Wednesday, December 8, 2004
A WRITER'S FRIENDTom Mangan only updates Banned for Life occasionally, but it really is a writer's best friend when it comes to weeding the cliches out of our pieces. (Actually, I could probably do better than "weeding out" now that I think of it.)
Latest to be nominated for banishment: "may just be," "as well" and, a Florida special, "hunker down." |
SLOW START FOR CONVERGENCEA Ball State University study of convergence in the U.S. suggests that those who have adapted the model aren't pushing it very hard. According to Valerie Gazzano at Editors Weblog:
About 44 percent of the editors said they are selective in what they share, 16 percent said they never share and 12.3 percent hold back stories on which they have a competitive advantage over their partner. About 12 percent of editors say they and their partners make use of a common editor or assignment desk to coordinate story planning on a daily or almost-daily basis. About 70 percent of newspapers do not spend any time during news meetings discussing how to promote their partner's content. About 51 percent never share the cost of special projects or investigations with their partners.
The study (two other parts of it will be released later) seems to suggest that while convergence has fans in corporate offices, those in charge of day-to-day operations aren't much willing to explore the possibilities. |
BAD NEWSPAPERSJohn Sullivan at Tyee.ca on Who wants to save newspapers?:
Canadian journalism can be like a stagnant pool. It lacks both a forum and the desire for professional debate and improvement. As newspapers, in particular, come under increased pressure to change by the faster delivery of news on the Internet, and at a time when convergence, corporatization and declining circulation are taking their toll on newsroom budgets, the lack of professional concern for journalism is insane. Sullivan looks at the differences between the States, which has a vibrant newspaper "culture" and Canada, which decidedly doesn't. I can quibble with a couple of his points but it's hard to argue with his conclusion that something needs to be done to counter the long, slow slide into irrelevancy. The weakness of the piece is that Sullivan looks at newspapers as they are, and as they could be, in isolation. More "professionalism" and a revitalized newspaper culture might make newspapers better, but it won't necessarily make them more relevant to the lives of most of the citizenry. With the explosion of new media, I no longer need a single newspaper (or even two or three) to give me what I want — an understanding of my city and the larger world, good stories, trenchant criticism, great writing and all the rest.
The piece is just up this morning, so no comments yet, but given Tyee's readership, it should be a lively debate. |
Last update: 12/26/04; 7:03:42 AM .
