The Associated Press recently announced that it would start offering two leads for many news stories.
AP will now provide the traditional straight news leads containing the main facts of the story along with the optional lead, which AP described as "an alternative approach that attempts to draw in the reader through imagery, narrative devices, perspective or other creative means."
An article in Editor & Publisher quoted AP officials as saying the move was designed in part to provide readers with a "fresh" take on the news "so they will want to pick up the newspaper and read a story, even though the facts have been splashed all over the Web and widely broadcast."
According to the AP officials, the optional leads will only be available for print.
Will this move push print newspapers further into becoming strictly feature-oriented publications, perhaps attracting more subscribers from the sometimes-elusive younger demographic? Or is this just the latest attempt to try to revive a dying print newspaper industry?
Related link:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000844185
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
"Will this move push print newspapers further into becoming strictly feature-oriented publications..."
Contained within that question, I think, is a big part of the problem. We can't afford to pigeonhole stories as news vs. feature vs. sports, etc. In this day and age, there are only stories that people read and stories they don't read.
The walls must come down.
Human interest has always been an important news value. Seeking this news value in even the driest "news" story is what great journalists do.
"Feature" is not and should never be a synonym for "vapid."
And "relevance" should be the goal of every journalist, every day.
I think perhaps you're reading some unintended negativity into my question, Mark. I agree that human interest is a viable, valuable news value. In fact, I would argue that human interest is the key news value that truly allows writers to communicate the similarities that exist in just living the human experience, helping us become more understanding of those who, on the surface, may seem "different" than us. (Those who attended Dr. Barbara Allen's presentation yesterday on "Communicating Difference on Campus" may have additional insight on how challenging this task can be!)
What I'm curious to hear about are other people's thoughts on the evolving nature of news coverage in print newspapers and whether AP's strategy to include two leads will help print newspapers bolster interest and readership.
No, Leticia. I wasn't reading "negativity" into your question. Sorry if it seemed I was pouncing on you. I guess I've climbed on this soap box once too often. I'm getting punchy.
I was expressing frustration because the walls are still so high in so many newsrooms.
And I've heard that question, almost verbatim, used so many times by entrenched line editors arguing against change.
The "old school" of newspapering was a product of the tools available at that time, combined with a relative lack of competition. Even the beloved "inverted pyramid" was an expedient, not a tool of literary eloquence.
It really wasn't until the Kennedy assassination that print journalists got a chilling view of the future and the power of its new competitor -- the television.
Unfortunately, it wasn't until the Reagan administration that most print news decisionmakers began to shrug off their arrogance and ossification and take the threat seriously.
As late as 1995, as the Internet was poised to once again change the world around us, I was still having this same tired argument with high-ranking editors at a large Bay Area newspaper.
The AP's decision is huge because it represents a fundamental change in industry thinking. The AP would not make a change like this unless its members were clamoring for it.
I say, it's about time. In fact, it's about 25 years overdue.
I don't think anything will demonstrably bolster newspaper readership, but this is an important piece of triage.
To survive, newspapers today must reinvent themselves and carve out a niche. And the words
"relevance," "depth," "context"
and "reader interest" must be the battle cry.
A free, privately-owned media does have to think about marketability, defined here as audience and profit. This must be difficult for journalists to accept at times; that their words are actually "products" which must ultimately appeal to an audience. And so the AP sees this as a marketable offering to their media organization members.
The purest form of news story is of course a straight, summary lead with a nice inverted pyramid format.
There have however, always been other ways to write leads for both news and feature stories. I guess the AP has just decided to offer that option as a service to its members.
I don't see any inherent worry about the ethics of journalism here, but I am reminded that even the media has to make a profit...and such strategies will filter down to how journalists write copy.
I'm not a big fan of feature-oriented leads for consequential news, as I think it delays the key information for the reader thus positioning the content as less than important. I suspect editors will make their lead choices based on their own definitions of what a lead should be, rather than any concerns for their readership.
News coverage has evolved from word-of-mouth gossip to a form of "monarchy gossip" (where all the stories are told to one "Reigning Superpower" - many times it was a government) to now the individual "super-nova".
News coverage is evolving quickly to niche reporting on a W I D E scale (all the blogs under the sun) and precise reporting in a very narrow scale (the London bombings).
So what used to be controlled (news content) is now no longer controlled. Ten years ago if I wanted to tell a thousand people about what happened in the Smith Trial, I would rely on speaking to a reporter.
Today I only need a PDA and Internet connection with email support from a local portal that has viral capacity.
So to answer your question: Will AP's strategy to include two leads help print newspapers bolster interest and readership?
No. It's an old theory to a new idea ("I got it, let's add two of the one thing that doesn't work" mathematically a "negative" one plus another "negative" one is still going to be "negative" - start with getting rid of the negative). What newspapers need to consider is expanding their news department to include EVERYONE with an interest in their publication. The real strategy/solution will be in how to keep the influx of information organized in an effecient manner.
Newspapers are still trying to maintain control (old school mindset from 1700) over something they cannot (the individual PDA). They would be better served to control what they are given (everyone with a PDA that has captured this "breaking news" only wants to "make it known" - the media has the "power" to direct this).
If the community wants event calendars, give them event calendars and measure the results of use. If the community wants blogs, give them blogs and measure the results of use. If the community wants video and audio, give them video and audio and ... yep - MEASURE THE RESULTS. By allowing these measured results to input data into your publication, the people (online) are providing the people (print) with what they are interested in (afterall, if the people online are most interested in it, chances are good the people in the print will be interested in it too).
By allowing online content to help drive print presentation, the newspaper industry can make their print product as powerful a tool as their online product (content working hand-in-hand with speed in delivery).
I have worked in the newspaper industry for 7 of the last 9 years and know the issues the industry faces. The most detrimental issue within their walls that they must overcome is this prime AP example of archaic thinking.
Post a Comment