(Cross posted on Blue News Tribune and Blue Hampshire.)
Enact this short list of proposals immediately:
1. No more “news analysis.” You make that something reserved for the truly complex: credit default swaps, the federal budget, or the intricacies of Iraqi politics, for example.
2. No more seven-part series, on anything. The Kerry series made sense, when he was running. The Romney one made less sense, because he didn’t have a prayer. The Ted Kennedy one was a nice idea. Now we’re done with those!
3. More “only a newspaper can do this” stories. The classic example, and I am not the first to point this out, is Charlie Savage’s “signing statements” story. Savage went and read the legislation. That is good use of your resources.
4. Fewer columnists. You don’t have to fire anybody; make them reporters.
5. Strive for objectivity. No, really. You don’t even try. Try.
6. Make the sports writers cover the sports, not just the Boston teams. During Manny flareups last year, we got blanket coverage for three or four days. Not what fans want; you end up competing with sports blogs, a niche. Instead, tell us what’s going on in the rest of the league.
7. Be more aggressive about combining sections, or eliminating some sections on days when they have nothing.
8. Forget the suburbs — scrap Globe South and all that other crap. You don’t cover those areas effectively, and you should focus on being a national newspaper.
9. Cover Beacon Hill aggressively. Not gotcha stuff like the Herald does, but the legislation. What are those bozos doing all day?
10. People are telling you to leverage Boston.com. I’m giving it to you straight: Boston.com sucks. Sure, I like “Name that Caption” as much as the next guy, but you overdo it on the playful stuff. Other sites are more fun than you, your humor has never been your strong suit. If I were you, I would redesign Boston.com to look like an online newspaper, more like NYTimes.com or most other newspaper sites.
11. Embrace change. Again, don’t try to compete with the Internet, you can’t (just like you couldn’t compete with television). But learn to ride with change. Newspapers tend to think people love their regular features, because, if they cancel a comic strip, they hear from all those readers. But they have to start thinking of all the potential readers, and my guess is that there are still plenty of readers who want a great newspaper.
So all you have to do is become a great newspaper. Not so hard, right?
I’m not sure who said this; I believe it was Casey Stengel.
We’re two players away from a great team. The only problem is, the two players are Ruth and Gehrig.
Everyone is dumping on boston.com lately, for many, many good reasons. I would note that their photoblog, The Big Picture, is an example of using newspaper resources in away that the Internet can take advantage, and newsprint can’t. I’ve lost track of how many places have linked to these essays, and the guy who runs it knew what he was talking about when I heard him speak. He and his project here are an example that the boston.com muckymucks should be analyzing for lessons.
And I read the paper every morning and check Boston.com off and on all day.
<
p>2. Disagree. Don’t force it, to be sure, but breaking up a major non-urgent story makes sense to me, especially given that Boston doesn’t have a “New Yorker” type magazine for our area… we’ve got the Improper types, hardly a substitute.
<
p>3. Agree
<
p>4. Unsure.
<
p>5. Of course.
<
p>6. Who reads sports in the newspaper anyway?
<
p>7. Makes sense to me.
<
p>8. I entirely disagree on this, at least so far as those communities don’t have their own daily. Globe reporting is important for municipalities above and beyond BosCam.
<
p>9. Yuppers. Track bills, lay it out there, show some sunshine.
<
p>10. I agree insofar as the idea of boston.com being somebody’s homepage is a loser for about five years now. NYT does some things really really well — combining a news article with multimedia (using flash or whatever) to bring information, maps, multiple choices, etc. together in one place. An obvious example is election results — EVs, senate races, and House races. Other examples are allowing the user to choose “how much” of a regulation to have and see it’s results, that sort of thing.
<
p>11. Sure. But quit cutting the comics. We love ’em. Heck — go even edgier with the comics, even if you only do it one day a week. There’s no reason why the Wednesday paper (for example) can’t carry the weeklies that show up in places like The Phoenix. My recommendation: Red Meat. Maybe even mix a comic with a section, like xkcd in a technology section or something.
I disagree with number 8 (reduce local coverage and focus on national news). National news is always going to be better online. It affects so many people, all of whom can write about it, that there is no good reason for newspapers to waste their resources on it. What makes you think that the Globe could ever compete with political blogs on national news about the government? Or with the sports blogs? And they are competing with every other newspaper in the country for any national story. If the only thing they cover is national news, there is no reason to buy the paper. All of that is available from high quality sources for free.
<
p>The local news is the only thing worth covering in newspapers. There isn’t as much competition because there aren’t as many people affected by local events and issues. But the local news often actually matters more. I currently get all of my news online and rely on my wife (who reads the Globe) to tell me about the local news. State-level politics are covered well online, but I don’t know where to get other local news without the Globe and other newspapers.
How could political blogs compete with the Globe? I’m arguing against competing with sports blogs. A newspaper should provide general coverage: more than casual, less than a fanatic wants.
What’s happening with the Globe will happen to every other printcentric media organization, and in fact has been happening for 50 years. How many papers did Boston, and every other major American city, have 30, 40, 50 years ago? I just don’t see a printed Globe or Herald 5 years from now.
<
p>Television did start this trend. Yeah, many papers survived, but many did not. Like with the internet today, some papers started TV stations (in Detroit Channel 4 was “The Detroit News Station”) until (if memories are correct) FCC ownership rules changed. Many papers started and/or (partly) owned cable channels. They all have web sites now. This is a technology change, added to lifestyle changes.
<
p>A paper product that comes out once a day, and costs a bundle to produce and deliver, just can’t compete with the 24 hour cable channels and the internet. Now comes iPod/iPhones and Kindle mobile readers. I’ve been an avid Globe reader since I moved here 26 years ago. But, frankly, other than the puzzles I could do the whole thing online somewhere somehow. I’ve switched nearly all of my magazine subscriptions to the online versions.
<
p>Probably would dump the paper copy, except I don’t like boston.com. I think it’s badly designed and the content is largely obscured by the ads.
<
p>This all said I believe that there is a place in the world for a Globe. I’d switch the Globe to online, if it was redesigned to be more readable. If I can print the puzzles (or other content if I choose) I am there. “Reading” the Globe just has a different meaning.
<
p>The particular medium is irrelevant. It’s all about the content. The Globe can profitably survive if it focuses on the content and how best to deliver that content (cable, internet, iPod).
<
p>
Actually, I find doing crosswords online to be quite fun. đŸ™‚
Not “gotcha” stuff, like the Herald? You mean like the former pol now receiving a state pension while working for a state authority? We wouldn’t want to lower ourselves and write about that sort of insignificant detail, would we. What the Globe needs is more policy wonk legislative detail – that will really get the public back to buying the newspaper every day.
You have to be a watchdog at times, but mere gotchas paint a misleading, overly negative picture.
<
p>