Local journalist blasts KATV (Updated)
It’s being said that by the end of the next decade, more than half of the United States’ daily newspapers won’t exist in any format at all. Not print. Not e-paper. Not even a web site.
Readership is going down and ad revenue continues to fall. As print circulation starts to decline, so will the viability to publish a newspaper on a daily basis. In other words, the industry has seen better days.
What’s the cause of all this? Some say it’s our culture’s growing expectations for top-notch multimedia and interactive attributes and that most newspapers aren’t keeping up. Others argue that those things are merely pain pills for a dying industry.
While newspapers across the country are frantically looking for a quick cure in the form of creative uses of modern technology mixed with local news, it’s interesting to see a television station taking the same steps.
KATV in Little Rock has launched a new feature called “Choose Your News” that allows viewers to vote on a few choices of two-minute news stories that air on the evening news and then get published online. Hosted (and then reported) by Kristin Fisher, “Choose Your News” has embraced live video streams and even the use of a Twitter feed to communicate with its audience.
While some are calling it a fascinating “experiment” and “the ultimate in interactivity”, the idea isn’t exactly new.
The Roanoke Times’ TimesCast was the pioneer of daily, short-form newscasts. And then there’s NJ.com’s Ledger Live which is broadcast live from the Star-Ledger newsroom and features a quick take on the day’s top news, some edited video stories, and a few comments and contributions from viewers. Ledger Live is still going strong but the TimesCast called it quits last year in favor of a few niche-focused spin-offs.
Local journalist John Brummett isn’t having it:
I am so old that I remember when news professionals - trained news hounds who got called editors - beheld the contemporary landscape each day and decided with supposed professional and experience-seasoned expertise what to assign reporters to cover. We didn’t take a poll. We didn’t ask anonymous yahoos with laptops and BlackBerrys and other telephonic gadgetry to click on some icon and dictate our activities.
KATV’s Kristin Fisher responded by inviting Brummett onto her The Daily Debriefshow to discuss it. Brummett fired back with an entire column dedicated to his distaste of the whole idea calling her show “pure gimmickry” and finally saying “I need not lend my experience and credibility to draw her a crowd.”
While it’s perfectly understandable that a veteran journalist would be skeptical of the introduction of new technology and user-generated/influenced content into his profession, such a quick dismissal of KATV’s attempts to engage their audience is a sure sign of fear in a collapsing industry.
Fisher’s response is mighty good. She tears right back into Brummett with a genuine understanding that things have changed in the industry stating “If the next generation of journalists is already adopting the technology of the 21st century, then we - the trained new hounds of the world - must do the same.”
Few newspapers have focused enough attention to their online counterparts. Between faulty search tools, poorly architected design, and the dreaded just-copy-n-paste-all-our-print-stories-to-the-web format that most newspapers’ websites embrace, retrieving information from them is a chore to say the least. And it’s still just a general-interest product that is already obsolete.
KATV’s “experiment” isn’t all that innovative in terms of being the first up to bat, but it gets serious props from us here at the Flyer for at least doing something to try and engage its audience and bring some relevance back to local news. It might not be the perfect way to engage a community around a new business model but it certainly doesn’t deserve to be blasted.
And neither do you. Unless of course, you don’t mind being called an “anonymous yahoo.”
UPDATE: The Arkansas Project is reporting that John Brummett has agreed to be a guest on KATV’s “Choose Your News” Daily Debrief with Kristin Fisher on Tuesday December 9 at 6:15pm. Immediately following the segment, Brummett and Fisher will take part in a friendly debate at the Society of Professional Journalists meeting that evening.
Discussion
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
By Total Bastard on December 3rd, 2008
Brummett’s just pissed because in order to even know who the F he is, most Arkansawyers under 40 have to go to Wikipedia to find out.
She’s kinda hot in a pixie kinda way.
By jmb on December 3rd, 2008
The Newark Star-Ledger is one of the top 10 or 15 newspapers in terms of circulation numbers nationwide. I doubt they will exist in 6 months. They almost folded 2 months ago. They have cut all their reporting units to the bone and rely on anonymous wire service articles (AP, NYT) for probably 80% of their content. I am not surprised that they are having their readers make editorial decisions for the paper, since they probably axed that position already.
Reading blogs is one thing, but I *do* prefer my news served up with side dishes of authority and oversight.
By the Steve on December 3rd, 2008
Agreed jmb. In fact, a lot of blogs wouldn’t exist w/o the “news hounds” who actually go out and spend the time to cover the news.
I think the issue is the way some of the industry seems to be really slow to adopt new technology and new ideas, and Brummet’s statements are proof positive of that fact. I think if the industry is going to survive, it better at least be able to adapt a little.
