Hope for dead-tree codgers?
November 11, 2008 | 9:02 am
Newspaper journalists have mastered an efficient writing style that gets right to the heart of an issue and should, theoretically, allow them to thrive in the online world.
That’s because most of us have been trained to tell the who, what, where and when (and often times the how and why) in the lead (or lede) of the articles we write. The first paragraph of this post was just 28 words — well within the 62-word limit suggested by Amy Gahran — and addressed specifically what I was writing about. Gahran’s theory is rather simple: you have about 15 seconds to show an online reader you’re offering them something of value, and the average person reads 250 words per minute. A quarter of a minute X 250 words = 62.5 words, and Gahran errs on the side of caution by rounding down.
You don’t have to stop there, of course. After you quickly convey your main “so what,” you can go on to elaborate and support your point. Just don’t go overboard. People may read further. But even if they don’t, they will have gotten some demonstrable value even from that brief encounter with you — maybe enough to recommend or link to your writing, or to keep checking you out, or to bookmark it and read it when they have more time.
Anyone who has taken a basic news writing class knows that the lede is supposed to be no more than 35 words and, preferably, no more than 25 words. It’s a craft that is falling out of favor as newspapers concede they no longer are the first medium to break news and try to attract more readers by writing well crafted features. Still, it’s hard to get out of J-School — and next to impossible to land a job at a major paper or wire service — without perfecting the art of summing up a story in that crucial, first paragraph.
Gahran’s 62 words is downright luxurious for anyone coming from a traditional newsroom. Indeed, a 62-word hard news lede — the kind that tells the who, what, where and when — would be thrown back at you by the copy editor (who should, theoretically, also be able to thrive in the world of online writing, where crafting a catchy yet telling headline is as crucial as the content that goes into the post).
You have, however, by now noticed that I’ve wasted two of the words in this post by suggesting this idea only works “theoretically.” The failure of dead tree journalists to adapt to online news dissemination is well-documented. At its base is a major structural problem in the revenue model: top papers that have invested heavily to build up an online presence now have more readers than ever — content from the Boston Globe, for instance, now has more than a million viewers. But many of those same top papers are cutting back on staff as readership of the revenue-generating print products slumps.
There’s no easy fix, and the problem is rooted in the mid-1990’s when most newspaper executives dismissed the online world as a fad that would never compete with print. Now that they’re offering online content for free, it’s difficult to suddenly start charging people for that content — particularly in competitive markets like Boston, where an competitor like the Boston Herald may continue to offer the same content for free after you start charging people.
The consequences of this are clear cut: As of right now, newspapers and wire services remain the only real option for readers who demand original content, generated by reporters who understand ethics, fairness and compelling story telling. Indeed, most of the successful online sites, from a revenue standpoint, are simply glorified blogs that link to and comment on content that has been created by someone else.
But there is also a culture problem in the newsrooms. Only now are student journalists being trained to gather and disseminate information in a multi-media world. There is still a reluctance to embrace the capabilities of the Internet to tell stories, or work on adapting existing skill sets — like the ability to write a 25-word lede — to the new medium. And there’s just an outright ignorance of all things Internet that make newspapers seem out of touch with online readers: “Security Director Geoff Stephany told police that some of the knives were offered on eBay, an Internet selling site.”
It is not an article from 1998, when some readers may not have known what eBay is. It’s an article that appeared in a newspaper last week. Up until a few months ago I told my students that, despite their dying status, newspapers were still a great place for them to spend the first two or three years of their career. They’d learn the fundamentals of reporting — including journalism ethics, law, and sourcing — and they’d learn to write well under pressure.
But more and more, I’m not so sure that’s the best career advice. And more and more I’m pushing them into internships where they can learn how to write effectively for the Web. If they have only a limited amount of extra time, I’m encouraging them to spend it writing a blog instead of writing for a student-run newspaper.
And it’s a pretty easy argument to make these days. Very few of my students — who are, by and large talented writers and bright, inquisitive people who would make great reporters — have any real interest in working for a newspaper.
Tags: Blogging, Journalism, Newspapers, Teaching, Technology, Writing
Amy Gahran wrote:
November 11, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Hi, Dave. Glad you liked my article.
Yep, even I think 62 words is luxurious. But I had to give them somewhere to start that’s feasible for them and might actually help.
- Amy Gahran
links for 2008-11-12 — contentious.com wrote:
November 12, 2008 at 11:01 am
[...] Dave Copeland » Blog Archive » Hope for dead-tree codgers? "Up until a few months ago I told my students that, despite their dying status, newspapers were still a great place for them to spend the first two or three years of their career. They’d learn the fundamentals of reporting — including journalism ethics, law, and sourcing — and they’d learn to write well under pressure. [...]