I like newspapers. I like the organization of information, and the way I can leaf through their pages, scanning for stories. But, as I relearned yesterday, the hard way, newspapers do not make a good fit for this brave new world.
A client provided an interview to a local newspaper a few days ago. This reporter in question happens to be a summer intern for this particular publication, so lack of experience, as much as the industry itself contributed to the problem. Yesterday afternoon, my client called me with a bit of news that the published story reflected year-old data and pulled quotes out of context from a news story six months previous. Unfortunately, this story got picked up by the Associated Press and spread rapidly around the web and even made it into statewide circulation via local news radio.
For this particular client, data validity is the key to his success. So by reporting the wrong numbers, this reporter dealt a blow to my client’s reputation. I spent the afternoon contacting news organizations that had posted the AP story, trying to get the correct information into the stream. What proved most frustrating was a call to the editor of the paper who published the original story.
He initially claimed that if those facts appeared in the story, then my client must of said them. He backed off from his claim once we made it clear that we could provide the original sources and show that the reporter had knowingly (whether through laziness or incompentence) used old data.
The most frustrating aspect was how difficult it was to get my facts into the stream. While some sites offered the option to comment on the story, others required a long search through contact information. Some even required that I register before I could submit a query via email. It’s worth noting that not all of these sites with questionable contact functionality belonged to newspapers. Several perpetrators were TV stations.
So, what’s the catch-22 for newspapers? The option for feedback and providing clarification to a story is almost nonexistent. Yes, blogging isn’t perfect either, but there’s at least the potential for me to interact with the author in real time. Once a story has gone to press, that’s it, because how many of you actually read the “correction” posted in the next edition? They’re usually in a tiny box, somewhere deep inside the paper.
Going forward, I’m recommending to all my clients that they build relationships with organizations that welcome and incorporate feedback. I’m not talking about “fixing” a story, but rather remaining open to revising inaccurate information or adding additional facts to improve the quality of a story.
This one-way conversation is crap. Newspapers made money for a long time by talking at people. Only now are they starting to realize that people will opt out completely if they can’t participate. If they can’t figure out how to make the conversation two-way, without requiring significant hoop jumping, the switch to other resources will be final.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
What a day!
The corrections section hidden on the bottom inside column of a random page taking up as little inch space as possible bothered me. When a child reading the paper, I marveled at how little space they needed to show corrections for their big paper and believed that they put a lot of effort into being correct. Now, I'm not so sure.
Watching how quickly information and misinformation spreads in a knowledge economy that wants it now has me worried. It's wonderful that we can distribute information quickly. We now know in minutes if a disaster occurred instead of weeks or months, but in the rush to be first .. or for the reporter to get as many stories posted as they can… or a lack of mentoring because the technology has changed the business.
Requiring login to submit a query about the correctness of a story is horrid. I can understand — a little — needing to log in to a site to post a comment response. I guess that could apply for the correction aspect as well, but it's silly. You should be able to just fill in a form and go.
I sincerely hope that your client wasn't damaged greatly by this encounter.
Luckily, the damage appears to be limited. I look at this situation, and I no longer wonder why the news business is floundering. Status quo isn't working and ducking one's head in the sand won't fly. Plus, adding only pushes people to go elsewhere. Yes, ask me to supply info (e.g., name, email, etc.), but you've lost me when you require a login that demands my address, phone number, etc.
What's a “newspaper?”
Cheeky. Very cheeky.
What's a “newspaper?”
Cheeky. Very cheeky.
Luckily, the damage appears to be limited. I look at this situation, and I no longer wonder why the news business is floundering. Status quo isn't working and ducking one's head in the sand won't fly. Plus, adding only pushes people to go elsewhere. Yes, ask me to supply info (e.g., name, email, etc.), but you've lost me when you require a login that demands my address, phone number, etc.