24h Continuous News desk: the debate
Posted by Jean Yves Chainon on December 7, 2006 at 5:57 PM
Alan D. Mutter, a Silicon Valley CEO with plenty of journalist experience, and a self-confessed ‘newsosoar’ blogger, declared in his Dec. 4th posting that “the 24-hour online news desk is the worst idea for newspapers since publishers foolishly decided 10 years ago to put all their valuable content on the web for free.” Fred Barbash, former writer at and co-founder of the Washington Post’s Continous News desk, and Charlie Madigan, editor emeritus at the Chicago Tribune’s Continuous News desk, were prompt to respond and express their disagreement. They defended the system’s usefulness.
Mutter argued that this innovation strapped the few remaining competent journalists of large newspapers in their offices, updating their website with not-so-important “routine stories”. According to Mutter, this “quickie web coverage seriously imperils the print product” by diverting reporters from analyzing the truly relevant news, “the major issues affecting their communities.”
There’s a catch. The newsosoar admits that “it makes sense for the New York Times to update its website if John Bolton quits the UN.” But Mutter, if so concerned with the efficient use of reporters’ human resources, can’t realistically expect a Continuous News service to be constantly staffed just for that once-a-month piece of ‘worthy’ breaking news.
Barbash categorically refuted Mutter’s argument – though he said he enjoyed it. “Our research, and our results, showed that people coming to washingtonpost.com expected to see breaking news pretty quickly and would go elsewhere to get it if we failed to provide it.”
That seems to be the basic observation from the current media context. Whether or not the creation of the Continuous News Desk was a mistake, the audience’s expectancy has changed so much that to not include a constantly updated website would almost certainly rid a newspaper from its online readership.
“Let's stop pretending we need every precious moment of the day to think and gather and recognize that model was fine for a world dominated by AM newspapers, but not fine in a world where there is so much competition. We need to be readable, accurate, fast, readable and accurate. It's what we do,” said Madigan.
Madigan insisted that the extremely competitive situation of the media left no choice but to establish such a service. He also disagreed that the quality of work furnished suffered from this innovation. “I want people to know the Chicago Tribune online is as dependable as the morning paper they trusted and depended on. It's just there all the time now.”
Although the respondents are obviously biased partisans, their insider point of view may give reason to the concept of the Continuous News desk. In any case, it seems unrealistic to believe that both the readership and publishers would allow a reversal to day-by-day morning news.
Source: Newsosoar Blog through IFRA
There’s a catch. The newsosoar admits that “it makes sense for the New York Times to update its website if John Bolton quits the UN.” But Mutter, if so concerned with the efficient use of reporters’ human resources, can’t realistically expect a Continuous News service to be constantly staffed just for that once-a-month piece of ‘worthy’ breaking news.
Barbash categorically refuted Mutter’s argument – though he said he enjoyed it. “Our research, and our results, showed that people coming to washingtonpost.com expected to see breaking news pretty quickly and would go elsewhere to get it if we failed to provide it.”
That seems to be the basic observation from the current media context. Whether or not the creation of the Continuous News Desk was a mistake, the audience’s expectancy has changed so much that to not include a constantly updated website would almost certainly rid a newspaper from its online readership.
“Let's stop pretending we need every precious moment of the day to think and gather and recognize that model was fine for a world dominated by AM newspapers, but not fine in a world where there is so much competition. We need to be readable, accurate, fast, readable and accurate. It's what we do,” said Madigan.
Madigan insisted that the extremely competitive situation of the media left no choice but to establish such a service. He also disagreed that the quality of work furnished suffered from this innovation. “I want people to know the Chicago Tribune online is as dependable as the morning paper they trusted and depended on. It's just there all the time now.”
Although the respondents are obviously biased partisans, their insider point of view may give reason to the concept of the Continuous News desk. In any case, it seems unrealistic to believe that both the readership and publishers would allow a reversal to day-by-day morning news.
Source: Newsosoar Blog through IFRA
Posted in :
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: 24h Continuous News desk: the debate.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.editorsweblog.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1257
Leave a comment