Friday, May 1, 2009
News / News Bites Marketing and packaging the news at the Tribune
Posted by Michael Miner on 05.01.09 at 04:42 PM
The Tribune newsroom just got its back up, 55 staffers signing a letter protesting a joint editorial/marketing initiative that had the public passing judgment on unpublished stories. Media writer Phil Rosenthal reports that twice in the past two weeks about 9,000 people were sent synopses of stories in the editorial pipelines and asked what they thought. Editor Gerould Kern met with the staff Thursday, said the survey was a bad idea, and called it off. "We've stopped this," Rosenthal has Kern saying. "To prematurely disseminate information about stories in progress compromises reporting. ... There are a lot of reasons, such as potential legal [issues], fairness, accuracy and completeness."
And aside from all that, the idea of prescreening content with consumers strikes at what newspaper people consider fundamental to the print newspaper experience -- albeit a print newspaper experience that more and more of the public is rejecting. And that is the element of serendipity, the quality of unexpected surprise and discovery that any well-managed newspaper provides. Tell any self-respecting reporter that the subject of his or her latest work in progress just laid an egg with a focus group, and the reporter will reply, "Maybe so, but wait till they see what I do with it!" (While thinking, "What in God's name has happened to our business?")
Media consultant Amy Gahran in Boulder, Colorado, has an entirely different take on the matter. On Poynter Online, she says the Tribune survey didn't go far enough. As for "the distrust of marketing. . . so deeply ingrained in traditional mainstream newsroom culture," Gahran asserts, "I'd dare say that it's a big reason why news organizations are struggling for relevance and revenue these days. It's hard to update your business model when an important part of your organization is inherently wary of market research."
Maybe she'll also have a good word for the latest Tribune Company money-saving efficiency --modular news packages, designed in Chicago and Los Angeles and dropped into the pages of the other Tribune Company papers, allowing them to lay off bunches of their own copy editors and designers. Blogging designer Charles Apple reports, "The modules are built mostly in half-page and quarter-page increments, we’re told, that fit with the new standard company-wide advertising sizes. Everything is tightly formatted."
We've been hearing about this move for the past few weeks. If the Tribune were going to suffer the consequences to anything like the degree that other Trib Company papers will, we'd have heard a lot more. Apple links to a Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild statement posted by Jim Romenesko that says the Tribune Company fired "18 senior editors and newsroom managers" at the Baltimore Sun this week and intends to lay off 40 newsroom staffers by May 27. Cet Parks, executive director of the guild chapter, protests that “Tribune is siphoning good jobs from Baltimore and sending work that talented editors, reporters, photographers, copy editors and designers have done here to its home base in Chicago. That is not right.”
And this just in: The Huffington Post made itself a major Web presence by aggressively aggregating news stories from mainstream media and combining them with original reporting and commentary, most written gratis. The Tribune is now cooking up a Web site that will operate along the same general lines. Expect it in June, and expect the Tribune to make a big deal of it when it's launched.
UPDATE: The staff letter mentioned above, which was addressed to Kern and managing editor Jane Hirt, said in part:
"Why are we doing this? What stories -- specifically -- have been used in this practice? Who specifically have these readers been? Have any been advertisers? Have any been sources? Have any stories been significantly altered or held as a result of reader comments? What is the end game for this policy if not to alter how we do our jobs and what stories we write...?
"It is a fundamental principle of journalism that we do not give people outside the newspaper the option of deciding whether or not we should publish a story, whether they be advertisers, politicians or just regular readers. What happens the next time a source asks to see your story before it's printed? Can you still tell them, 'We don't do that?'
"Focus grouping as done in the past is one thing. But this appears to break the bond between reporters and editors in a fundamental way. What we do here should stay here until we publish. Many of us have become increasingly uncomfortable that the marketing deparment appears to be playing some role in the newsroom -- a role that has never been fully explained.
"Much has been made in the recent months about the future of the Tribune. We share those concerns and are just as interested in the paper's survival as anyone who works here. But the greatest contribution we can make to this newspaper is to maintain the highest standards of journalistic credibility and integrity..."
