The Tribune launched the Red Eye and the Sun-Times launched the Red Streak within weeks of each other, each screeching with shrill headline every morning. While some fresh content was added each day that was designed to appeal to the Lincoln Park crowd, most of it was the same content that appeared in the "real" paper, only pared down.The message was pretty clear - "We don't think you have the attention span to digest the whole article, so enjoy this shorter version, dumbass."
I was not a happy panda when I saw what was happening.
On a particularly grumpy day, the Red Eye ran a small ad, asking for feedback in it's annoyingly snarky way. "Let us know what you really think," it said. "Go ahead, we can take it."
I sent an e-mail to let them know that I didn't appreciate being talked down to in print and that the problem wasn't the length of the stories, it was the content. In short, if they printed 100 or 1,000 words on steps for a healthy colon or on selecting the right retirement home, I wouldn't read either one.
They responded by offering me a spot on their reader panel.
After reading Frank the Tank's call to arms for readers of our generation, I'm filled with a renewed sense of outrage and a desire to help push content for my generation. It feels much like a space between hopefulness and a loss for where to begin.
Much like the traditional argument against the perceived liberal media bias - the reporters, while they may be liberal, are paid by a conservative old guard of ownership - I feel that newspapers today have a major blind spot with regards to what readers want and how they consume content.
Frank is correct in explaining how our generation consumes both hard news and celebrity fluff, but it goes beyond that. While people my age are now in editorial positions at the major papers nationwide, I imagine it's a hard sell on the content and budget side to craft better ways of delivering the stories.
I believe strongly that some of the most worthwhile content generated in the past half decade comes from the online departments, who piece together wonderful stories in a multimedia format. Pictures, audio and a splash of Flash do wonders for capturing moments and helping readers grasp the state of affairs in Darfur or understanding the emotions invovled with the post-Katrina mess.
While the major dailies are finally embracing these new ways of telling the story, they're a few years late to the party for my tastes. This isn't brand new technology, it just takes coaxing to get the big papers to engage in a degree of trailblazing.
So, where does this leave things?
Right where they've always been, with a little more "online only" content and the usual cut and paste jobs from the morning paper for the paper's web site. Breaking news can be added in a more timely manner, but I'm not seeing much innovation.
I read recently that both TV and print media are simply the competition for eyeballs to sell ad space and spoke to an AP reporter on tour this week who thinks that the smaller papers will lead the online revolution because of expense and the fact that they have long-standing ties with advertisers who will fund the switch.
My money is on history repeating itself - wait for the comet to strike and kill off all the dinosaurs which have grown too large to adapt.
(Image taken for Siberia, Minnesota)
No comments:
Post a Comment