Remember News 2000?
Gannett initiated it in the 1990s to bring its newspapers up
to speed in meeting the needs of our communities and readers.
At the time, I heard a lot of scoffing.
It’s
now 2006. And there is an inescapable fact. I see newspapers grappling
with an
ever-changing reader landscape. Essentially, they are trying to
duplicate Gannett’s effort. They’re even using some of the same
terminology.
Whatayaknow?
Gannett was right.
To refresh your memory, Gannett instructed its print organizations to
start producing newspapers that keyed on so-called News 2000 pyramid blocks.
Those blocks included such “core values” as community interest, the First Amendment
(i.e. watchdog journalism), diversity, presentation and consistency.
I’m not sure if I got them all here, but other blocks included attributes such as
immediacy, interaction and anticipating change.
Yes, much of the scoffing involved the perception that this
was a highly centralized effort. It was seen as an order coming from on high.
But one of those core values was community interest. In
other words, newspapers had to ascertain what these interests were before they
embarked on News 2000 changes. And these interests, Gannett recognized,
couldn’t be dictated from afar.
Full disclosure: I’m a former Gannett
editor, one who, silently and not-so-silently, chafed at all the work and
the reporting back to corporate this required — not unlike many Gannett editors
at the time. And, like others, I was always extremely paranoid about what News
2000 score my newspaper would receive in those annual assessments. In fact, I
was for a time a News 2000 judge, called back to Arlington, Va., to help with those assessments.
I’m now firmly convinced that this kind of work —
and assessment — must be never-ending. In fact, it’s necessary if the industry
is to survive with its values intact. Whether this is imposed from on high, or
bubbles up from the ranks, it has to be done.
Newspaper executives are essentially coming around to the
fact that the industry is in dire need of a “News 2010 and Beyond.”
Let
me suggest that News 2000 can be a guide. It might not be executed as
precisely as News 2000 was, but perhaps with those pyramid blocks
virtually
unchanged.
I would expand those “core values,” though:
- Newspapers
must continue to have a handle on what readers want through constant
ascertainment.
- Watchdog
journalism must survive if newspapers want to serve their readers’ needs.
- Connecting
with the community means newspapers’ pages must reflect the diversity of
the communities they serve.
- The
news must be presented with reader utility and ease in mind. In fact,
there is a need to entertain the notion of new story forms (including
those online) to accomplish this.
- Consistency
means being consistently accurate, fair and balanced. It also means
consistent, solid news judgment.
- Readers must have confidence that they can find things in the newspaper
because they are where they are supposed to be.
But I would add to these “core values” the following:
immediacy, interaction and anticipating change. I might even move them to the
front of the line.
The need becomes obvious when we consider the challenges
imposed by the Internet. Readers now expect their news to be immediate and
updated constantly.
Yes, they want depth
in the newspapers that land on their front porches. But our online operations
need to be the drivers on immediacy. They must supplant TV and radio news.
Much of this is already happening. It used to be that TV and
radio news told their viewers and listeners what was in the newspaper that
morning. They got a few stories in first that newspapers were then tasked with
filling out.
Now, however, newspapers’ Web sites act as tip sheets for
TV and radio news. Newspapers still have larger staffs. They go where skimpier
operations cannot. As a result, TV and radio news tell their customers second
what newspapers online told them first. And if it weren’t for newspapers’ online
operations, many bloggers wouldn’t know what to blog about.
The
time will come when newspapers’ online operations are both as
proficient at video and audio as TV and radio are — and more
immediate. TV and radio news operation beware.
The Internet also has increased readers’ expectation that
they can be more than just spectators. They now participate in the news
process. They respond immediately to events. They set up their own blogs. They
join instant chats.
Newspapers no longer should content themselves with letters
to the editor. Everything should be on the table. They should have reader advisory committees,
which contribute commentary to the editorial page. They should use community columnists. They should
solicit comment from readers before arriving at editorial decisions. They could
even solicit questions from readers before key candidates are interviewed
this election season. My newspaper does all of these things.
We invite the reader to be a substantive part of the
newspaper — all in the name of interaction.
Interaction also means transparency — allowing readers to
see the process at work. That means videotaping board interviews and posting
candidate questionnaires to see what informs editorial endorsements. Many
newspapers do this. More must join in.
Perhaps more important than either immediacy or interaction
is anticipating change.
If online operations provide immediacy, newspapers must spin
ahead. They must tell the reader what’s next. They must provide depth in addition to context, in
other words.
Anticipating change should not be restricted to what appears
in stories. It must be the newspaper industry’s strategic mantra. We must
anticipate what readers need before competitors start providing it. At the
moment, we seem to be in the position of counter-punching.
We emulate competitors. That’s why so many of us blog these
days. It would be nice if we just once got ahead of the curve.
News 2000 had lessons for the industry when it was
inaugurated. It still does.
So yes, I think I’ll say it: Repent all ye who scoffed.
