How Social Technologies Saved the Story

Philadelphia Inquirer to hold stories for paper

Philadelphia Inquirer to hold stories for paper

This is ridiculous.

Permalink Reply by Brad King on August 8, 2008 at 12:32pm: I'm not sure how I feel about this; I don't have a problem with newspapers looking to act more like a magazine -- telling us why the news is important -- and less like a blog.

Does this give the newspaper the opportunity to be better at stories?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Andrew on August 10, 2008 at 8:55pm: Ryan Sholin did an interesting interview with Chris Krewson, Executive Editor, Online/News at the Inquirer.

http://ryansholin.com/; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brad King on August 12, 2008 at 6:46pm: This was an interesting interview. It certainly doesn't sound as catastrophic, but I'd have to question the underlying reason for the decision.

I just finished a white paper on emerging technologies for the newsroom to consider and one response from a journalist was -- you seem to believe the newsroom is anti-web.

My response: I think the newsroom is largely unaware of the power of the tools available and thus can't make rational decisions about how and when to deploy technology.

This still seems a case for my thinking.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Digidave on August 13, 2008 at 12:01pm: I totally agree with you Brad.

I see it as a bad decision - but I can understand why the paper made this decision. Partly because that's all it knows and partly for business reasons.

Here was my rant on it: http://www.digidave.org/adventures_in_freelancing/2008/08/the-milit...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Andrew on August 13, 2008 at 12:55pm: Does anyone think that the decision was made to improve the quality of the stories? For example, more time to research and evaluate facts and get it right rather than first.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brad King on August 13, 2008 at 1:26pm: I have never been a huge believer in throwing up the first unverified facts, although I think AP does a good job of moving first and updating throughout the day.

And I know that crafting a story takes time and iterations. Lord knows I know that. But holding back information for simultaneous publication isn't about improving the stories -- it's as arbitrary as pushing it online ASAP.

It's not about quality -- as I've read it. It's about business.

Which, if you know me, is actually what I think most decisions should be made upon; after all, everyone wants to get paid and until you've had loads of people working for you, depending upon their jobs, it's hard to criticize bean counting.

Still, this seems like voting Republican or Democrat. It's a two-party system, as if those are the only alternatives.

As I tell traditional media companies I work with, just because YOU can't make money online (or figure out how to do something), doesn't meant it CAN'T be done.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Evan on August 13, 2008 at 1:09pm: When I worked at my college paper in Philadelphia, we had this same discussion all the time. Hold the news for the morning edition -- to try to get more people to actually pick it up -- or run it online.

It seems like the Inky (with a terrible redesign for philly.com) is really trying to keep the print product as strong as possible. Certainly not the best approach for philly.com, but we'll see how it props up the flagship product...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brad King on August 13, 2008 at 1:33pm: My question is this: if it's being offered simultaneously, why would that help print circulation?

Maybe I'm being dense about this, but if I know I can get something online -- and it's not breaking news enough that the paper needed to print it IMMEDIATELY, why can't I wait til I'm eating lunch at my desk? Or passing time at work?; ▶ Reply to This