Nothing beats a scapegoat – and for newspapers, the internet has long been the direction fingers have been pointed in when sales figures hurtle downwards.
So it was with some surprise that a discussion around the future of the media at Leeds University yesterday saw newspaper decision makers admit that the internet wasn’t the big, bad wolf it was so often made out to be. Instead, a range of social factors were likely to have more of an impact on sales.
The point was highlighted by Yorkshire Evening Post editor Paul Napier,who looked at the decline in industry, revealing that the loss of factories closing at the same time every day meant the mass audience was no longer there. It was, he continued, the same as the loss of local newsagents. So the real problem was the method of getting news under the noses of their readers.
It does seem that old habits die hard, however, and right from the outset the boot was put into those of us trying to provide content online. Most shocking was that the slyest dig of them all came from a representative of an organisation who will benefit most from a sustainable model being found to employ journalists online – the NUJ.
‘Perspective’
Adam Christie’s opening speech for the entire discussion focused on how news on mobile phones was a passing phase and that 75 word portions of a story gave no wider perspective on an issue and therefore had little value. Then another cutting edge comment revealed how he had no intention of being one of those twats on Twitter, not bad from a man who in 2003 wrote about doing “some new media work” – clearly not enough. Mind you, in 2009 he added: “You must work whatever network you have got – whether it is unconventional, technological or beer-related.”
The article which Adam Christie was unhappy with
But then he saved his low blow for my own efforts on The Lichfield Blog. By selecting a random headline he outlined how SEO meant a lack of ‘serendipity’ that essentially meant readers got a stale experience.
There are a few things that got to me about Adam’s observations. Firstly, was the fact that he had decided to single out one person in a discussion that was meant to be finding answers and discussing options. Secondly, was the fact he got his dig in before needing to catch a flight meant I was given no chance to respond to his criticisms (clearly, right of reply no longer exists in the utopian world he was pining for). So in lieu of a chance to air my views in the public forum he had chosen to air his in, I figured I’d reply here to an audience he clearly feels are not deserving of journalism.
His point about headlines was particularly interesting. SEO doesn’t make for sexy headlines, granted, but it doesn’t make for bad ones too. The example he chose did the job and certainly did it better than a headline I read in my local paper on my arrival home where I was informed ‘Four men held over pub assault’. But by the time we got to the intro these four had undergone a gender-swap as they were four women. See, we can all play the one example game. Forget serendipity, Adam, I’ll take accuracy instead.
But it’s not about comparisons, it’s about reaching your audience. SEO is the modern day equivalent of the newspaper billboard. It’s a way of ensuring people can find the content. The internet by its nature features serendipity – it’s built on finding the weird and wonderful. And in the same way as the newspaper billboard tries to entice readers in, so the web headline does the same job.
‘Sustainable’
Sly digs aside, the most galling of all is the impact his ill-informed rant could have on the many NUJ members who will be earning a living working with some of this new media that he clearly thinks so little of. To my mind the NUJ should have a remit to work for journalists today and to secure a sustainable future for them tomorrow. The views expressed yesterday show that this member, at least, is instead choosing to focus his efforts on returning to a bygone era where we all buy our daily newspaper, say our prayers before bed and watch World in Action. Sorry, Adam, this ain’t Kansas anymore. The kids aren’t playing hopscotch in the street, they’re engaging in social media and becoming a technologically savvy generation. The subject of knowing your audience cropped up a number of times after Adam’s early departure. It’s a shame, he really could have learned something.
Thankfully, not all print journalists were calling for a return to the Caxton press. It seems there were some concessions, even if there is a long road to go before we found ourselves in a truly sustainable media environment for a digital age. However, while there were plenty of good words, there were still a number of points where the internet-bashing was a hard habit to kick.
Take, for example, the suggestion that, by grabbing audience, “hobby journalists” were taking the jobs of paid journalists. Surely this is more a case of making your bed and lying in it? Centralise, pull out of local communities and stop serving them and someone else will.
