Dangerous Ignorance: Report from Tribune’s “Innovation Officer”

A friend sent along this “Think Piece” report from Tribune Co.’s “Innovation Officer” Lee Abrams. It’s based on his recent visit to the struggling, shrunken, limp-on-the pole “flagship” Florida Sentinel papers in Orlando and South Florida.

I don’t know Abrams and do not wish him ill personally. Hell, he’s known as the “inventor” of the album-oriented rock radio format, the ’70s answer to Top 40 pablum and, later, the vital cultural firewall against disco. Many of his contemporaries [he's in his mid-50s] smoked some fine dope while listening to Steely Dan and Pink Floyd, for which we should all be grateful.

But Abrams’ report on his autumn trip to Florida is so delusional [or dishonest], so dated and mundane, so vapid and cliche-riddled, so dangerous and desperate that he needs to be called out on it for the good of the profession.

Following is the top of the Think Piece: [Add your own "sic"s where appropriate]

Spend several days in Florida at the Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel. They reinvented themselves first so this trip was a re- invent of the re-invent. Great meetings that involved a wide range of people from all areas to discuss what works, what doesn’t and what we can do better. A lot came to table…including the things that are traditionally not discussed for fear of offending someone, or simply failing to be honest about ourselves.

The attitudes of the Florida papers amaze me. Professional, focused, zero drama, no baggage, no games. They are all about delivering quality and being in position to GROW. Now…and when the economy improves, they will be in perfect position to reach new levels. It’s all about re-gearing the product AND the culture to compete in the new world. They get it.

Especially positive was something we’ll be doing more of–people from Ft. Lauderdale coming to Orlando and vice versa. Cross pollination of ideas. I presented a series of things that are being done or discussed at other papers. Slightly lowering the target age without disturbing the core and increasing the number of days the paper is read were two topics we dove into. A few of the things we discussed are below— Things to think about…as components in re-inventing ourselves”

The ideas that follow will be numbingly familiar to anyone who was part of a newsroom retreat or re-launch since 1998. Make the paper easier to navigate with icons and lists! Interview local people! Don’t write in “newspaper-speak”! More photos! Cover sex and religion, “THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPICS IN THE WORLD!” Synergize with the web!

Set aside the whole “dumbing-down” theme, which is both self-evident and unselfconscious. More important is how the list carries the tone of a simpleton cheerleader who hasn’t been around very long and is driving people “forward” into a discussion that’s at least a decade old. That these ideas come from an “innovation officer” is funny-sad.

Between the Think Piece’s repeated uses of “gotta” and “wanna,” the superannuated thinking presented as the work of a “maverick,” and the desperate claims that the tide of public opinion can be reversed, Abrams eerily embodies the worst of the McCain/Palin ticket. This is not “the change we can count on.” This is more of the same failed policies of the past.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Every synaptic twitch, every erg, every creative spark, every focused thought devoted to such doomed efforts to stall the inevitable squanders a company’s most important resource: the brainpower of people committed to the survival of journalism rather than newspapers as they are currently known.

The way out, if there is one, is to create journalism optimized for digital platforms, take advantage of news consumers’ transforming habits, put edgy new technologies in play, develop new business models–and destroy the current paper product and replace it with a smaller, radically reshaped one. The way out does not involve this nervous, ignorant doodling.

Phew. I’m done. I publish the rest of the memo below.

*WEEKLY THEMES to encourage 7 day readership. Start on Sunday with a highly visible presence. The idea is to drive readership by super-focusing on a “hot” theme. It’s an old radio trick. Want to force listening? Do a “Beatles Week”–even though a station already plays them, FOCUSING and packaging/aggregating a core hot artist creates a must listen buzz. For papers, it could be:

Restaurant Week: Monday Celebrity Chefs; Tuesday Florida’s Killer Steak Houses; Wednesday 4 Star restaurant recipes that a home cook can handle…. etc…

Sex: SEX AND RELIGION ARE THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT TOPICS ION THE

WORLD! A weekly theme of Sex/relationships. Monday Gay Florida Tuesday Does E-Harmony work? Weds Teens & Sex exposed… etc…

Religion: Monday: Can Jews and Muslims co exist; Tuesday The religious ultra right; Wednesday Catholics in America…. etc…

The idea here is to take a wide appeal topic and DRIVE readership, OWN it…and present this topic in a ‘weekly themes’ format. Where every day the topic is superserved. And of course there’ll be revenue off opportunities with many of these

*STAR EVERYTHING. Are you a “listing service” or experts? Listing events for Kids? Star them. So Mom can say “Oh–The Sentinel gives the science fair three stars, lets take the kids”. Give events and places a ‘reason’…be the expert not just the lister. Same goes for restaurants of course, and well, just about everything you ‘list’.

