In shocking news today a journalist had opinions about the state of the industry.
Look Who’s Talking
What a nerve.
I qualified as a journalist last year and yet have the temerity to offer views on how the industry can be saved, or at least improved.
Before people start quoting Monty Python at me: “He’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy.” Let’s clarify a few things.
This is no attempt to assert supreme authority over the issues at hand or assume the mantle of a semi-mythical saviour. It’s merely second nature to try and find solutions to any problem encountered. (And I’m also not a ‘very naughty boy’. Well, at least not every day.)
The first fix to our predicament (as discussed in the “Dark Age of Journalism” posts) may well be the introduction of more paywalls.
Perhaps the greatest mistake made by newspapers in the past, was not charging for online content at the outset. In a sense, we’ve let the genie out of the bottle and trying to entice him back in is a very tricky task.
The British public are used to a free press – and I don’t mean freedom from state control, but that it costs nothing to look at the websites.
With the rise of the Internet, people stopped buying print newspapers and paying for a lot of things (music, films, art, etc) has almost become a thing of the past.
That is not economically sustainable and no less an authority than Rupert Murdoch addressed this issue back in July 2010 with a paywall for the Times and Sunday Times. Some may dislike the Australian tycoon, but when someone with his media skills and business acumen starts charging for content it’s time to listen.
Initially it was met with scepticism, but others have followed suit as if to prove it’s working – Daily Telegraph, New York Times, Washington Post. Murdoch also introduced a paywall for the Sun in August this year.
Those papers did experience slumps in readership when the paywalls came in, but that was to be expected. The situation was untenable before and the online content needs to be monetised. If every paper followed suit, the public would be forced to pay.
From a psychological perspective if something is free, it can be perceived as low quality. People will pay a good price if they realise it’s quality journalism. They also believe it’s good, because they paid for it.
Paywalls have been analysed and for some the jury is still out – the Media Briefing looked at how they have fared since July 2010.
They seem to be slowly working and because a world without paywalls has not been effective – it’s time to give them a go. No one else is offering better alternatives.
Ideal for Living
Only last week I was offered £60 per eight-hour freelance reporting shift for a local London paper. As I left the company building stunned at this low rate, I also noticed the car park was full of the latest models – Mercedes, Range Rovers.
No reporter expects a huge salary at the beginning of their career, but this was a freelance role with no expenses for travel. (We generally get a bit more due to flexibility, no holiday pay, no sick pay, no benefits.) The paper’s argument was that £60 is the same as the full-time junior reporter’s wage. They still don’t get the whole freelance concept.
The industry needs to think about who creates the paper – the reporters, photographers, sub-editors and editors. Of course, marketing, advertising and top executives are required to add the gloss.
But if the wage imbalance is ridiculously lopsided, it creates an environment of despair for those at the coalface.
Many quality journalists are leaving the industry as salaries plummet. This in turn may lead to newspapers suffering in terms of output, and therefore the paper (the initial product) will be harder to sell.
If the head honchos like to constantly cite economics, then so can I – journalists only ask for a reasonable living wage.
Kings and Queens
Content is king, goes the old adage, but you’d be hard pressed to believe it when looking at some of the stuff out there.
Local papers are guilty of producing some of the dullest rubbish ever seen. Sure, they’re limited in scope and have to cover nearby events, but it’s not necessary to print something like “Whitstable mum in custard shortage“.
That story was so banal it actually became a byword and book for the ridiculous state of local news. It’s noticeable that the book was generally panned for its lack of wit and sheer awfulness.
This proves that an amusing article on a bland topic is acceptable if done on very rare occasions. But if such stories become the basis for most of your paper – you have a problem.
Rather than focusing on such poor content, the editors could encourage a bit more investigative work or new ideas.
On all my stints on local papers, reporters usually sit down all day, get press releases, make a few phone calls and rewrite them. Not many are getting out of the newsroom or looking for bigger and better stories. The Internet is partly responsible for this, but it’s still vital to meet people and not remain deskbound.
Rather than rewriting six or seven mediocre stories of 150 words each, a good news item could be researched and crafted. (Those lesser stories could get less space.) A bit more quality would restore some measure of respect to what we produce.
There could be new features on local heroes (people in the community who do good), profiles of councillors (warts and all), unknown treasures (local places that are not so well known), etc.
So many ideas could be tried out. There has to be a way of bringing local news to life in the paper, not simply churning out dull factual statements that don’t merit lengthy word counts.
The Wave Machine
Our 24/7 news culture constantly attacks the senses with wave after wave of the same story. From a Peruvian coach crash to a Bangladeshi factory fire – every death is briefly reported.
They’re repeated all day which frankly lessens the emotional impact. With each dead body piling up and presented with absolute indifference by the media – the deceased become another statistic.
I have gained more sympathy and empathy as the years have rolled on, but the news hasn’t. It’s a conveyor belt of lifeless facts.
People are in danger of treating each death with the same reverence they have for a collection of video game pixels.
There is little substance to each story, a quick skim and desultory glance by the media until the next item looms over the horizon.
It’s not limited to stories of the dead. Any drama is seized upon, but fizzles out too soon and is forgotten.
The media are right to present the stories, but there is rarely any closure. Reports come in with a fanfare, but disappear without a trace.
Last month there was a major alert over Canadian sea scouts who went missing in London.
It was only today I realised that I didn’t know the outcome. I read all the papers everyday, yet the conclusion to this story had lacked the prominence the beginning had been given. Thankfully, there was a happy ending.
With the world engulfed in a series of bloody conflicts (some things never change), these are reported for the excitement and terror generated.
To be fair, some media outlets provide context to explain how the fighting began. Yet amidst the rush to inform us of the body count, some elements of the media care little for how this happened.
Good news delivery is about telling the whole story, not part of it. Give us closure and context so that events can be comprehended completely.
Damn Your Eyes!
It puzzles me how national papers are able to design something so aesthetically pleasing, yet local papers produce 1970’s-style visual abominations.
The Times or Guardian understand style and substance. Their products have elegance and clarity. They’re easy to read and navigate, and the content is exceptionally good. They update their designs to adapt to our changing world.
Sadly, local papers don’t follow suit. They may cite budgets, but there are designers and production editors in abundance who could revamp their papers for a very reasonable cost.
Local papers also make excuses that their readership is usually comprised of older people who want a traditional-looking product. That makes no sense for a number of reasons.
Old people read the nationals and have no problem with their modern design. Since when have all old people liked something antiquated and twee? No age group is restricted to one simple mindset.
What about the younger generation that the local papers need to attract for increased revenue? They need to design a product that looks good on a mobile phone or tablet.
A newspaper is for everyone and nationals have proved that a balance can be struck.
During my journalism training, we were told to write short, punchy sentences for better impact and style. How about applying those principles to the design of the actual newspaper? Be bold and brave in what you print and how you present your paper to the world.
Move On Up
In Part 2 there will be ideas on citizen journalism, moderation and more.