Comments (35)
Showing 1-35 of 35
like
dislike
Not sure a "media consultant" is the best source for opinion on something like this. Like asking a Ponzi scheme operator where you should invest your lottery winnings. Opening this door to reader input on individual stories is like cutting the ribbon on a brand new 8-line highway to perdition. Journalism is at its pinnacle when reporters and editors follow the news, not readers' predilections. Granted, journalists get carried away at times, maybe puffed up with their own importance. But they're also employed full time to figure out what the public should know and needs to know. They spend their careers doing this, and the good ones expend extravagant amounts of energy on it. The result, at its best is unpredictable and revealing journalism vital to the public interest. But, golly, it's just so hard to wrap this stuff in a tidy little package for marketing purposes. So the marketing and the ad and the corporate guys are constantly trying to stick their noses in. Can't we just make this little tweak or adjustment? Can't we cross-promote company properties on page one? Can't we just make a few ads look like legitimate news stories? Can't we just ask readers first what they'd like to read? What's wrong with doing a lovely little series on cute fluffy bunnies? Just one? Pretty please. It's nothing new. But even halfway decent editors will kindly escort these characters to the door and say no, but thanks for the input. Or tell them to get stuffed. Apparently, Kern is not so inclined, and that's what's new. How far would this effort have gone under him if he hadn't been caught? A key question at the Tribune ought to be, who thought this up? Did the idea originate with Kern? Jane Hirt? Joyce Winnecke? Or someone else? One possible clue: RedEye was chiefly a creature of the marketing department, wasn't it? As I recall, Hirt was the editor, but some marketing guy was the real person behind the wheel, at least in the early days. The reporters and editors who stood up and challenged this are partners at the Tribune. If they want an answer to this, they're entitled.
The "partners" got the confrontation they wanted and the bad publicity for the management , in Crains,on Romenesko, on TV news and on this blog. But another key question is, was it necessary? Were Kern, et. al. defending this program and refusing to budge until called out by the insurgents? If so, good for them. Fight the power. If not, what exactly was accomplished by all the drama? Will publicity over this incident attract readers or advertisers? Will it get Zell, Abrams and Michaels to change their ways?
Editors at affected T6 papers need to make a better argument against modularization than jobs being syphoned to Chicago. They need to explain why readers are better served when national stories are adapted to the paper locally rather than in Chicago. The case isn't hard to make. Bemoaning lost jobs won't gain traction with readers or management, however.
Will be interesting to see how many of the petition signers appear on the next layoff list ...
@Jim Here's one way to make the argument against the prefab pages Chicago is imposing on other papers, and, increasingly, the Tribune as well: These pages are uniform, pretty much the same configuration day after day after day. They have to be to work at different papers. And because they're done in basically quarter-page increments, and each has to have a piece of prominent art, the space for type is always skimpy. I've heard that the editors who put them together just laugh about it. In many cases they're taking premium copy from their own reporters and doing very quick meatball surgery, whacking stories that should be 25, 30 or 40 inches down to just a few. So the basic contract between reporter, editor and reader is broken. There's no flexibility to use longer news holes for good stories or maybe forgo a piece of art to allow for more narrative. News judgment falls casualty to a cracked concept. It's just plug in and play. The question of whether it makes sense to even try to cram a 35 inch story into an 8 inch hole doesn't enter into the equation. Readers are very ill served. And this is even before you factor in the notion that readerships in different parts of the country might have different interests that are best gauged by journalists who are their neighbors rather than by some harried, distracted editor sitting halfway across the continent who knows not a damned thing about Hartford or Baltimore.
I hope Mr. Miner can get the list of protesting reporters and editors so we can, in fact, compare it with those laid off in the next round. Although it might end up spoiling what otherwise might turn out to be an unhappy symmetry, publication of the protesters' names could embarrass management and serve as job protection for some worthy journalists.
at.tribune's 5:36 p.m post puts the problem into excellent perspective. It's called prior restraint. And it's something journalists take very much to heart; it's a basic tenet of our integrity and the covenant we have with readers. Alas, it is abundantly clear that some editors need a refresher course re this tenet. P.S. I concur with the question in his 5th graph ("Apparently, Kern..."). It's the first thing I thought while reading of this latest debacle. (I already had read about the modular templates.)