*24 HOURS IN PHOTOS. We “own” photos…so why not act like we do and give them a HIGHER profile via this compelling feature? A good example of importing FROM the web as picture galleries certainly do well. Te Baltimore Sun has been doing this well, and selling adjacencies to camera stores.

*LOGOIZING. Creating logos for features makes them noticeable. I love the boxing gloves and the I-think logos that Allentown. (These are logos for a point/counterpoint and a high school student editorial) Those logos take these features to a higher level. It’s “competitive” thinking vs. ‘assuming people know these features exist’. Some do…most don’t unless we force it. A logo is a tasteful way to do just that.

*HEADLINES OF THE WORLD. A celebration of newspapers. What does the Teheran Times say about Obama? What does Pravda say about our economy? These are compelling and amazing headlines that shouldn’t be hidden on Newseum for other journalists to see. There may be no better way to illustrate global opinion than to use headlines from around the globe.

*WORDING. At the Sentinel there was a story about exotic Asian restaurants, and the reefer was “Learn about Tasty Treats”. Tasty Treats??? OK for Campbell’s in 1955 or for a candy article, but other than that, it’s old world newspaperspeak!

*SCAM PATROL. Identity theft…Infomercials that are questionable…Nigerian 419 scams…they’re everywhere. We need to inform and BUST these 21st century menaces. It’s REAL…It’s NOW.

*POKER. I know the Sun Sentinel does this. It’s HOT. Poker is the 21st Century Bridge.

*10 QUESTIONS WITH. Daily. A local icon. Ask him/her ten questions. Favorite restaurant…favorite vacation spot. PERSONAL questions, so you experience the “real” side of people you usually only read news about.
Fascinating insight into the ‘real’ side of politicians, celebrity chefs, sports figures, business leaders etc…

*GREEN ICON for environment stories. Are we engaged with green? Probably not in a noticeable way. A green icon is a classic example of thinking competitively. Green is important to many. STEP OUT AND TELL PEOPLE we are engaged!(and deliver)

*ARCHIVES. PRINT (NOT ON WEB) a classic front page from the past. We OWN this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Digital Journalism Worst Practices [Reprise]

Two weeks ago I published an entry about the list of finalists of the 2008 Online Journalism Awards. I was impressed overall with the quality of the entries, and emerged with a sense of hope about the future of digital journalism [should a business model ever be discovered to fund it].

But at the bottom of the entry I included some of the Worst Practices in Digital Journalism the winners also exhibited. A few days later an e-mailer suggested, correctly, that I’d “buried the lede,” as we say in newsrooms. This is to say my list of worst practices got lost at the end of an entry about good practices.

So: I’ve reposted the Worst Practices part here. Enjoy. Or not.

Segregating “video” from other parts of a package, or even labeling it as video. Media of all types should be integrated into a whole package. Calling out “video” rings of an anachronistic brag: “Hey, lookit, we did some video, too!” I demand this practice be stopped immediately.

Layering a show-offey Flash entry page above the package. Flash pages waste time, bandwidth and user patience. They add no value. They impress nobody other than their own designers. Stop it, I tell you, stop it!

Placing the whole 3-part, 120-inch wordroll at the center of a digital package. Long blocks of text work okay on paper. They deliver a lousy experience online. Keeping those wayback-style reports at the center of digital packages tells me the newspaper folks are still in control of the website, fighting the future, defending the interests of their print reporters and slowing the new organization’s transition to a financially stable future. In fact, how about this: Instead of sticking “videos” in the sidebar of an article, how about putting “articles” in the sidebar of a visually-driven presentation. ["Hey, lookit, we wrote an article about this too!"] Editors who take offense at that suggested inversion, I submit, may want to consider that next buyout offer very seriously.

Visualizing the Iraq War, and the Scary Future of Journalism

I’m not sure how I missed this wonderful act of journalism-by-data visualization produced by Mother Jones magazine.

Titled “Lie by Lie,” it’s the wayleft publication’s “history of the Iraq War.” The project was undertaken, the editors state, “to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them?”

