The bad and the ugly of Northwest newspaper Web sites
We're asking for your input with a Crosscut reader survey, so we thought we'd offer some advice ourselves – to the regional papers we're reading online.
As our publisher, David Brewster, mentioned a couple of days ago, we're conducting Crosscut's first annual reader survey, and we'd appreciate your feedback. The response so far has been great, but the more the better, sample size and all that. Bring it on! Mission not yet accomplished!
People have been clicking on the online survey and also leaving comments on David's earlier post, and as is usual here on Crosscut, the level of civility and thoughtfulness is inspiring.
All the feedback got me thinking about the past five months since we launched Crosscut, and I thought it might be helpful if we provided some feedback, too – to some of the other Web sites we've been reading. My biggest concern lies with the mainstream newspaper sites, having worked in print for more than 30 years. I want them to thrive. They're the journalism outlets doing the heavy lifting. But their business model is in crisis, and they aren't reacting fast enough to the online onslaught.
Every day, I get up at 5 a.m., walk across the hall, and start reading the news from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, Montana, and Alaska. I also quickly scan the national papers for news about the Northwest. Yes, during this early portion of my workday I am in my bathrobe. You would be, too.
I choose up to a dozen top stories I deem essential or compelling, write headlines and summaries, and post them in the far-left column of every page in a feature we call Top of the News. Lesser but noteworthy stuff I post in Clicker, a more-frequently updated news tool which can be found at the top of the home page and, in its entirety, on this page.
Later in the morning, our assistant editor, David Neiwert, logs in and picks up the scan of news and blogs around the region and continues to update the site. Crosscut gets up at 5 a.m. and works all day long so you don't have to! Oh, did I mention we're conducting a reader survey?
So here's what I'm finding: With a couple of exceptions, newspaper Web sites in the Northwest are doing their content a great injustice. One could conclude that the editors running these sites aren't online news consumers themselves, because a lot of what they're doing makes no sense at all. But the truth probably is they know exactly how screwed up their sites are and are doing their best in the face of insufficient tools, lack of staff, and incompetence back at corporate headquarters.
We readers don't really care what their excuses are, though, do we? Let the flogging begin.
It's not news until we get around to posting it: How dare you expect to read the news in the afternoon or evening. These are morning papers! That's when the news will be ready for you.
An exception is the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which posts articles as they clear the copy desk in the late afternoon and evening. Bravo! The Seattle Times, otherwise the best local-newspaper Web site in the region, doesn't get this. While breaking stories get posted as they're available, routine news and features go live sometime after midnight, all at once. Why?
The News Tribune in Tacoma freshens its site even later, sometime after I get up in the morning, so I check it last. Not the best way to influence the regional agenda – or the D.C. congressional delegation. But the worst example of timelessness is the Eugene Register-Guard, which posts the news at noon. On purpose. Let that be lesson to those of you who don't subscribe to the dead-tree edition.
If you aren't a paying subscriber, we don't want you as a reader: Or we're going to let you read only some of our stories. The Spokane Spokesman-Review and the British Columbia edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail do this. If you don't want the Spokesman-Review print edition, you can pay $7 a month to get full online access. Otherwise, you can only read the top stories. Besides this being an odd price point, it's kind of a regressive policy for a paper that otherwise is an online innovator. I can watch the daily news planning meeting for free, live, but I can't read all the stories?
Some of the smaller papers limit all content to print subscribers or charge for online access. These include the jointly owned Lewiston Morning Tribune ($7 a month for online only) and the Moscow-Pullman Daily News ($6 a month). Maybe this is working for them revenue-wise, with those fees more than compensating for fewer advertising impressions, but it's not working for me. The Skagit Valley Herald used to do this but recently opened its Web site to everyone. Smart move, I say.
Comments:
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 12:33 a.m. inappropriate
The PI: I am a bit of a junkie, I'll admit it. Here I am opening this story after pulling it off Google reader. and commenting. So sad.
But I do like the PI because of the Soundoff feature where you can post comments. The blogs on the Kitsap Sun are fun too. Most of the time I get a laugh over what people are saying. The rest of the time I fear for democracy.
Sure is fun though.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 5:38 a.m. inappropriate
Chuck, you forgot: That the stupid stupid stupid stupid Oregonian continues to insist that you enter your zip code, your year of birth (i.e., 1965), and your gender before allowing you to proceed.