By mtaylorlong on December 3rd, 2008
I totally agree with you guys that this kind of experimentation doesn’t deserve to be blasted. While it’s inevitable that news organizations are going to come up with some pretty terrible and desperate ideas in the coming years, the ideas that work will quickly come into focus, changing the news industry for the better. The Fayetteville Flyer is certainly among the clever re-thinkers of local news. As the old institutions continue to fall apart, y’all may soon find yourselves with more readers than the big papers. Keep up the good work.
By sg on December 3rd, 2008
Well, up here in KC, our newspaper has a web site! Aaaaaaand, they just started an “alternative” press, too. We’re big time.
Err. Not really. It’s simply not enough to just have a web presence anymore. In this day and age where information is available everywhere, the hounds of old will have to adjust and adopt to remain at the forefront.
Just because there’s a show that allows people to choose the news doesn’t mean there’s no need for good journalism. It just means that the news isn’t communistic anymore. We have choice. By evolving and creating a service that people read and trust, then you have the authority to report what you think people should know.
I commend Fisher and their work, that’s straight up cool.
By sofresh-n-sogay on December 3rd, 2008
i appreciate them asking for stories, since local tv news is rancid, but they need to avoid the hack, “great flippin’ question” type questions.
By Michael on December 3rd, 2008
Does anyone who bothers to take the time to read his column take Brummett seriously though? Any column now I expect him to relate a story of yelling at some kids to get off his lawn.
By Angel Lust on December 3rd, 2008
I take Brummett seriously. He writes well. Is thoughtful. And the information he provides is credible.
I don’t agree with him on this because the line between entertainment and news has long been erased. What KATV and their brethren are missing, is that, while newspapers as an information source may already be dead, television news will soon follow.
IT wasn’t long ago that I used to turn into the local news for weather updates and school closings. Not anymore. Why bother when you can get more current information on the computer sceen?
By your man on December 4th, 2008
A few observations here:
– Say all one will about the impending death of newspapers, consider that these alleged dinosaurs are the first and often the only sources from which all the other platforms get much of their content. The newspapers have beat systems, which means they have reporters assigned to certain subject areas so that they can gather frequent, detailed information about events and trends in governments, sports. arts, schools, etc. This requires a lot of staff to go out and do the reporting.
– The TV stations have a fraction of the newspapers’ professional reporting staffs and the blogs have zero. TV and the Web sites pick up the copy generated by the newspapers’ reporting staffs and use it for their own follow-ups, commentary, rants, etc. TV covers things as they happen with regard to disasters, press conferences or anything that is pre-announced or available off the police scanner. Otherwise, they rely on the newspapers’ content to follow up on new developments. You think TV reporters are sitting through those long school board meetings where they consider what to do about a new high school? No way. Same for blogmasters.
– About this large reporting staff the newspapers employ: it’s there because the papers rake in lots of advertising revenue that comes in no small amount from big-time advertisers who buy full-page ads (department stores, grocery stores, etc.) The Internet so far has no comparable way to generate that kind of ad revenue that would support a large beat reporting staff. If newspapers shrivel up before such an ad revenue model is developed, then who’s going to go out and gather all this info that keeps all the bloggers up in arms throughout the day and that keeps the TV stations with something to show at 6 p.m. besides the threat of thunderstorms?
– And about my remark there concerning “professional” reporting staffs: I know it’s en vogue today to scoff at such as so much outdated MSM stuff. But I do like the idea of having people who know a few things about libel law when they write stories and who know how to methodically put together a meaningful news report. Not to mention having editors who enforce standards that speak in something more muted than the “passionate” voice that the bloggers find enthralling. That’s fine for editorials but not for the first read. The late Roy Fisher was a long-ago editor of the Chicago Daily News (yes, now defunct) who once told a group of young journalists why their daily paper couldn’t be allowed to sound like what was known then as “underground” or “alternative” newspapers. The key, he explained, was having some built-in institutional credibility. When you are, in essence, writing for your friends, they’ll believe you no matter what you say. But when you’re writing for the public at large, they’re not going to believe anything you say unless you’ve established some reputation for impartiality and even-handedness.
– As for KATV’s choose-the-news experiment, it’s merely a sideshow that pales in significance to the issues I’ve listed above. I don’t mind that they do it as long as they’re limiting their choices between one fluffy feature versus another fluffy feature. If they start sacrificing what’s called “hard news” to this process, then we have a problem. The producer on duty will always have to balance out how many minutes are available with how many stories there are to cram in on a busy news day. I hope the producer at KATV will always have the right to overrule the choose-your-news popular vote if new events come along.
By the Steve on December 4th, 2008
Interesting. Thanks for the comment. And you’re absolutely right about your first point. Like I said in my comment above, newspapers have been extremely important to other outlets for providing content. Bloggers, TV reporters, and the like can not and will never be able to provide that type of in-depth coverage.
