Starting conversations in print newspapers

Posted: February 8th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: future of journalism, journalism, newspapers| 5 Comments »

One of the biggest issues plaguing print journalism with the rise of the internet is the inability for a newspaper to encourage interactive reader discussion. This usually takes place online in story comment sections or community forums. In print, this kind of audience sound-off can only take place among the few letters that are selected to print in “letters to the Editor” section.

These days, readers are talking and discussing and ranting more than ever. Even according to the 10,000 Words blog (one of my favorites), the only section that appeared twice in their post about the six Newspaper sections rendered obsolete by the web, was the Opinions section, which they say both isn’t going anywhere (“Even at their most basic form, newspapers will always contain someone’s opinion, albeit with a lot more fact-checking.”), but also serves less purpose because of comment sections.

Digging to the Opinion section means flipping through chunks of other sections to find a jumble of editorials from columnists and cartoonists and selected letters to the editor, all on different topics thrown together for the sake of keeping bias separate from fact. The story on 1A, for example, about South Florida housing becoming more affordable may or may not have a letter or opinion piece to accompany it over in the Op/Ed section, but readers are forced to go and scope it out, with or without a teaser from the story.

What if the Op/Ed section was dispersed throughout the entire paper? Each section — Nation, World, Local, Living, etc. — could have three or four pages in the back dedicated to letters and columns about the current events and issues in that section. I know some papers already do this in some form. The Miami Herald has certain columnists that are published on 1A and 1B on a weekly basis. These are usually the pieces that get readers stirring online the most as well. Comment sections for online versions of columns usually fill up pretty quickly. Some examples: Myriam Marquez, 33 comments and Linda Robertson, 148 comments .

In certain scenarios (like yesterday’s news of A-Rod’s positive steroid test), we had our column up online before it ran in print the next day. If we scooped some of the better-quality comments that were posted online and ran them beneath the story as “What others are saying,” print readers would get a taste of the buzz happening on our site. Online readers would also be compelled to write more thoughtful comments on the Web with the opportunity to get some play in print. This isn’t something that hasn’t been said before, but a stronger effort should be made to link print and the Web. Promos on the bottom of stories to “go online for a photo gallery” don’t paint a good picture of the conversation taking place about that story.

If we encourage more reader contribution to the print product, “citizen journalism” to use a cliche, it would allow more readers to talk to each other in addition to reading the static opinions of a few returning columnists.

As a more online-centric person when it comes to news, I know the argument could be made that this already occurs online in the ways that I’ve stated, so why duplicate it in print? But I think that goes against the nature of starting a conversation.

We have painted this picture of the prestige of becoming a journalist. That somehow after a few years of J-school we are granted the exclusive ability to feed information to people. In the online world, information is shared. You are not being talked AT, but rather talked to, listened to and open to a world of infinite conversation. Print newspapers should do a better job of emulating that.

I don’t want to sound naive. I fully understand the dire state of newspapers and as an online producer it is easier for me to envision a future of paperless news. But before we hammer the last nail into the coffin, what do newspapers have to lose when trying new things? It’s now or never to take some risks with the print product. I’d love any links to examples/blogs of papers who are doing this already (I doubt this is a novel idea).

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://bydanielvictor.com Daniel Victor

    I like it. I’ve long said we can help ease the pain of shrinking staffs by including more user-generated content, and this would be a compelling way to do it.

    At my paper (Harrisburg Patriot-News), we have a phone number set up for readers to anonymously call in and opine on a sports issue for a sentence or two. It’s infuriating, it’s low-brow, it’s delicious and it’s the first thing everyone turns to. It feels like the most human part of the paper, and your idea would accomplish the same. Maybe even in a more sophisticated way.

    I imagine you’d meet some resistance — news/editorial! Those people who comment are idiots! — but this is the kind of what-do-we-have-to-lose idea that newspapers should be cranking out.

  • http://www,placeblogger.com Lisa Williams

    This is a good point, because it brings into question the whole notion of “sections” or even “desks” or “beats.” Thinking about how these concepts translate or not on the web is an excellent way to go.

    Since a lot of a site’s traffic will come from search engines, at that level, every page is “the front page.”

  • http://www.animate4food.com/blog Danny

    What about objective journalism? Why can’t newspapers just be facts? I don’t read newspapers because one, I don’t have time to read enough of a paper to warrant its purchase, and two, I’m not getting news. I don’t want more people’s opinions, that’s not what journalism is. I can’t watch CNN or Fox or MSNBC because Obama hits his head and now I know about it. BBC is much better because it’s just dry news. Putting a bunch of opinion pieces might make newspapers more appealing to your typical reader, but at what cost? At what point does journalism become gossip and celebrity? Television news is already there and it’s shameful.
    Still, I see what you’re saying. Just keep it relevant.

  • omdesign

    Hey blondie! ;)

    There is such a wide gap between most newspaper readers and most online consumers, especially I think in Florida, that the opinions of each get reacted to without much examination of the sociological and anthropological factors of each group.

    I see organizations like yours as having a great potential to be the glue of these communities and to fulfill the social promise of journalistic ideals.

    There will come a time when WiFi e-paper makes this conversation moot, but until then I would suggest an alternate means of interplay that solves the issues.

    Yes, harvesting comments for publication next day seems interesting, but it is also one way. How about getting people on the receiving end of your print product to be the instigators of comments and conversations by using another ubiquitous technology – the Mobile platform?

    Publish a ‘comments-line’ option for the section and a phone number to call. Nation is 425, Local news is 413, etc. and run speech to text ( a large number of highly accurate services exist for this) on the phone call. Publishing these opinions online would be good, but more importantly, it gets the mouth moving.

    Editorial staff can quickly correct the spelling mistakes for the two or three comments they decide to publish in the print product, but the person reading the paper can have an immediate way to start talking about the story, and if they are in a public place, I’ll bet the opinion expressed wil become known as an invitation to start a real conversation right then and there with anyone in earshot.

  • http://www.mallorycolliflower.com Mallory

    I like all of your ideas. Seems that Daniel Victor described a similar phone-call-in system for comments that they are using at the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

    The interesting thing to think about is whether or not it would be smart to delay the migration to a Web-only press by somehow building a bridge between online and print, or do we just blow up the bridge altogether? Prolonging the inevitable future may end up biting the industry in the arse sooner than later. But while print may be on its way out the door, it certainly isn’t a bad time to try any new ideas, whatever the risk may be.