and the "national" (UM, Detroit stuff) got cut back. Terrible.

IMHO, people will learn to deal with the less content on line. Here's what I sort of, kind of, think- there's the population that wants everything, full coverage, etc- totally for free, since the interenet is free- These people will never, ever be happy, so there's no real point in trying. Then there are the people who just read the headlines- with reduced content web, they would be happy enough. Finally, there are the people who like to read real stories- the ones that actually subscribe to papers, and sometimes take them to a park with a thermos of coffee to spend a few hours in the sun reading them. That group of people are the ones to cater to.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

You all fell for the sucker-play that is the title of this thread:

On line "news" v. journalism?

There is no more "journalism". It's all become "advocacy reports".

[moe24]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

How about adding content, and just give basics on line? I seriously doubt that most readers want to read a 10 column article equivalent on line.

Back when I used to do some sport writing for one of the scout.com sites the rule we were held to was 500 words or less for a typical article and 1000 words or less for a feature story. That is relatively short for an in-depth story. The reason we were told was that people who want to read long, in-depth, story still want to read it in print, and those who only read online stories don't want to read anything long to begin with.

[alfablue]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

Back when I used to do some sport writing for one of the scout.com sites the rule we were held to was 500 words or less for a typical article and 1000 words or less for a feature story. That is relatively short for an in-depth story. The reason we were told was that people who want to read long, in-depth, story still want to read it in print, and those who only read online stories don't want to read anything long to begin with.

Which makes total sense. But instead of catering to those willing to pay for the long articles, they are catering to the web readers who just want the basics.

I'll pay for a paper that has good content and articles- don't replicate the web articles on paper- that's a waste of time. And mostly what they are doing.

I see this in the main stream auto magazines, too- Car and Driver, Road & Track- they are mostly brief articles about cars, or bad comparison articles. Almost nothing with meat. OTOH, the magazines that I really like- Grassroots Motorsports, Classic Motorsports (both done by Motorsports Marketing), and Vintage Racecar Journal- they have a lot of in depth coverage in the magazine that few will read on line, since they are so long. And I know the readers of GRM and CM are very passionate about the magazine.

It's almost as if the main stream owners are taking the easy way out vs. forcing a split between the readers and the READERS. Yes, subscriptions will go down- which helps in printing costs, but the readers are more attentive. If you can belive it, when I read GRM and CM, I actually read the ads, since they are VERY well placed WRT the articles- much more value for the sponsors.

[joecct]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

Journalism matures over time to new forms.

This used to be the obit page:

******* width="425" height="344">****** name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/grbSQ6O6kbs&hl=en&fs=1&">****** name="allowFullScreen" value="true">****** name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">****** src="http://www.youtube.com/v/grbSQ6O6kbs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

[blockski]

Re: On line "news" vs. Journalism

IMHO, people will learn to deal with the less content on line. Here's what I sort of, kind of, think- there's the population that wants everything, full coverage, etc- totally for free, since the interenet is free- These people will never, ever be happy, so there's no real point in trying. Then there are the people who just read the headlines- with reduced content web, they would be happy enough. Finally, there are the people who like to read real stories- the ones that actually subscribe to papers, and sometimes take them to a park with a thermos of coffee to spend a few hours in the sun reading them. That group of people are the ones to cater to.

Again, people who want news 'free' aren't the issue.

The newspaper model will never come back, and it's not because people can get their news for free. It's because the economic model doesn't work.

Newspapers used to enjoy a virtual monopoly on all local news. They were raking in money hand over fist. What the internet changed wasn't the fact that content was now 'free' (they've always been giving the content away for free - the subscription prices barely covered the cost of the paper and ink), but that every paper was now competing with some news source out on the web.

Someone in Ann Arbor googles about a news story, and they'll get a link to the Billings Gazette instead of the Ann Arbor News.

You'll never be able to cater to the coffee-drinking news readers on a daily basis. Again, they were never paying full price for that news in the first place. You can make that work on a magazine-type model, but not daily news.

And I completely disagree on your assertion that people want long stuff in print. Sure, some do - but there's plenty of online, in depth analysis out there if you know where to look. You want Michigan coverage? Check out MGoBlog. Tell me when the last time you saw this level of analysis in any daily newspaper - ever.

Anyway, this is all a rambling way to say that news consumers aren't to blame. The structure of the news economy has changed, newspapers don't have monopolies anymore.