But there’s fluff in the newspaper too. And there’s filler. And there are press releases written by PR professionals that are copied, pasted, and published as they were provided without even changing a word.
So how is “choose your news,” which in a lot of ways is just a marketing tool (which by the way, based on the attention it has received, is working like a charm) and a way to establish some kind of a dialog with the public such a bad thing? It isn’t intended to interfere with the “hard news.”
It’s the TV version of the living section of the newspaper, and that has it’s place. Right?
By Michael on December 4th, 2008
The local papers (in NWA at least) would do well to get themselves editors that have a better grasp of English and grammar rules. Showing some of that impartiality and even-handedness you mention would also do wonders for their credibility.
By Ted Dancin' on December 4th, 2008
@your man
–You’re absolutely right. If the newspapers die off, it will be a pretty dark age for us all. Especially for sites like this one which tend to discuss already-reported news.
– Long local board meetings aren’t attended only by folks who are getting paid to be there. Right?
– Again you’re right. The newspapers cannot simply shovel their content (ads included) onto the Internet and expect that to work. But that doesn’t reverse the fact that people have already gravitated online in order to find whatever mix of content satisfies their own individual interests. In other words, the common package approach to news might not survive whether it’s on a piece of paper or on a computer screen.
– Bloggers who have no real training or newsroom experience will never replace professional journalists. Nor will the public start turning to them first. I can’t speak for every website in town but here at the Flyer, we don’t scoff at “the idea of having people who know a few things about libel law” or those who “put together meaningful news reports.” We discuss and then link to their stories quite a bit.
– I think anyone would agree that people want their news from a source they can trust. Letting them interact with those sources via a “sideshow” might not be the best way to gain their trust but it’s probably more effective than calling them names like “anonymous yahoos.”
By your man on December 4th, 2008
“– Long local board meetings aren’t attended only by folks who are getting paid to be there. Right?”
Absolutely right, and part of my point. The people attending a given board meeting without pay are usually people with a particular interest or agenda. They may be there to represent a neighborhood or a parents’ group. I value their comments and their ideas and I don’t want them delivering the news of the meeting. I prefer that task be left to someone who, I hope, will use the objective, impartial approach and who has no personal involvement in the story.
By Ted Dancin' on December 4th, 2008
@your man
Touché.
By Total Bastard on December 4th, 2008
Even if newspapers survive, will an Op-Ed guy like Brummett still be relevant (if he ever was)?
I read the free versions of a few papers online, and its more than enough. Most sites have commentary below, and generally, multiple rational viewpoints are expressed.
If I want opinion, I’ll go to a blog or the Flyer, or Woopig.net.
There are MULTIPLE opinions available for your reading pleasure on any number of topics. Why would someone pay a guy to opine on the local news when so many other people are doing it for free?
I feel justified in being so dismissive of Brummett because of his insulting of the KATV folks. Nothing personal.
I do feel like the newspaper-as-a-source-of-information days are numbered. I think magazines will fare better because people still need something to do in waiting rooms.
I have a weekend subscription to the ArDemGaz, primarily for the coupons, classifieds and sports TV listings. But there are weekends that I get up and read all the news and sports I care to online within 10 minutes and don’t even bother to bring the paper in except to deter burgulars. And I am the only person I know my age who actually has a subscription.
By sg on December 4th, 2008
“– About this large reporting staff the newspapers employ: it’s there because the papers rake in lots of advertising revenue that comes in no small amount from big-time advertisers who buy full-page ads (department stores, grocery stores, etc.) The Internet so far has no comparable way to generate that kind of ad revenue that would support a large beat reporting staff. If newspapers shrivel up before such an ad revenue model is developed, then who’s going to go out and gather all this info that keeps all the bloggers up in arms throughout the day and that keeps the TV stations with something to show at 6 p.m. besides the threat of thunderstorms?”
A few comments about this statement.
* In 2005, The Economist reported that the combined ad revenues of Google and Yahoo! then equaled the combined, prime-time revenues of CBS, ABC and NBC. I can only surmise that the figure has surpassed the networks. So there is a way to monetize the web. Like you mentioned, the revenue model needs to be cracked.
* Movie theater chains are quickly pulling out millions of dollars from ad-buys in papers. For the longest time, their argument for having a presence was because “the other theaters are in there.” Now that readers/users check movie times online, there’s really no point in publishing them in the paper (especially when what they publish is, “go to our web site to see movie times.”
I wouldn’t want to be in newspapers’ shoes right now.
By jmb on December 5th, 2008
Holy Christ. I can’t believe I just read several pages of UNMODERATED and intelligent comments on a controversial topic on a blog. The Flyer is truly a prince among blogs.
Trackbacks