I just got sick and tired of entering "12345,""1965,"and "F" (which in my mind stands for something that I feel toward Oregonian management), and just concluded that they don't want me to read their online edition. Buh-bye, stupidheads.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 5:45 a.m. inappropriate
My personal feeling is that coughing up a little information about yourself is reasonable compensation for access to the news at no cost. Besides, as you point out, you can always effin lie.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 6:46 a.m. inappropriate
online editions: I, too, am reading around 0500 and have been for years. The S-R's policy on access has been really frustrating but I keep skimming it knowing I won't access any articles. I then go to the Spokane Inlander to see if by chance they might have some coverage on a particlular story.
The Oregonian......I just gave up, they really don't get it.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 7:55 a.m. inappropriate
For example, even stories of modest length are spread across multiple pages. There are three paragraphs, then an ad, then seven paragraphs, then the jump to the next page. This might be great for boosting the number of pages viewed, but it's really annoying for readers.
And don't get me started on their site navigation.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 8:25 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Chuck, you forgot: Ivan, turn on your cookies and you'll only have to do that once.
Sorry, their copy isn't even that valuable to me.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 9:35 a.m. inappropriate
Sprightly, comprehensive, and Useful: Chuck, these critiques and observations are extremely helpful to both purveyors and consumers of news in the Great Nearby. With this sort of post, you become ombudsman for the profession. I suggest you make this an annual feature when you do the annual survey. And please draw our attention to posts by Crosscut readers that you have found especially helpful to the Crosscut operation.
Charlton Price
Kansas City, MO
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 9:53 a.m. inappropriate
crosscut means what exactly?: uh, do you only employ men for crosscut?
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 10:31 a.m. inappropriate
female here: You know, Kimberly Marlowe Hartnett can justifiably take exception to that comment.
I'm a Crosscutteer with the proper chromosomes.
And I know Greg Palmer is in touch with his feminine side.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 10:40 a.m. inappropriate
RE: female here: Only when he sheds his corduroy sport jackets...
The Piper
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 10:51 a.m. inappropriate
From The Spokesman-Review: Good morning,
Caught your post from the Romanesko link and thought I'd respond to a couple of the questions related to the SR.
First, congratulations for a fine publication. Very interesting, very informative. Now that I know you're out there, I'll be checking in regularly.
The SR adopted the subscription model about four years ago. The subscription applies ONLY to the web version of the daily newspaper. We adopted that model to stop the circulation bleed as people dropped subscriptions to the print paper in order to get their local news online. The strategy accomplished that purpose and now we have a strong online-only subscriber base.
Keep in mind, no paper has figured out how to monetize the web. Web revenue is a tiny, tiny fraction of the newspaper's overall revenue which comes from the print core and which supports everything else.
I have always been somewhat puzzled by the criticism of this strategy. You wouldn't expect the newspaper to drop a free paper on your driveway seven days a week. Why should the very same product be free online?
On the other hand, the daily paper, which is stale almost the moment it comes off the press, constitutes only about 20 percent of our website's content. All breaking news sits outside the fireall. We also post stories aimed for print on the web as soon as they're done and they are free. Our blogs (which also break news), multi-media, photo slide shows, etc. are all free. Our entertainment section, calendars and so on are all free on that section's separate website.
We are rightly viewed as web innovators. Our traffic, which far exceeds other papers of our size, indicates our users have figured out how to separate the limited pay content from the much larger accumulation of free content.
We review the subscription model regularly and are doing so again as I write this. It may not be permanent, but for now it meets the needs of both the paper and our local readers.
Thanks,
Steve Smith
Editor
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 11:01 a.m. inappropriate
RE: From The Spokesman-Review: Steve, thanks for taking the time to respond.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 11:01 a.m. inappropriate
RE: female here: Let's not get into that. There may be children reading.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 11:24 a.m. inappropriate
Response to Editor Steve Smith of the Spokesman-Review...: Free content is what the Internet is all about...
Eliminating overhead such as newsprint (sorry, Inland Empire Paper Co. folks), ink, presses, production employee wages and benefits, delivery costs, etc., must make some difference.
From what I've seen and read, parking content behind a pay-only firewall hasn't worked for many. I understand the NY Times tried it only to abandon it recently.