Why I love this work of journalism [my own political inclinations notwithstanding]:

1. It’s nothing fancy, hardly a data visualization at all. It’s essentially a timeline navigation of information on the Iraq War. The only visual grace note is the roulettey spin of the date slider as you move it around. But the tool is functional: It permits navigation of the same data by topic, tags or search. It engages and it works.

2. It is an aggregation of content reported by others. This is a great example of curation, of journalism by assembly. Clearly, smart people knowledgeable about public affairs paid close attention to a huge amount of information, made careful selections and used available digital technology to make it accessible and flexible in a way no print publication could.

3. It proves you can advance a political agenda with digital journalism just as easily as you can in the analog world. Edit, select, tweak, ignore. . .and you can assemble your own version of history, just as certainly as the wingnuts at The Washington Times or the pinkos at the New York Times.

4. By virtue of its form, it surfaces new understandings that a reader of the original reports would not achieve. For instance, noodle around with the “Dick Cheney” taq and you’ll discover, right at the top, this entry dated . . . over 15 years ago:

Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, speaking to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says the first President Bush was right not to invade Baghdad: “The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that…we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”–Aug. 14, 1992

But even as it offers a great example of digital journalism, “Lie By Lie” raises troubling questions about same.

Most of the information is drawn from reports that appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, Knight-Ridder, the New Yorker and many more. Yes, some bloggers made significant contributions. But it’s hard to imagine there would be much of a record of events to assemble without mainstream journalism’s (eventual! shame-faced!) commitment to digging for facts about the runup to Iraq.

The rub: This original reporting cost a fortune. It was produced under the old, dying model of journalism, wherein investigative reporting is funded by advertisements for cell phones, new subdivisions, mattress-chain mega-sales, designer clothing, and so on.

It’s important to remember that for all their swashbuckling highbrow bravado, the authors of New Yorker articles write on the back of designer vodka ads.

As Mother Jones has shown, people who are passionate about telling a story have powerful new tools at their disposal to do so. But without high-quality content–difficult, time-consuming, intellectually demanding, butt-numbing, sometimes actually dangerous reporting–the tools are just toys.

And who will pay for that reporting as we glide forward into the age of paper-free journalism?

Pour yourself a designer vodka and think about that one.

Two News”paper” Site Re-do’s: Washington Times, SFGate

Two major news-related websites have debuted redesigns.

One of them serves the most sophisticated, affluent digital market in the country and is backed by a strong, tenured publishing brand.

The other is funded by a company controlled by a mephistophelian international cult leader that serves second-rate content to one of the most blockheaded audiences in the nation.

You can guess which has debuted the better site.

It’s the Washington Times, funded by the Unification Church of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and the sweetly obedient house organ of the Bush administration and those who feed off it. If ever you’ve wondered who those 23 percent of American are who think Bush is going a good job, the answer is “people who read the Washington Times.”

The new Washington Times homepage is far superior to the updated sfgate.com, the site operated by the Hearst Corporation and serving the San Francisco and greater Silicon Valley area.

The Washington Times homepage is — I use this word carefully and rarely — groundbreaking in its presentation of information, at least in a popular medium like news. More than any newspaper-born site I have seen, it has disposed of the idea that a news written for a daily newspaper should be presented facefirst on the web. The project leaders seem to have started with a slate clean of many of the assumptions that have held back newspaper sites for over a decade.

Have a look:

A quick glance reveals how different this is from most news”paper” sites (I may punctuate it that way from now on). One big story given billboard play, a big headline and enough text to let you know whether you want to click in or not. The two bigger stories topping the second column attract more attention and top a column of crisp headlines.

This is all smart and satisfying stuff. But the money shot here is the semitransparent Dig Deeper thingbat that lies over the main image. Click on it and the entire main image flips over like a playing card. On the “other side” you’ll find either related media (pictures, videos), themes (topics) or stories.

Sure, lots of news sites do that sort of layered aggregation. And the Washington Times isn’t doing a very good job curating or automating the content so far. (The site almost operates as a beta at this point. Bully for them launching it anyway, I say. Meeker minds would have left it aging in the shop until it was “ready.”)

But the Dig Deeper tool itself is a joy — once again, a term I use rarely and carefully. When you flop back and forth the WT square spins like a die, and the whole flip-over motion provides the sort of brainpie satisfaction you get from any inherently entertaining interface, like the endless procession of currently viewed videos rising over the horizon on YouTube.

Meanwhile, on the Left Coast, the folks at Hearst have debuted an iteration of the news”paper”’s (ok, last time, I’m tired of that already) home page.

