US Newspaper Editors Are Having To Explain To Their Public What All The Changes Really Mean To The Daily Read, Some Of It No Holds Barred

Philip M. Stone October 31, 2007

Tribune’s Orlando Sentinel has been experiencing an increasing number of errors each month since June’s financial belt tightening, and Public Editor Manning Pynn didn’t hold anything back in explaining to readers why:

“(The newspaper) lost a wealth of seasoned veterans, many of them editors. Those journalists not only wrote headlines and captions, they scrutinized the work of the reports – correcting spelling, straightening out syntax, double checking facts -- before publication. With fewer people to do that now, less of that important work gets done, and the result is more published errors.”

And he made very clear why those increasing mistakes are a major problem for any newspaper. “Every business’ success depends on the reliability of its products or services. If their reliability declines, people are less likely to buy them. Newspapers are particularly susceptible to that phenomenon.

“If readers regularly find mistakes, they have every reason to wonder about the accuracy of everything else in the publication. They have no way of knowing which parts of the newspaper have been thoroughly and carefully edited and which have not.”

The Sentinel prints corrections to the previous day’s stories on the second page of each issue, and the number of corrections is getting larger by the month. Corrections, of course, prove a newspaper is trying to get it right but, as Pynn wrote, “Nothing, though, beats front-end quality control. Information that can’t be trusted is not less valuable; it is worthless.”

He noted the newspaper had a similar problem at the beginning of the year and got it under control, but now with fewer bodies to do the editing he says -- as a shot to the publisher – “it will take a commitment to adequate editing resources.”

Back in May the Sentinel announced it was restructuring its newsroom to refocus on its online product, turning its newsroom into a 24/7 operation.  But 24 jobs went in the process.

Editor Charlotte Hall explained at the time, “We need to change the way we think and act so we can succeed in the new world, both in print and online. Our winning edge in the battle for audience will be our superiority in gathering local news for different platforms. This means our priority will be keeping ‘feet on the street’”.

Apparently she didn’t take into account it still takes the “two pairs of eyes” theory in editing news copy and that means that while its fine to have “feet on the street”, you also need bodies back at the office to correct “street feet” mistakes.

Publisher Kathleen Waltz said also at the time, “We are working on moving our business model to the net. This is not the end of change for us. We are going to have to get used to change.” Which is fine, but doubtful her business plan called for the newspaper’s reliability to slip, a point her own public editor has made clear for all to see.

Further up the East Coast at the Capital newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, readers got real panicky when the newspaper announced at the beginning of October it had offered voluntary buyouts to 50 longtime employees. Readers apparently believed that was the beginning of the end.

Under the headline, “We’re Adjusting to Changing Times and A Changing Market” Editor Tom Marquardt had to tell readers that the newspaper needed to adjust to declining advertising revenues, but it was still financially strong and well-read.

“We have the same number of reporters and we are covering more community events than ever with supplemental help from correspondents who live in the community. We have significant challenges ahead, but that doesn’t mean we won’t succeed. There will never be a lack of interest in local news, and that’s why I am confident The Capital and other local newspapers will survive. And as long as there is an interest in local news, there will be an interest in advertising. We’re not going away.”

But in Minneapolis, Star-Tribune Editor Nancy Barnes had the opposite problem – her readers were concerned the “readjustments” meant that the newspaper’s journalistic focus was narrowing in the effort to increase local news and that was at the expense of readers getting the wider state, national and international picture.

McClatchy sold the newspaper last December in a basic fire-sale. The deal closed in March and 24 newsroom writers, editors and support staff took buyouts.By May the newspaper announced another 145 jobs had to go, including 50 in the newsroom, so in just the space of this year alone 74 newsroom jobs vanished.

To compensate, editors had to decide what continued to get covered locally and what didn’t. And that meant that about 100 newsroom staffers were taken off current assignments and forced to apply for new assignments. Some beats just weren’t going to exist anymore. Managing editor Scott Gillespie explained it in business terms, “We’re in a business and the business model that we came to know and be comfortable with in the 90s changed dramatically.”

But as Barnes wrote in her column this week, “For some months now, I’ve heard a low-grade rumble from readers about this paper’s efforts to cover local news more aggressively. Readers fear this means becoming narrow-minded and parochial about journalism.” So she concentrated on how some local reporting had focused on international events that affect Minnesota -- her basic answer to being narrow-focused: “not so.”

And to bring that message home she quoted the Star-Tribune’s Washington correspondent – he is the only Minnesota news organization reporter in the capital – and he explained, “I think people in Minnesota have a thirst for knowing how they fit into the larger world. They are very outward-looking people and they crave knowledge of how their lives compare to others, how what is going on in Minnesota fits into a national and international dimension. We write for readers who are far from parochial.”

Mix it all together and there are basically two messages for newspaper publishers. If newsroom staff cuts really do show up in the newspaper as quality control issues then that is something that has to be taken care of very quickly to keep the readership onside, and secondly that readers are really rather loyal to their daily read and they expect the newspaper in turn to be loyal to them. If changes are being made, explain it in clear concise language – the readership may not necessarily like the changes but they’ll understand why.

ftm Follow Up & Comments

Post your comment here