Maybe publishers haven't found out a way to make a $ off the electronic medium, but surely zillions of others have in other businesses. One thing that seems to this curious observer of your profession is just how hide-bound and insistent upon it's own prerogatives it is. The Seattle Times recent series of editorials railing against the nature of modern media ownership, etc., is an example. Peel away the rhetoric and what's left is an appeal - more a demand - for government protection of newspapers against the competitive forces of the marketplace. Should we call that Buggy Whip Journalism?
Those of us sitting home in our PJ's paid a not inconsiderable sum for the PC, Mac or laptop upon which we view stuff, plus we pay monthly to Comcast, some snail-rate DSL provider, or, for those with wooden computers containing vacuum tubes, dial-up ISP's. Inherent, then, is the thinking that it's anathema to pay a third time to anyone. I mean it's not as though you're Amazon.com and you'll send me a book, Makita chopsaw, or some Brio's for my grandson's second birthday (which is Saturday, BTW, and Brio's are what Mom says he wants).
You may have a dedicated on-line subscriber base now, but for how long? And wouldn't it profit the newspaper business to actually ponder whether there's life after paper and ink? Where I live it's King County Journal, R.I.P.
Whether it's increased reliance upon advertising, linking your business to another, or some heretofore as yet unconceived marketing concept (the Internet is full of them with more arriving daily), isn't it imperative to think a few unthinkables?
Honestly...I don't have answers, only questions...
The Piper
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 11:26 a.m. inappropriate
RE: female here: Palmer has already challenged me to buy his last coat for a $1,000 (for $1,500, he'll clean it) donation to a scholarship fund he set up for his late father at the UW music department.
His challenge has shaken me...How shall I respond?
The Piper
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 11:36 a.m. inappropriate
it's a steal: Plus, for a generous $100 donation to Crosscut, he'll write your name into a poem.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 11:40 a.m. inappropriate
RE: esponse to Editor Steve Smith of the Spokesman-Review...: Piper,
Trust me, we ask the same questions and we don't have good answers either.
Here's what we do know. Print remains strong, strong enough to produce tens of millions of dollars per year in revenue. It's not as easy to make money as it used to be and online competition is part of the problem (see Craigslist). But newspapers remain profitable.
While other businesses have figured out ways to make significant money online, the news media has not. That's not to say there is no revenue there. There is. But as a percentage of the total, it is small.
My newsroom costs about $10 million per year to run, something like two to three times our annual online revenue. Add in the rest of the operation, and online is a nice plus, but it won't pay the bills. An online only product, at this time, would support a news staff of a dozen or so, not the 137 at my disposal today. Our franchise is local news. You cannot get what we offer anywhere else. But imagine a local news report prodcued by 10 insteadof 137.
We know, I certainly know, that the model is changing and the calculus will change over time. There may come a time when print revenue doesn't carry the weight of the operation. But we're probably years, maybe even a decade or two from that.
So our view is charge for the daily paper, whether you get it in print, online, fax or any other means. But make everything else we do free. Utilize the freedom of the web, the interactivity of the web to add new and value-added dimensions to what we do. After all, as a medium, the web is so much richer and can be put to much better use than serving as a dump for already published, and quickly stale, print content.
I'm sure open to other ideas and suggestions, though. Find other ways to pay for a $10 million newsroom and I'll be right there with you.
Steve Smith
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 1:45 p.m. inappropriate
RE: it's a steal: Heck, I'll,include his name in a poem for nothing:
A kord koated kid named Greg,
Teased for wardrobe malfunktions did beg,
"Don't taunt me with snickers,
'Bout my koat or my knickers,
Lest korporally I'll pelt you with egg!
That work for you?
The Piper
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 1:53 p.m. inappropriate
no answers: Personally I'm a big problem for the media.
I'm a total news junkie, whether at home or at work, where tracking stories relevant to my company is part of my job. I read many papers every day, starting with the "bible" (Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce), and continuing to the Times, PI, NYT, WSJ, TNT, TBE, etc.
Yet I (and we) refuse to pay for anything online other than the DJC. And ads make me furious every single day -- anything that pops up, any window I have to look at before seeing the desired page, anything that flashes, whatever...if it's in my way I shout a mental F-you at it, literally. My anger, however misguided, carries right through to the advertiser if, dog help them, I notice who they are.
Same for print news. I dropped the Times at home because of the ads. They wasted paper, and plus I had to carry them to the recycling room.