It manages to integrate just about every commodity-level news web design feature that has appeared over the past three years. I couldn’t find anything I hadn’t seen done many times, and better: you’ve got your blogsphotogalleriesyourcommentsmostreadtopicpagesmashupssocialmediasortastuff, in all their tepid familiarity.

News editor Vlae Kershner’s announcement has a bit of the involuntary cringe familiar to all editors who introduce changes that some readers are certain to hate. ["Our talented staff of online editors is still learning the new programming tools and figuring out where to best place content, so please bear with us."]

Even the site’s “annotated tour” seems to have a hard time mustering much enthusiasm for itself.

To be plain, there’s nothing bad about the renovated sfgate homepage. It’s just the newspaper of the leading technology community in the nation catching up to, oh, mid-2007. (In its previous re-do, last year, sfgate.com had essentially updated to 2005, in my estimation.)

The current re-do will do nothing to forestall the paper’s death or expedite its transformation. It’s just keeping pace with what the other folks do, though without much energy. Which is what newspapers have done for decades. Why start innovating now?

Which brings us back to our friends at The Washington Times. Why indeed start innovating now?

The paper has just undergone another of its major upheavals. [The history of the Times is a comic operetta of steadfastly conservative editors denying the Unification Church has any influence, and ultimately being ousted or quitting due to excessive church influence. In the background, a solemn chorus of Washington conservatives weeps, rends it garments and gnashes its teeth over the fact that the nation's capital doesn't have a legitimate answer to the Pinko Post. Like the Fantastiks in New York, it's a Washington show that plays for decades.]

A site redesign cannot solve the fundamental problem of the Washington Times–that it is, politely put, rotten at the core.

But the folks who redid the Washington Times site were able somehow to engage with one fundamental problem of web news presentation by disposing of the “paper” and working directly with the news and how users interact with it. They ignored their peers’ habits. Along the way they’ve brought some new energy and ideas to web news design.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if a San Francisco news source took up a similar challenge?

2.D’oh! The Weekly Roundup

A weekly sweeping of the inane, inspired and utterly inexplicable from the world of Web 2.0

News to me: Google Tip

When searching Google, you can add a tilde ~ [it's probably just to the left of your 1/! key] to instruct Google to search both the word and its synonym. It will also search alternate endings. From Google Guide:

• [ ~inexpensive ] matches “inexpensive,” “cheap,” “affordable,” and “low cost”
• [ ~run ] matches “run,” “runner’s,” “running,” as well as “marathon”

[This tip came to me via David Rothman, medical librarian and walking wiki of infotech. He learned about it from Ellen Detlefsen, herself an infoguru, who was presenting at an AMA conference the three of us attended.]

An “Oasis of Creativity” in a Desert of Debt

Chief Innovation Officer Lee Abrams promises the breathtakingly leveraged, horrifically downsized, real-estate-mogul-owned Tribune Co. will become “an oasis of creativity” in journalism. Read the interview.

Most intriguing, if exaggerated, observation:

“I was looking at newspaper front pages from 1938 through to 2008. Put them all next to each other and they pretty much look the same. Meanwhile, there’ve been inventions like TV and cellphones and computers. Yet, the newspaper front page hasn’t changed.”

Join the Content Conservation Movement: Shut Up

Scott Karp, CEO of the social bookmarking service for journalists called Publish2, offers this solution to information overload: Clean up the info environment by producing less content.

We don’t need better tools to filter infocrap, he argues. We need to produce less crap. ["Crap" is my word, not his.] Writes he:

“Everyone can have electricity — which means we need lots of fossil fueled power plants. Everyone can have a car — which means that we have more car exhaust in the atmosphere. Everyone can choose from a large variety of packaged goods in the supermarket, produced in factories and distributed by trains and trucks — which means we produce more trash. . .

“On the web, everyone can publish — which means we have more content than all the people consuming content on the web can possibly consume.

“How did we deal with excesses from technology that damaged the environment? By starting a conservation movement?”

Which seems like an ideal time to end this utterly derivative, frankly low-value post, which I felt I needed to do to keep my blog fresh. Geez, now I feel like I just tossed a Dr Pepper can out the car window.

To do my part, I’m turning comments off for this post.

SEO good. User experience bad.

I have been accused of giving my former employer, The Washington Post, a big juicy kiss a couple days back. I looked at how well the Pulitzer Prize winners integrated digital journalism into their prize-winning work. The Post came out on top. Hey, I tried to be objective.