Ah, what the heck....*I'll* give everyone a list of the 55 reporters and editors who signed it. Here they are: John Chase David Kidwell Jim Webb Ray Long Angela Rozas Monique Garcia Rick Pearson Trine Tsouderos Jason George Vikki Ortiz John Keilman Jon Yates Manya Brachear John D. McCormick Deborah Shelton Megan Twohey Liam Ford Steven Schmadeke Bruce Japsen Matt Walberg Stacy St. Clair Jeff Coen David Heinzmann Michael Hawthorne Antonio Olivo Sara Olkon Bob Secter Darnell Little Margaret Ramirez Joel Hood Jodi Cohen Jason Grotto Michael Oneal Ameet Sachdev Richard Wronski Erika Slife (although the memo misspells her first name) Rex Huppke William Mullen Rick Kogan Hal Dardick Heidi Stevens Julie Johnsson Tim Jones Jeff Long Azam Ahmed Robert Becker Trevor Jensen Monica Eng Kathy Bergen Steve Mills Kevin Pang James Janega Mike Hughlett Lauren Viera Dan Mihalopoulos In addition to Gerry Kern and Jane Hirt, metro editor Peter Kendall's name also appears on the memo, although he is not one of the signers.
Here's to the Editorial55! (This list, I know, would have been a lot longer had last week and the years past not happened. My name most certainly would have been on it.)
mike--that media consultant quote is crap. come on. I can't believe you even bothered to print it as some kind of an opposing voice. love how she repeats the canard about irrelevance... even as news organizations' stories get more and more play online. what kern did--and let's be honest, he totally knew what was going on--was unethical. period, full stop. journalism, no matter what the medium, is not about giving readers what they want. content is sacred... and it's not for sale.
Almost as noteworthy as the list of 55 are the names in Metro and Business that did not sign this memo, but who presumably were asked to. Although some in Features also signed the memo, one can exempt Features and Sports, and perhaps even the Metro suburban bureaus. But it is telling who in Metro and Business downtown didn't sign it. These include: Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah Kayce Ataiyero Stephanie Banchero Dan P. Blake Barbara Brotman Greg Burns Patricia Callahan Ofelia Casillas David Elsner Jane Fritsch Ray Gibson Jeremy Gorner Judith Graham David Greising Ron Grossman Lauren R. Harrison Jon Hilkevitch David Jackson Sandra Jones Todd Lighty Gail MarksJarvis Gary Marx Jason Meisner Robert Mitchum Mary Ellen Podmolik Sam Roe Carlos Sadovi Andrew Wang Denease Williams-Harris Becky Yerak
Thanks much, Phil, for the list! And I heartily second Karen Callaway on the Editorial55--as well as ex-staffer, who puts the matter a lot more succinctly than I did. Unethical. Period. I also believe ex-staffer is exactly right about Kern. I doubt anyone in the newsroom is in the dark about what this guy is all about. There's nothing necessarily wrong about trying to shake up and remake a newspaper. But nearly every damned thing the Zellites have done has cheapened, degraded and, now beyond any doubt, ethically compromised the product. Maybe the radio guys will finally get the message and begin to separate themselves from the Kern/Hirt team--and then, hopefully, separate those two from their jobs.
OK, here's an example of the Problem with Modules: The Travel section front on March 22 was a Module based on a story from the Kiplinger Consumer News Service headlined "Travel deals for spring/8 bargains in U.S. and abroad." Not a bad idea for a piece. Except . . . here were airfares listed for four of the "bargains": + "For $9,138 in mid-April, the trip includes airfare from Miami." + "From New York City to Jackson Hole, a round-trip flight costs $400 or less for a weekend trip." + "On kayak.com, we found round-trip fare between Boston and Honolulu for $468 in April." + "Round-trip airfare from Miami to Barcelona is about $735 in mid-May." This information serves Chicago Tribune readers . . . how? This will help retain subscribers and win new ones . . . how?
Three words on the pre-fab pages: "Yesterday's News Tomorrow" Phil: Why the need to "exempt" anyone from Features, Sports etc. They care as desperately about the state of news coverage in Tribune and chain papers as anyone else ... or, they should. Soliciting their names, as well, would have been the appropriate thing to do. Apart from the ass-kissers left in middle-management -- and there are plenty of them left in all departments -- they've suffered as much as anyone and deserve to be treated as full "partners" with newsies. Lest anyone forget, Kern nearly destroyed the entire features department when he was put in charge (dumped) by AML in the late 1990s. The survivors of his ineptitude, there, could have predicted what was going to happen to the paper better than those who cut him some slack early in his tenure. Bravo to the 55 ... may the saint of all ink-stained wretches protect them. (St. Billy of the Goat.)They have a lot of support out here among the prematurely pensioned.