I prefer the Times method of updates vs. the PI. I read updates through the day at both. But in the evening I cut the PI off. If you read it too late in the evening they have most of the next day's paper online, and that means the next day will be a jumble of stuff I've already seen and stuff I haven't. I understand the idea behind the constant updates, but I'd rather read most of the paper at once, then check a few times for updates.
The PSBJ is infuriating. My office buys two print subscriptions. Until recently there was no online content until the following Monday, which I complained about and got an insulting explanation having to do with giving me better value as a customer by keeping me from reading anything. Now we're allowed to use our print subscriptions to get online content, but there's a glitch and the couple times I tried to connect I couldn't. Also, they make you click through several pages for articles that aren't very long. Every article should be on one page only. The PSBJ is so focused on protecting their content that they make their paper a big pain in the ass for readers.
The Oregonian sign-in thing is also annoying. I have a visceral opposition to filling in stuff like that, even if it's for an ok reason. Also, the "oregon live" thing is worthless to me -- I just want the paper.
The DJC is fantastic, due in part to the subscription model of course. Not many ads, complete archives back to 1990, and, for me, by far the most interesting content of any publication on earth. My only suggestion is to expand the servers a bit, because an archive search "since 1990" takes too long.
Every news site should have one page with a link to every article. The PI does fine, though I'd like an explanatory line with each headline (and please delete the daily religious nutball headline!). The Times should have something that's a cross between the front page and the "news index" -- with everything listed, but just a short synopsis of each.
CNN makes the grave mistake of leaving some headlines on for several days. I want more turnover.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 2:53 p.m. inappropriate
Take another look: As the editor of the web site at The News Tribune in Tacoma, I beg to differ with Mr. Taylor's analysis.
The NW is actually quite blessed with quality online newspaper sites. I invite Mr. Taylor to take another look at our site, specifically, since there were a few errors in his assessment. We post all our news at 1:30 a.m., break news all day long, have had invited comments on our stories for years and produced award-winning blogs. I offer more details in this roundup.
Regards,
Mark Briggs
Assistant Managing Editor
The News Tribune
Tacoma, Wash.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 3:09 p.m. inappropriate
RE: no answers: Like Mhays, I read a lot of different publications, though not necessarily the ones he mentions. Yet unlike him, most ads don't bother me...UNLESS they interfere with my ability to navigate or screw with my system.
On that last point, David Postman at the times needs should take note. If I see one more pop-up ad from casalemedia.com or whatever the hell it is, my wingnut (I'm called that elsewhere) brain will explode!
Occasionally, an ad will catch my eye if it's cleverly done and offers visual appeal. But woe unto those who seek to inhibit my freedom by making me chase and kill their g.d. pop ups or sneaky cookies or whatever...I will DIE before I buy from you birds!
The Piper
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 3:52 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Take another look: OK...so I go to your web site and read your article. What's the first thing I catch? Perjorative comments in your link calling Chuck Taylor's article a "rant." Bad form, Briggs...
I'm always suspicious of those who unabashedly tout awards they've received. Just because someone is the best of the worst doesn't mean a whole lot. Context is key and king...
Bottom, bottom, bottom line...as much as I love my daily paper...print journalism is choking on its own topheavidness and it's barely able to keep up with the purely electronic media. T'were it otherwise, would circulation numbers across the board be going other than the way they are???
The Piper
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 4:03 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Take another look: Mark, every day your home page changes from the time I boot up at 5 a.m. and when I refresh an hour or so later. Usually the photo package changes from yesterday's to today's in that period of time, unless you posted that package the day before due to big news. I'm a cache-clearing maniac, so that's not my browser deceiving me.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 4:15 p.m. inappropriate
Photos on spokesmanreview.com: "The P-I has been improving in this regard, but the S-R's failure to leverage photography is particularly puzzling, given its willingness to experiment with live and edited video."
You're absolutely right, although our shortcomings in online photo display aren't due to lack of interest on the part of staff members in photo or online. We're in the middle of a monumental overhaul of our site, including a complete change in servers and technology, and a long-overdue redesign. Photo treatment is at the top of my list of things that need to be addressed, and Spokesman 2.0 will do a great job of showing off the fantastic photography produced here.
Ryan Pitts
Online director
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 6:22 p.m. inappropriate
Smart piece: Chuck, thanks for the sharp, insightful observations.
