A case against boring

Hello,

     Having been out of the newsroom for nearly 18 months, I believe I have gained a more objective perception -- if not a particularly fresh one -- of newspaper strengths and weaknesses.

     I have traveled quite a bit, probably reading more daily newspapers in more cities in my months away from the business as I read in the several years leading up to this “vacation.”

     As I have said before, there still is some outstanding newspaper journalism apparent in just about every market.

     But if I had to generalize on the overall quality of daily newspapers in this post-depression period, I would have to make this observation: They are boring; more boring than ever and that is saying something.

     There are obvious reasons that reflect less on editors and publishers than on the economics of newspapering in the aftermath of a three-year staffing bloodbath.

     Newsrooms with 30- to 50-percent fewer journalists have attempted to focus remaining staff on core content, trying to sustain government and watchdog reporting, to maintain some level of investigative reporting and to stay on top of sports and, maybe, business in some markets.

     That means fewer reporters are working on enterprise, news features, analyses, personality profiles and lifestyle stories. Heavier reliance on wire services and syndicates has led to a greater homogenization of content, particularly in features sections.

     I haven’t done a survey, but I also would guess there are far fewer columnists of all stripes, bleeding some papers of the little personality they had before the collapse.

     Making matters worse, cuts have been so deep that focus on core watchdog journalism is spread among fewer reporters on any given staff, meaning too much coverage is process oriented, reliant on official sources, press releases and routine meeting coverage.

     So at the same time newspapers work to take advantage of a modest economic turn-around, confronting horrific circulation and readership declines, they are presenting readers with a product not only thinner and less substantive than before, but also one that is too often flat, uninspired and --- there is no other word for it -- boring.

     All of this came to mind late last week while reading a National Public Radio (here) online report on media credibility. The report cited the usual statistics showing an ongoing decline in press credibility and focused on the efforts of Atlanta-based media to address the problem, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

     Here is how the article summed up the AJC’s response to credibility concerns.

     “The Journal-Constitution asked readers what they want — and made a big change. ‘What we found is they don't want us to be a newspaper with a strong point of view,’ says Julia Wallace, the newspaper's editor-in-chief. ‘But what they do want is, they want balance. If we have a view to the right, they want a balance of a view to the left. And they want us to be transparent about how we go about our work.’ 

     “About a year ago, as a result, the newspaper ditched its daily editorials, setting aside a liberal tradition established by (former editor Ralph) McGill and others. Instead, the opinion pages are devoted to debate over matters of local interest — and the paper has promised more local investigative reporting on its news pages.” 

     Wallace’s comments sparked a brief but intense, and inconclusive, debate on media websites and blogs. A casual reading suggests Wallace lost the debate, but in a split decision.

     Wallace is a fine editor. And the Journal-Constitution is, by all accounts a quality newspaper still. It’s even possible the AJC isn’t boring. I haven’t read it during my time off, so can’t really say.

     But as much as I admire Julia Wallace, I have to side with those who believe the absence of strong views, the elimination of editorials and the simple left/right framing of complex stories is the wrong, the absolutely and self-destructively wrong direction for newspapers.

     If I had it to do over again, I would go in the opposite direction. More voice and attitude on the news pages, a stronger editorial voice complemented by a wide-open, interactive op-ed strategy, more emotion in the writing, more nuance in the reporting and more respect for the intelligence of readers.

     In examining their readership studies, AJC execs apparently took to heart complaints that the newspaper was politically and socially out of sync with its audience. But attempting to bring the news and editorial pages into sync will do nothing to improve credibility and can only hurt readership.

     Theories of bias are too complex to address in this post. But the fact is readers see bias even in the most-even handed – read dull and boring -- treatment of complicated issues.

     In my view, those perceptions are fueled by simplistic framing (as if covering the right, then the left really provides balance) loaded language and irrelevant story selection and focus. Maybe worse, readers find hidden bias where none was intended. If bias is inevitable and unavoidable, let it be clear and out in the open – transparent, as Wallace rightly argues.

     If there is anything we can learn from the new media explosion it is that news consumers want to be involved in the news conversation, want to understand the biases inherent in any news report, demand transparency and expect to be engaged in the subsequent conversation.

     The antithesis of the AJC philosophy can be found today on the front page of The Arizona Republic, a full-page editorial (here) attacking the state’s new immigration law and the politicians who made it happen.
 
     News reports have said up to 70 percent of Arizona voters support the new legislation. Clearly, Republic editors made no effort to stay in sync with the political views of their readers. They chose instead to take a strong, unequivocal stand.

And it wasn’t boring

Steve