A few other thoughts: --I hope everyone reading this thread understands that I posted two lists here today: 1) first, the list of the 55 who *signed* the memo, and 2) then, a list of Metro and Business folk who for whatever reason chose not to sign it. --Gary Dretzka: you are of course right that in some regards there's really no point in "exempting" anyone in any part of Editorial. for not signing the memo. At the same time, it's pretty clear that the organizers of the memo (John Chase & Co. in Metro) did *not* solicit any signatures from Sports (since there's not a single sportswriter's signature on this memo), and only a handful of people from Features signed the memo; I suspect that not everyone from Features was asked to sign and that the few who did were asked to because they're personal friends of those in Metro and Business. I also assume Phil Rosenthal didn't sign the memo in part because he actually covers the Tribune as his beat; as a result, I didn't put him on the list of those who didn't sign. --Thanks, at.tribune, for your appreciation for my posting the list(s). --It was a gutsy move for the 55 to sign their names, especially after what happened to 53 people last week. One wonders if being a signer of the memo perversely will render a reporter "safer" in the next round of layoffs (because of concerns by Kern that the journalism community might view the near-immediate firing of someone on the memo as being retaliatory) or, more likely, less safe. --The Tribune always has steadfastly opposed the idea of employees organizing in any form. Even with Zell in charge and not Madigan/FitzSmons, it's hard to think that this memo will be looked kindly on by the money men, much less by Kern.
Sort of piggybacking off of Phil's posts, here's another list, this one dealing with some Features folk, re reorganizing after last week's "event." It comes from someone in a previous group of departees---I won't name the name, as it was sent to me with no indication of it being OK to post the info---but it's a reliable source and past info has proved accurate. (The wording is the source's, though I cleaned it up a bit re "style;" I also deleted a personal comment not needed here.) "Tim Bannon now Sports editor. Desiree Chen now Live! editor. Blair Kamin going to 4th floor to be Urban editor. Liz Taylor is online books editor (reportedly still has a job because she got Gerry's daughter a job someplace). Denise Joyce to At Play, aka Play. Geoff Brown is Entertainment editor (going back to an old Features structure.) Linda Bergstrom is in charge of everything in Features. Nancy Watkins on copy desk full-time, with duties in Metro sometimes. Rick Kogan continues as Entertainment writer. "Alan Artner, who was let go, was asked to stay on for a couple of weeks because of some big shows coming up and the modern wing of the Art Institute opening. ... He agreed." There also were these comments; not sure if the info is confirmed or inferred re who left last week and the new titles/duties of the folks above: "This means that the Magazine is eliminated. As for House and Home, I guess it will just continue as it has in combination with the Sunday real estate to support the ads."
Great point, Alan Solomon. The consequences of modularization aren't always so obvious, but your example provides a perfect gauge of the microscopic degree of care and thinking that went into this project. Years ago, when I was working in Georgia, I heard a story about a page one editor for the Atlanta Journal (or maybe it was the Constitution) who was considered to be something just short of a genius at page design. Day after day, really gorgeous fronts. He had scheduled a couple of weeks of vacation, so as a helpful gesture, he laid out a dozen or so fronts (they did this on paper back then) and handed them to the guy who would be filling in while he was gone. Word of this filtered up to superiors, and when the near-genius designer returned from vacation, he was fired. The feeling was that he had compromised the integrity of the paper and that he could no longer be trusted to at least attempt to tailor the paper's front to the demands of the news of the day. Firing was a bit harsh for the guy, I thought, but I appreciated the sentiment. And it was a fine lesson for me, though I knew none of the people involved. So, look how far we've come. Prefab pages have evolved from a fundamental breach of integrity to a brand-spanking new profit center, all in the space of about one generation.
“Almost as noteworthy as the list of 55 are the names in Metro and Business that did not sign this memo, but who presumably were asked to.†“I suspect that...†"I also assume..." Great reporting: Guilty by presumption, innocent by speculation. Who is Phil Meehan?
This "who didn't sign" list is a strange game of gotcha and poorly reported, too, on behalf of those who are supposedly beating the drum for good journalistic values. Do we know that all the names on the non-signers list were even sent this letter or, if they were, that they saw it? Stephanie Banchero, for instance, outed here as a non-signer, is at Stanford on a fellowship. Even if she's reading her Tribune e-mail, it certainly seems possible she didn't think it wise or fair to sign what amounted to a manifesto without knowing the other side. Were any of these folks on vacation? Were any of them concerned about the allegations but also concerned that this very public, very aggressive and very hasty way of addressing it (how many hours between circulation of the letter and presentation to Kern/Hirt?) wasn't the best approach? Why doesn't Phil Meehan,whoever he is, consult with "Chase & Co." before muddying up the names of fine journalists with his innuendo? Or why don't you, Mike Miner, step in to play ref?
