Good point re: context…although I think that depending at how you look at it, blogs can actually do that really well through providing links to source material/additional info that you might not have the space to get in a traditional story (Scott Karp at Publishing 2.0…http://publishing2.com/… has a lot of interesting thoughts about what he calls “link journalism.”

Although there are undeniably local differences, I think that, unfortunately, the issues affecting newspapers are actually fairly uniform. (E.g. We don’t yet have an adequate business model for online; classified advertising, which once formed the bulk of our business, is disappearing; the economy is general is obviously bad; and newsprint/ink prices are rising fast.)

In my hometown of Milwaukee, where they recently announced job cuts, the paper has about a 70 PERCENT penetration rate on Sundays, highest in the nation and astoundingly high. They just won a Pulitzer. The Milwaukee economy as a whole is conservative and therefore is not as strongly affected by real estate booms and busts and the like. They are locally owned by Journal Communications. But even still, they are still struggling just like everybody else…revenue is falling like a rock. So while context is always important, in this case I’m not sure you are going to find much variation between newspapers economically. I’ve also heard about some problems at a lot of smaller newspapers too, which had previously been doing better. All in all, :(.

Context, as much as the traditional five Ws, is a principle of newsgathering that has been pounded into our skulls. I fear that, at times, Romanesko falls prey to the same pratfalls as other blogs: It takes tidbits of information and assembles them together in a manner that is high in utility but can offer a false impression of an issue. I read Romanesko about once a week, on average. In no way am I tracking the unfolding drama (or trauma) in journalism. Yet, I am struck with a sense of dread when I click around on the links.

But this is just a gut reaction. I do not know the exact circumstances that separate struggles in Columbia, S.C., with those in Milwaukee. Yes, I’m aware of the broader trends, but it’s the specific, local factors that I’m lacking. In short, if we are aware of broader trends, and a mindset of impending doom already been fostered, then do we just skip over the details and specificity that come with context and nuance to the discussion of any issue?

For me, Romanesko can create a Chicken Little-mentality where journalists, editors, and publishers start hand-wringing and rummaging about for solutions without have a discussion regarding the nature of the specific circumstances at their publication. This is exacerbated by the very fact that the conglomeration of newspapers and other outlets in chains encourage the “group-think” phenomena.

Again, I’m not the news connoisseur that you are, but I figured I’d add my two cents.

“The thing about press releases is that they are not always accurate. Take, as a convenient case in point, today’s LA Times story warning people about the toxic fumes given off by shower curtains. Scary, huh? But it’s based on a study by an activist group, and if you *read the study,* you’ll find, albeit towards the end of the 44-page document, that the group admits its emission tests couldn’t find the chemicals (phthalates), which are touted by the LAT as especially risky, migrating from the curtains. And if they don’t come out, how can they be a risk? It’s a bit like saying ‘if you drink gasoline, you’ll get sick; therefore (read all about it!) cars are toxic.’

“Given that William Knowles, who received the Nobel Prize in 2001 for work crucial to developing green chemistry, recently denounced this kind of activist science on phthalatees, don’t you think you should reward journalists for doing more than transcription? I mean, if that’s all you want journalism to be, write a program to trawl Ascribe or the PR news wires, and hire a few reporters from Britain’s tabloid press to come up with catchy, provocative headlines and scandalous spin. Alternatively, think about the value of journalists *not* writing inaccurate stories by doing background research, otherwise known as ‘reading,’ and leaving the cubicle to go out and ‘talk’ to people.”

Indeed. Does anyone think “Meet the Press” will be quite the same without the intelligence and insight of Tim Russert?

I’m impressed by your very interesting blog and I would to know a little bit more about your academic research which are closed to mine.

I’m a former journalist too, an instructor in j-school and PhD student in France.
In few words, my thesis is about the institutional change (managerial and organizational) in the newsrooms of French daily hard news newspapers. This issue is currently dramatically critical in France where faling business models and journalistic culture away from media firms economics and management need to be reframed in order to make survive our hard news dailies that are dramatically diving…

I would therefore interested in reading your papers about your research topic: would you agree to send them to me? Maybe we can exchange about that ?

Regards,
Matthieu

Mr Matthieu LARDEAU
Journalist
Lecturer in Media business & marketing, IPJ & IFP Accredited Journalism Schools
Research Assistant & PhD candidate, Dept. of Management, ESSEC

Academic address: ESSEC Business School (www.essec.edu), Ph.D. program
Av.Bernard Hirsch, BP 50105 - 95021 Cergy Pontoise Cedex, France
E-mail: matthieu.lardeau[at]essec.fr
E-mail: matthieulardeau[at]gmail.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthieulardeau

But in general, I think that you either have to push in one direction, or figure out a plan that allows you to push in two directions…it won’t just happen. Also, I think that ultimately, the Web is not just a technology, it’s fundamentally a way of doing journalism even BETTER, by allowing us to connect better with our readers, be more transparent, etc. etc. — so the conflict doesn’t have to be one of technology vs. journalism.

Thanks for your insight.

I was intrigued by your comment about building buy-in for Web-first philosophy. I get a lot of my news from the Internet - -but then I click to read the story. I am not content with the snippets of news approach that some web services and many television stations provide. I want the beef.

I don’t think I am alone. It seems like there are a lot of people who want to know the story behind the story even though the firs theadline they may see is on their smartphone.

If I wer etrying to influence a newsroom. I would first find my supporters. Hint: anyone under 35 probably is a Web-first type of person. They can be your allies. Second, I would find ways for the newsroom to hear from your readers. How do they want their news? Are they still interested in real reporting and in-depth coverage?

I often find that companies I consult to get quite interested in considering change when they learn directly from customers that the old service isn’t working for them.

I wish you well.

Rick Maurer
http://www.beyondresistance.com
http://www.changemanagementnews.com (blog)