I can only speak on behalf of The Lichfield Blog and I’m sure other independent site owners will have their own take on the issue, but for me I can’t see how me doing what I do is taking jobs. The site has been created because there was a gap left behind by print media’s desire to cut costs and drive up profits in my city. No-one was regularly updating online, so why shouldn’t I? I’ve always made the point that I do not have the finances or business acumen to compete with a big media group. So if someone was doing what we do then there would be no gap for me to exist in. It’s the same reason why I’ve said The Lichfield Blog would disappear if someone did decide they wanted to cover the city for a digital audience.
‘Audience’
I take issue with the hobby journalist terminology too. If I wanted a hobby, I’d find one that didn’t take up quite so much time and cause quite so much stress. I do it because I love the industry I chose to make my career in and I’m lucky that I have a supportive family and a job that means I don’t need to be striving for the profit. I’m also the audience in Lichfield and I wanted a regular source of news and information – and the audience figures we achieve suggest there’s a number of other people who do too.
There was a fair share of despair from newspaper folk yesterday too. There was an admission that the internet for some media groups was nothing more than a promotional vehicle for their print products, hence the fact online readers in Aberdeen have to wait a day for a full story, unless they want a snippet and a ‘read the full story in the paper’ line. Now, it’s worth saying that Aberdeen is one of the better performing areas for print journalism, and because of this they are keen to focus on their golden goose (even if, like many other titles, the goose is losing its fertility a little). But with no desire to actually understand or investigate ways to make online pay, why bother operating a website?
The answer was simple: “To stop other people doing it.”
And therein lies, for me, the simple problem journalism faces in print terms. It is a protection business. It’s not about finding innovative ways to expand and diversify, it’s about circling the wagons and hoping the outside world goes away. It’s Amish theory applied to business – pretend the outside world isn’t happening. Yes, that sort of thinking might sustain as a niche idea, but if you want to be the all-consuming media beast, you can’t have it both ways.
Surely it’s time for print journalism to go on the offensive instead of continually being defensive? And if the industry is accepting it can’t make money from the internet then why not work with people who may not fit your journalism model and perhaps see if there’s not more than one way to skin a cat?
Unless, that is, we’re happy to keep burying our heads in the sand and utilising the services of whichever scapegoat is in fashion. Either way, you can’t move forward when you’re always looking backwards.
Ross Hawkes is a university lecturer and the founder of The Lichfield Blog. Prior to moving into academia, he enjoyed a 12-year-career in regional journalism.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
I followed your tweeted updates from the shindig and got more and more depressed.
I was thinking at the time that attitudes have not moved on at all in the last 10 years, which was bad enough (although not entirely surprising). But now having read your write up it is even worse because it isn’t just that attitudes haven’t changed, in some ways they’ve regressed and become even more entrenched.
I got fed up at the lack of progress when on newspapers and the level of arrogance has increased by the looks of it.
“We know best, leave it to the professionals” wasn’t true 10 years ago. Why do they think it is now?
It shocked me, particularly from a NUJ representative. Papers, I can perhaps understand as they’re trying to defend a position (even though I think their strategy to do so is wrong). But from someone who is meant to be looking out for the interests – future as well as present – has such a disregard from an area of the industry which can, and does, offer opportunities.
I’m not surprised (then again I’m an ex-NUJ member for good reason).
As am I, but the pre-meditated nature of it (coming armed with a printout to have a pop) is the sort of thing the NUJ like to rattle the sabre about on a regular basis.
Clearly, the shoe does fit the other foot.
Agree with much of this… after 15 years in regional newspaper journalism, it was clear that the industry was and still is being run by bean-counters with one goal – to satisfy shareholders and their divided expectations. Real journalism, serving the community, digging, investigating, holding authority figures to account, campaigning for a cause, grass-roots reporting all fell away because it cost too much… these people should hang their heads in shame and remember their principles, instead of seeking out others to blame.
If anything, hyperlocal news bloggers are the real journalists – no one to answer to, free to campaign, free to dig out stories they like without constraints of a schmoozing editor keen to avoid embarrassing or angering senior public figures, free to serve the communities that newspaper groups have so blatantly let down
World in Action on the BBC? “I’ll take accuracy instead.” Indeed!
Good spot, Gary – only there because it was originally Howard’s Way when I first typed this up. But the point is still relevant. No-one is above mistakes (see the in-text example). So what makes one better than the other?
Anyway, updated now.