Trust me: anyone who tangles with the scary untalented power freaks--that took over when the smart people at the top left or got axed, and who thought they'd always been overlooked until now!-- are on their way out. I speak from experience. Encouraging staff to "question authority" and "speak out" is just their way of spotting the people who still have their souls inside their robot shells.
I'm going to admit to enjoying the weather too much to be monitoring this board today. But I'm here now, and I think the list of nonsigners is an unfortunate case of guilt by nonassociation. I doubt if a single person on that list didn't sign because (1) he or she was afraid to or (2) he or she thinks it's great to let readers vet stories ahead of time. Some of those names are of people I know, and with them the suggestion either is the case is plain silly. Until I'm told differently I'll assume there were staffers who were never asked to sign, and others who had honorable reasons for saying no.
Good point re the non-signers. But I very much appreciate knowing the list of signers. Good to know that they haven't sloughed off all the thoughtful and dedicated journalists at the Tribune. Re what "nonsigner" has to say: While I know that he/she isn't suggesting that the protest of the 55 was necessarily too hasty or aggressive, I'd just like to say that I definitely don't think it was. There's a line of responsibility that runs directly from journalists to their reading public, I think. It's an immediate connection, or should be, and it cuts right through management and corporate ownership. Whistleblowers are important in any industry, but maybe doubly so in journalism, just by its very nature. When management breaches such a clear ethical line--as Tribune management did in this case--it's important for journalists to act quickly and for word to get out to the public. As a reader, I am very grateful to these 55 journalists. I know they set out to address a very specific problem, but as a byproduct, I think they've inspired quite a few of us out here.
I don't know about journalistic integrity, but I will say the entire episode sheds light on the vacuity of the Tribune leadership. They obviously have no idea of how to run a newspaper or how to attract readers.
@ Meehan. Your interest in the Tribune is important and appreciated. I wish more people cared/care as much as you. Maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. But you really went too far publishing an alleged list of alleged non signers. To echo some of the posting above: How on earth do you know if these folks signed/didn't sign? Would you stake your job, reputation, career, on the posting above? Did you "check it out" so you were absolutely certain? And, jeez, what on earth gives you the right to "out" people and pass judgment on reporters who are more than likely clinging to their jobs. Or a reporter who simply wasn't in the office that day, and couldn't sign, even if they wanted to. Your move is irresponsible and egotistical, to say the least. What on earth gives you the authority to do this? I think Mr. Miner should remove that particular post of the so-called, alleged, non signers. Let's support the folks who signed the petition but leave the folks that didn't alone. Either way, whatever happens, Mr. Meehan, I think you owe those folks a sincere apology and a "my fault." A correction, if you will. Certainly something far better than the spin/dodge you wrote above.
Appropriately enough, Meehan's "noteworthy" and "telling" analysis is a taste of the world we'll live in once newspapers are replaced by blogs, citizen journalists and laptop pundits. If only Meehan had an editor to save him from himself. Sure, newspapers have had their share of flubs and baseless accusations, but even a bad, lazy editor would have spiked this one. Tut, tut.
greg hinz of crain's posted the actual memo on his blog, so the names of the 55 signers are actually out there for public consumption: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2308&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&uid=1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35c&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3aacb3c457-0ee1-4fd8-b5a2-7f1b7841063a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
That's all fine and good. It's the "noteworthy" presumption that non-signers are craven finks and stooges that is so odious.
To build on Pvt. McCormick's latest: The folks who signed the memo are "on the record." These people can reasonably assume that their participation would be no secret. The folks who did not, well, no one REALLY knows who those folks are, what their intentions are, and who signed what. Put another way: It's their business. That's why we're still waiting for an apology from Mr. Meehan. And why Pvt. McCormick used the word "odious."