Mark
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 8:42 p.m. inappropriate
Rant or flogging - take your pick: The writer described his piece as a "flogging." I think my use of the term rant is accurate.
Posted Thu, Sep 13, 10:09 p.m. inappropriate
RE: ant or flogging - take your pick: Sorry...Chuck's remark comes across as tongue in cheek...Yours as bitter...but that's just one reader's reaction.
The Piper
Posted Fri, Sep 14, 1:37 p.m. inappropriate
Free wins: I too arrived here via Romenesko.
All due respect to Steve Smith, I don't believe that the pay wall has one whit of influence over his paper's subscription numbers.
While he runs an industry-leading web site, there is really no logical justification for the pay wall.
I have no doubt that his online traffic numbers would be even greater without the pay wall. While it's true that his online numbers are quite good for a site affiliated with a paper of his circulation size, it's also true that a number of papers his size are also outperforming the S-R.
Here's the thing: Trying to prop up your print numbers is a folly. Growth and opportunity is online. Publishers should be pouring every availale resource into online, which includes dropping pay walls.
There are a number of newspaper web sites making impressive progress in growing online revenue. The solution is out there and we're inching toward it. I'm not worried at all about the revenue side of the online equation.
Again, being overly concerned about print at the expense of a solid only strategy is folly.
Which bring me to Tacoma -- Mark Briggs, one of the industry leaders who "gets it" (read his book Journalism 2.0) ... is absolutely right about his site. It's a darn good web site.
Posted Fri, Sep 14, 1:41 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Free wins: Replying to my own post ... I forgot to mention:
Mr. Smith undercuts his own argument with this statement:
"I have always been somewhat puzzled by the criticism of this strategy. You wouldn't expect the newspaper to drop a free paper on your driveway seven days a week. Why should the very same product be free online?"
It's a false comparison. You can't put the same product online that you put on a doorstep. Even the so-called e-dition isn't the same. Also, there is a huge difference between the online edition and the doorstep edition -- the doorstep edition involves paper, trucks and delivery personnel. The practical cost of delivery online is essentially nil. So why charge for online?
Posted Fri, Sep 14, 3:02 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Free wins: I'm not a fan of paywalls either, but I beg to differ with howardowens' comment that "the practical cost of delivery online is essentially nil."
My guess is that the S-R's infrastructure costs for just their online operation run $2.5M a year or more ... for bandwidth, hardware, software, vendor contracts and a half-dozen-or-fewer web jockeys to put the content online. Not as much as print, but not "nil" either.
Moreover, delivery has never been the primary expense for print OR online. It is the cost of acquiring and presenting the information. That means one-or-more feet-in-the-street (reporters), three editors to massage the story (city editor and two copy editors), graphic artist if required, photographer and photo editor if needed and a designer to package story/headline/graphics/photos (let's not even get into librarians and editorial assistants for research or other support personnel).
All these people like to make a salary, like to have medical, dental, pension and other benefits. That is where the rub is between the public's expectation of free information and the media's ability to deliver.
Everyone expects advertising to bare the entire cost, but limited advertising dollars diluted across an ever increasing number of niche web sites have the media scrambling to try and remain viable.
Bill Hunter
Interactive Media Manager
The News Tribune
http://www.thenewstribune.com
Posted Fri, Sep 14, 6:50 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Free wins: If S-R is paying that much to deliver content, somebody is ripping them off.
I've run comparably-sized web sites and our "delivery" costs were pennies or less per user.
Content creation, etc. is not "delivery" costs. Nor are they product costs.
The ink, paper and presses are the cost of the product. The trucks, drivers and delivery people are delivery costs.
Subscribers pay for the convenience of delivery. Advertising pays for the content.
Of course subscribers are not going to pay for online content because they don't pay for it now.
And when you charge them for it, they know other free content is just a click away. It may not be the same content -- they may be missing their local news -- but who has time to keep up with all the content choices now, so why not skip the cost of paying for content and move on to the free stuff.
Yes, everybody expects advertising to bare the entire cost, because that is the ONLY option.
Posted Fri, Sep 14, 10:02 p.m. inappropriate
The Oregonian's article sidebars are missing online.: This bugs me worse than the missing photos -- sometimes there's important stuff in the sidebar!
