Comments on: Talking bylines with new Chicago Tribune editor http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/ Where media and technology meet Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:48:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Joan Bien http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/#comment-351307 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:23:05 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/#comment-351307 If the only measure of journalism is the number of readers (and we know that the larger the headline, the greater the audience),then it will all Rupert, all the time. Then again, Zell obviously yearns to leave his mark on the public face. There is no other explanation for the mindless and inane and schlocky musings of Randy Michaels. The entire mess is a train wreck. Yet Zell has relatively nothing to lose. You bet the Trib people, including those related to Trib people, are suffering beyond the horizon and all you Zell people have for us are crusty cliches and platitudes from the old rehab days. So have a happy day. We will be sure to crank out the content instead of writing the stories.

]]>
By: Robert MacMillan http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/#comment-351291 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:35:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/#comment-351291 ShaBay:
Thanks for writing. Newspapers traditionally have handled the issue of what readers want by adding and subtracting beats from their coverage areas, or larding up beats with more reporters if a topic really heats up and readers demand attention. Nowadays we see newspapers that have no compelling reason to staff overseas bureaus simply cutting out the bureaus while demanding more local coverage from their (ever smaller) staffs.

That gets away from a more difficult and tangential topic, but one that relates to your comment: Some people argue that there is a need to bring news of world events to people’s attention, whether or not it has a direct impact on their lives. If they choose to read it, then they do, but maybe they don’t. The Indian Ocean tsunami was front-page news everywhere, but there are probably many towns in the United States where it had little to no direct impact. Should it have been reported there? I don’t have an answer to that question, but I am curious about what you think.

]]>
By: ShaBay http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/#comment-351290 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:38:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/#comment-351290 Advertising personnel is held to dollar revenue standards, why not hold journalists to reader numbers?

There are plenty of market studies to show newspaper publishers exactly what readers are looking at. If it’s not well read, cut it (and the person writing it unless there’s an area that person can contribute to that will be or is well read).

I’m not sure I agree on the standardized number of stories, but surely by allocating resources to the areas people want to read (including investigative reporting pieces), you can’t lose?

The number of readers has a direct impact on ad dollars – look at preprint numbers if nothing else. We need readers, and therefore need newsrooms to write about what readers want.

]]>
By: joe http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/#comment-351280 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:08:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/#comment-351280 ummmm… good journalism doesn’t sell ads. That is the point of the problems right now.

]]>
By: Dick Cooper http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/#comment-351275 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:18:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/07/17/talking-bylines-with-new-chicago-tribune-editor/#comment-351275 Newspaper readers buy information and entertainment. Steve Lopez offers both. Newspapers have been tying to reconfigure themselves since they lost the monopoly on supermarket ads. What sells is quality and exclusivity. Until the moguls figure out that good journalism sells, the industry will continue to sprial down. To risk repeating myself, good journalism sells.

]]>