--Thanks, Karen Callaway, for that great list of changes in Features. --Per Ron Silverman's sarcastic "great reporting" comment and nonsigner's "poorly reported" remark, I should remind everyone that I'm a commenter on a discussion board, and nothing more, so deeply sourced "reporting" is no more required of me than it is of anyone else here. It IS required of the people on staff (and all 85 are fine journalists), and of Mike Miner as well. But of commenters on a Reader blog? Please. --I merely provided the list of non-signers to offer more context into the percentage who signed and who did not, without explicitly (or, I had thought, implicitly) offering any opinion into a non-signer's motives; my sole aim was to give everyone here an idea of just how many reporters in Metro and Business did sign the memo vs. not. (It's not like this information is secret or private, so it's not like anyone was truly "outed"; as "list of signers was in crain's" notes above, the names of all 55 appeared in Crain's, and the bylines of the other 30 appear regularly in the Tribune. So, "Phil Meehan what the heck?", I'd say that in truth, all 85 of these people ARE on the record one way or another, regardless of the reasons why each of the 30 chose not to sign the memo.) It's hard for me to believe that anything more than just a small number of the 30 non-signers listed above were not aware of the memo in advance (and Pelham effectively confirms this). Newsrooms are notoriously porous, gossipy places, and there's no doubt in my mind that if 55 reporters and editors were approached, asked to sign, and then decided to sign, virtually all of the other 30 had to have known about said effort (except, of course, for those who, as nonsigner suggests, may have been on vacation or on leave). --Ron Silverman, I never suggested that anyone on either of the two above lists was "guilty" or "innocent" of anything. If anything, I think YOU'RE suggesting as much. And "Phil Meehan what the heck?", nowhere in my posts did I pass judgment on anyone in the newsroom, on either side. And Ron Silverman, why aren't you going after "Pvt. McCormick" (or also asking who "Pvt. McCormick" IS?), since "Pvt. McCormick" himself/herself made a massive presumption above of something that I never stated explicitly or implicitly: that the non-signers are "craven finks and stooges." When did I say such a thing? I did say it was noteworthy and telling who didn't sign; it also was noteworthy and telling who DID sign, since some big names chose to sign, and some big names chose not to. Reporters are indeed clinging to their jobs these days, which made the decision of such a lage number of people to sign that memo surprising. But until my next paragraph below, never once did I state or even hint at a reason why the 30 did not sign. So, no apology or correction will be forthcoming; instead, I hope this post will clarify my purpose behind providing both lists. --I'm going to have to disagree with Michael Miner on the reasons why the 30 who didn't sign chose not to do so. While some are two-year residents whose job security isn't assured (not that anyone else's is right now), most ARE permanent editorial staff, and I have absolutely no doubt that some opted not to sign because of fear. At the same time, I do agree with Miner that no one chose not to sign because he or she thinks it's a good idea to vet stories ahead of time. No journalist worth his or her salt would think as much.
Phil Meehan, You just spent 629 words surmising, assuming, connecting A to B over something you know nothing about. With zero context, evidence, or being present in the newsroom. Please, just stop for everyone's sake. Kevin
Thanks, Phil Meehan, for reminding me ("I'm a commenter on a discussion board, and nothing more, so deeply sourced 'reporting' is no more required of me than it is of anyone else here.") what a waste of time discussion boards are. Time to return to the real world.
Meehan, both your longer posts drip with insinuation even as you adopt your "Who, me?" bullshit pose. You posted a partial list in an attempt to cast aspersions on the integrity and courage of the people you named with no idea of the situation. I know you're just an shoot-from-the-hip comment monkey flinging your feces without regard to truth, but come on, apologize and knock it off.
if advertising content is not grabbing people's attention, that is the fault of advertising, not of print media. the advertising industry is the one that should do more market research. NO ONE WANTS TO LOOK AT YOUR CRAPPY CROWDED AD. MARKETERS NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR PRODUCT TOO. ADS have yet to evolve -- the news is just... still being the news.
Showing readers, advertisers, or your own ad or marketing staff a story before it's finished is an ethics violation. Period. For all management knows, something I learn while finishing the piece may change the entire direction of the story or at least significantly mitigate emphasis, analysis or conclusions -- which is why I **NEVER** show an editor my story until I think I'm done. No interim drafts, no nothing. If the editor wants to know where I am on a story, I TELL him or her (as in *verbally*) and go back to work. If when I think I'm done the editor wants something expanded or changed, that's one thing. But even then, the story still goes nowhere because it's once again considered unfinished -- and nobody else sees it, for the very reason I mentioned above. Only when the editor and I both agree it's okay does anyone else get to see it -- and then preferably NOT until it hits print or online. More to the point, readers, ad people and marketing NEVER, EVER get to see a story until it's in print or online. It's our equivalent of a Chinese wall. And letting readers influence the direction of reporting or the shaping of a story is just insanely stupid **besides** being wrong: the facts of the story itself and the greater background that provides perspective should tell you the direction of the piece and how to shape it. Any editor who would agree to do differently is either a twit or a shill, and neither of the latter should be in charge of a newsroom.