Posted Sat, Sep 15, 12:16 a.m. inappropriate
The Evolving News Continuum: A lot of the this discussion is about managing the evolving news continuum. Take my news habits for example. They're probably not typical, but still, you will see how this consumer divides up his media dollars. I skew more towards the reading of magazines than of newspapers. For example, I get the New Yorker, the Economist, and PC magazine in the mail. Online I have subscriptions to Salon and the New Republic. I also get Monocle, which I'll describe a bit later.
For newspapers, I get the Wall Street Journal daily, except Sunday, when I get the NY Times. (Note both the WSJ and NYT provide online free with subscription.) When the KC Journal died, I chose not to get a daily newspaper. I drop into a Starbucks or Tully's most days, and get a Times or P.I. when the headlines move me. I used to read the Weekly quite a bit, back when the previous regime was in charge, but the new Weekly is a bit odd, and I don't read it much; even less so the Stranger. In cataloging all this, I find that I spend more than I really intended to. It seems that my spending is fairly balanced 50-50 between print and online. My home page used to be set to Google News and I used to read Slate quite a bit, but no more. I watch some TV news, but not much.
As mentioned, I recently subscribed to Monocle magazine. It comes from Germany. Priced into their magazine subscription price is the price of the online content, which includes some video interviews and Flash stuff that doesn't otherwise appear in the print magazine. For the purposes of this discussion, the interesting thing is that the cost of a subscription is GREATER than the cost of the individual magazines bought separately. Most magazines do the opposite and give you a price break if you get a subscription, and they give away their online experience. The Monocle logic is very straightforward: PRINT+ONLINE is of greater value than PRINT alone. If you extend this logic to newspapers, the Seattle Times might RAISE their subscription cost by 33% and include online free to subscribers. The newsstand price would be lower, and remain at $.50. Some online content would remain free, but the full content would be available only to paid subscribers. I'd actually like to see that for Crosscut, i.e., some sort of printed newspaper that compiles Crosscut content. As my eyesight worsens, I more and more print out online articles rather than read them on the screen. I know a lot of people, especially the younger generation, rarely print anything out, but I think a magazine or newspaper or Crosscut has to flexibly provide high quality output both on the screen and on the printed page. One of the weaknesses of the current Crosscut site is that printed pages are pretty ordinary and don't include photos and comments, unless you choose to print the HTML page with ads and all.
The other thing to notice in this continuum of news is that comments and blogs are a SIGNIFICANT extension of the content. I personally enjoy Crosscut as much for the commentators as for the Crosscut writers, and I respect the Crosscut writers tremendously. So enabling, encouraging, and leveraging us commentators I think is hugely important.
As for blogs, imagine if Crosscut had the equivalent of a Horsesass.org blog that ran parallel with the current site. Or imagine if Crosscut's article commentary was beefed up so that it was better and easier to use than Sound Off. Or imagine if Crosscut comments were always the most numerous and the most insightful. If done right, blog and comment content can be THE differentiating factor that drives success for a publisher.
In my view, each Crosscut writer should have his or her own blog where they comment on the articles they've written and provide more photos and a sort of news diary of what they're doing. I think these blogs would help drive readership as each writer develops a bit of a following.
Posted Sun, Sep 16, 2:40 p.m. inappropriate
Oregonian/Oregon Live: The Oregonian is by far the worst, everything from the sign in crap to the incomprehensible layout, the Seattle-PI the best. The Salem Statesman Journal site is corporate cookie cutter but has an active online forum community.
Posted Mon, Sep 17, 11:35 a.m. inappropriate
From The Register-Guard (Eugene): Hey Chuck,
John Heasly, Web content editor at The Register-Guard here. First-time visitor and first-time poster: This is a great site! Just a couple of comments: We've been posting breaking news on our Web site since January 2006. And while our home page does indeed say 'posted by noon,' regular visitors know the daily update happens before 9 a.m., as it has since the spring of last year.
Also, within the last two weeks we've added four reader-comment-ready sports blogs (no registration required) and a Duck football forum (registration req'd.). Last week, we expanded our prep football coverage, giving each local high school its own page and recruiting student bloggers for each. And the scores and game summaries are posted Friday night as they clear the copy desk.
Currently, story-commenting ability (registration req'd.) is limited to our Springfield Extra coverage, but we're in the very beginning of a complete overhaul of the technology used to produce both the Web and print products, so stay tuned ...
