It's the journalism, stupid
More from the "on being there" department. Video from inexpensive Flip video cameras rules again in Tennessee church shooting.
Related Entries
- Oct 23 2011First rough draft of history is raw video0
- Oct 4 2011Developing a news video strategy is like teaching cats to sing on YouTube0
- Sep 30 2011Video has to be in the DNA of newspaper newsrooms4
- Aug 30 2011Important ruling in Cops vs. Cell Phone Videos0
- Dec 18 2010Multimedia bootcamp coming up in February0
- Oct 7 2010Back in the day when type was hot0
- Jul 19 2010The story of a national park in video0
- Jun 22 2010Mark your calendar for multimedia boot camp0
- Dec 2 2009Video training in Nashville in early January0
- Aug 28 2009Do you believe in the "sanity clause?"0



ShareThis
On-line reader responses (blogs) to a newspaper can be informed and can create a community. Like so many other print journalism’s problems, this one is of its own making. Give up trying to be all things to all people. Do a few things well, skip the rest. Don’t talk down to your readers-use the final consonant, stop talking to “you guys,” cut the size of the paper-you don’t have to be a broadsheet.
Hire people who can write a simple declarative sentence. Review all blog comments before posting them, weed out the junk. Apply standards there, too.
Want an example. The Wall Street Journal's pre-News Corp Opinion Journal site reviewed and posted wonderful responses to its columns – as many as fifteen or more, as few as two. They were intelligent, informed, constructive, literate, witty, and there was a definite sense of community. Contributor names appeared repeatedly, from all over; Washington state, London, Costa Rica, Jerusalem, Chicago, and upstate NY, you name it. Responses were screened, sometimes you made the cut, sometimes you didn’t. Sadly, the Opinion Journal looks like most other sites today; cluttered with no focus, with a myriad of “reader responses,” few if any of which are worth reading.
Try it. It can work.