I'm generally a big fan of the Poynter Institute and I often quote Roy Peter Clark, but not in the case of "Your Duty to Read the Paper," in which the great writing coach transforms himself right before our eyes into an Internet troll.
He says journalists should read more newspapers because they have a duty to do so.
I say they should read less.
Toss print aside.
Get out of the office.
Start talking to real people.
Discover that we entered the 21st century more than seven years ago.
The Cleaver family doesn't live here any more.
Quit blaming the Internet. There's nothing wrong with paper. It's your journalism that isn't relevant.
Clark doesn't believe there's an online business model. He's wrong.
I've previously described how newspapers don't have an online revenue problem, but rather an online audience problem. Just to put a point on it: I spent today with yet another newspaper new-media director whose biggest problem is sold-out ad inventory. The site needs people and pageviews.
You get people and pageviews by providing meaningful content and services.
We're not going to get meaningful content and services from journalists who spend their time reading each other and sniffing around each other's scents like a pack of dogs.
Don't compare your journalism with that of another newspaper. Compare it with the needs of the community.
Comments
Huzzah!
I too love what Poynter provides, even if it's the start of a healthy argument. I knew something was bugging me about what they said. You nailed it.
It reminds me of the heady bubble days, when anyone who thought profit was still important got eye rolls and the "you just don't GET it" looks/comments.
Have you seen those Newspaper Assn. ads, with the caricatures of a Rube Goldberg 1902 newspaper and guy on the bicycle? They think that's hip?
Yes, content is king, and people will NEVER go back to dead-trees, if they have learned, and they are learning every day. Digital paper, maybe. We'll see.
Nice piece.
More like it
Thank you, yelvington, for your swift and smart response to Clark's doctrinaire whine.
I took my own crack at him this morning, with much less grace.
http://incrementalupdates.blogspot.com/2007/10/youre-under-no-obligation...
Keep up the good work,
Mark
Thank you, Steve, you put
Thank you, Steve, you put the yell into yelvington. I appreciate the good word even if we differ on this important topic. And, as for you, Mark, you are right. Your counter-attack lacked grace -- and was inaccurate. I may be a windbag, but I'm not pompous. In fact, I think writers who call other writers pompous windbags may be expelling a little too much wind themselves. Cheers.
Completely agree
It's not an employees duty to buy the product he or she produces so the business won't go under. How does that work in a capitalist system? Thanks for putting it down and sticking up for online journalism. And your idea about serving the needs of the community: "Don't compare your journalism with that of another newspaper. Compare it with the needs of the community" - that's perfectly on point. Bout time someone said it. Gave my 20-something response as well: http://www.newmediabytes.com/2007/10/12/as-a-journalists-it-is-not-my-du...
Nicely done
As usual, nice job. I especially appreciate the exhortation for us to get out more, talk to real people, and make our journalism more relevant. That's something we can all aspire to, regardless of our delivery preferences.
- dan
Agreed with your Steve
Hi, Yep. I think your comments are timely and appropriate. Journalists who still sit on the high chair should come down once in a while to smell the roses and get to know the real world.
Link bait
Sadly, that piece came from a scholar at journalism's most revered "think thank."
I don't know if I agree on the troll part; that implies knowing intent. If it were a blogger like Jason Calacanis or Robert Scoble, I'd chalk it up to a controversial statement used for linkbait. But sadly, I don't think Clark knows what linkbait is or why it's valuable.
The Future of Journalism?
I'm all for making journalism more relevant, regardless of the platform. Information is information, right? But I'm not ready to heap dirt on the newspaper quite yet, as I explain in my take on RPC's essay: www.voxford.blogspot.com.
Right on
I think this line sums it up for me. I'm passing it around the newsroom I work in right now.
"Quit blaming the Internet. There's nothing wrong with paper. It's your journalism that isn't relevant."
Brilliant
Dead on accurate.
It's the content, not the medium.
But does anyone at your company actually listen to you?
Some do ...
Some do. Some don't. As you know, it's a decentralized company. Much of what I have to say is derived from what we've learned in the one market where we have had the most direct engagement (Bluffton). Their print readership is roughly similar to print penetration in the early 1970s, demonstrating that the medium is not broken.
Could you post a link?
"I've previously described how newspapers don't have an online revenue problem, but rather an online audience problem." Could you post a link to the post you reference? Much appreciated.
The audience problem
Here's one: Why Henry Blodget is wrong about newspaper business models.