A few housekeeping notes; your RSS feed link for us points to our business section feed. The general news feed is here. (You can take your pick of feeds here.) And "Eugene" was dropped from the nameplate of the print edition when we went to morning publication in 1983.
Looking forward to future visits,
John
p.s.: What determines which comments get the orange semi-border?
p.p.s.: It would be nice if you could display all the replies to a comment with one click.
Posted Mon, Sep 17, 2:21 p.m. inappropriate
Online advertising...will it support the effort?: It has been suggested in these comments that online advertising must pay the cost of production for online content (and of course make a profit beyond that).
As we look at the newspaper industry in it's online editions today the value of an online reader is said to be roughly 10% that of a print reader. Whether this is due to historical price precedent, actual advertising effectiveness, form and structure, or a combination of these matters very little. What it means is that in order to support an independent news gathering operation (one that doesn't just link to other content providers ala local blogs) that must research, confirm, layout and distribute content you need enough dollars to make it happen. The great Crosscut experiment is just that... an effort to bring an intelligent, useful, and genuine news source to the public in a completely online format.
If it can be done, David Brewster is probably the man to do it. But I have serious doubts. To paraphrase Dickens, it is the best of times and the worst of times in the Journalism business. The incredibly good things about the internet are all in place in online news sites (not all certainly but it's getting better), including social interaction, persistence of information, depth of reference, even high quality writing and photography (and coming along... video). But the sustainability of the news site is questionable precisely due to the low barrier to entry the web provides. For newspaper websites to survive I believe they must promote a high level of trust (since local news blogs are notoriously personal, mercurial, and thin...Will they be there next month if the blogger goes on vacation?)...
AND newspaper websites must develop vertically integrated, highly socially interactive sections or unique sites focused on specific topics and interests. This is already happening... watch for it to continue. Eventually these hyper-local networks, all driven by a primary local portal will have enough aggregate mass to command a reasonable advertising return. Until then... newspapers will continue to fund their websites more as an obligation than as a drive to build an eventual profit center.
Posted Tue, Sep 18, 11:24 a.m. inappropriate
Good to hear about the changes happening down there. I'll fix our RSS listing for you and make the name change.
The red border indicates an editor's pick – it won't collapse. We need to add a label or icon. Just one of those things we haven't had time to do. And to be honest, we don't employ it very consistently.
Posted Tue, Sep 18, 11:26 a.m. inappropriate
A few days after this article, I posted an update. You can find it here.
Posted Sun, Jul 6, 10:05 a.m. inappropriate
the times they are a changin': Yes, the business model of traditional newspapers is in trouble, and their search for answers is becoming increasingly desperate.
Allowing reader comments on daily articles is one positive evolutionary step for newspapers toward a more successful formula.
I enjoy posting in on line newspaper forums because it is so topical and current, and can even have an influence on the content of the paper.
Last year when the tower crane collapsed in down town Seattle, the P.I.'s initial story was filled with inaccuracies, and excoriated the crane operator, and depicted him unfairly, and inaccurately as a habitual substance abuser, and pretty much blamed the whole accident on him. It was blatant sensationalism.
Many of the reader comments that followed the article were written by people with much greater knowledge of cranes, how construction companies use them, and the nature and efficiency of local and state laws, and decried the treatment the crane operator was given.
In subsequent articles about the incident the tone changed, and the content reflected that somebody at last took time to find out a few things, and the hapless operator was depicted in a more accurate, fair, and civil manner.
However posting in newspaper forums can also be discouraging because some people haunt them and never leave, and attach themselves like a pilot fish does on the body of a whale. And many of these same people are quite nasty, and are racist, sexist, harbor deep resentments, openly hostile, petty, and insulting. Some claim to be patriots yet don't seem to know anything about American history, or government, their knowledge of the Bill of Rights is restricted to the 2nd. amendment. Some of their comments to individual writers of editorials qualify as harassment. Reading their comments does not add to one's education, and is not an enlightening experience.
Nonetheless, IMO on-line newspaper forums bring democracy to a new, and positive level, and I think they are at least part of a solution for newspapers searching for answers in a changing media environment.
My favorite is the P.I., the last time I checked the Seattle Times site I didn't consider it to be user friendly, my impression of the Kitsap Sun is that they consider reader comments to be icky things.
xenophon