Anyhow, today’s topic gives me the opportunity not just to cast a weary eyebrow at washingtonpost.com, but to throw sand in its face and kick it in the nuts. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

The topic is how mainstream news sites–the Post is just one egregious example among many–sacrifice user experience as a matter of daily practice in order to trick Google into ranking its contents higher on its search results.

Delivering poor user experience in the name of building traffic is, we all know, built into the very DNA of web publishing. But one particular practice of mainstream web journalism is so deeply annoying, so persistent, so widespread, so pernicious and so baffling to outsiders that it’s worth pointing out.

I refer to the Inexplicable and Distracting Hyperlink.

Let’s look at the news story that’s currently in the lead position on the washingtonpost.com home page.

Bush to Cut Army Tours to 12 Months

President Supports Suspending Pullout Of Forces in Iraq

Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 10, 2008; Page A01

President Bush plans to announce today that he will cut Army combat tours in Iraq from 15 months to 12 months, returning rotations to where they were before last year’s troop buildup in an effort to alleviate the tremendous stress on the military, administration officials said.

Note how the Post has kindly offered that hyperlink to “President Bush.” Who exactly is being served by this hyperlink? Let’s see. . .that would have to be someone reading Washington Post coverage of national affairs yet is wondering who this Bush feller is, anyway.

Same with Iraq. The audience for that hyperlink is probably that guy who’s been taking ice core samples in Antarctica since 1990 and is wondering what all the fuss is about.

But the Post doesn’t stop there. It offers handy hyperlinks to the following terms that demand explanation for the discriminating consumer of public affairs news: Capitol Hill. Afghanistan. Marines. White House. And my favorite of the day, U.S. military.

To be fair, the article also offers links of some potential value when it blue-fonts the names of prominent figures in the story.

But the stuff you might really want more background about? No links. If you want to know about the details of that Democrat proposal on a torture ban, troop relief-and-refresh and withdrawl timetable, for instance, sorry. You’ll need to visit with Brother Google.

You don’t have to be a search-engine optimization wizard to know what’s going on here. Google and other search engines read the language of hyperlinks as markers for story content. So if somebody is searching the term President Bush (and therefore likely to be looking for biographical information, not what he said yesterday about troop withdrawl) this story will bounce up higher on Google results.

But frankly, that’s SEO chump change.

The really big payoff is revealed if you click on one of those hyperlinks. Go ahead, click on the President Bush link above. You’ll be taken to what’s known in the trade as a “link farm” (or “index page”)–links to dozens of stories (and video, audio and blog entries) more or less related, in at least some tangential way, to President Bush. Torch relay to go on despite protests, IOC says (CNN). Bloomberg’s Zacharia Discusses NATO summit in Bucharest. And so on.

So why do these auto-generated pages exist? We return to the demands of Brother Google. If Google’s silent patient spiders see pages loaded with links about Bush–or Capitol Hill, or the Marines, etc.–they infer that the site is very content-rich about the topic. Up go the pages in search results. Even if the links are nonsensical, worthless or utterly baffling. (Say It Ain’t So, Colin (Balkinization)). Next time some Googler searches for President Bush, wham! Washingtonpost.com is right on top.

Except when it’s not.

Go ahead, Google President Bush. Of the mainstream media sites, the well-tended New York Times link farm (led by Campaign 2004 content!) rides highest. As does (twice!) the New York Sun. And the Bush index page of the Tribune Co.’s The Swamp political blog. I got tired of clicking through results to find a washingtonpost.com story. But I passed the bushisantichrist and bushorchimp sites along the way.

SEO is a darker and far more complex art than this, and let me state plainly that I am a rube. There are complex traffic-steering and -aggregating services (post.com uses Inform and Aggregate Knowledge, at least) that play into this. There are many things going on behind the scenes that I am clueless about. And the thing Google spiders reward the most is links to the content from other credible sites, which is at least an attempt to validate content value.

But my point is this: A reader of online news is constantly distracted by all this blue-spatter spiderbait. It degrades the user experience. It offers no user value. It adds an unsavory layer of trickery to serious-minded content. Like the worst of all journalism, it places the institution’s commercial interests above those of the reader.

The question for serious journalistic enterprises: How can you maximize traffic to great content while keeping the reader’s needs at the forefront?

And isn’t that the same question we’ve been asking as long as this profession has existed?

Next Page »