Newspapers: Good Enough is Not

Link: First Draft by Tim Porter: Quality Manifesto: Good Enough is Not.

I remember back in the day when my dad would trudge out to our circular driveway in his pj's and rescue our morning paper (the San Francisco Chronicle) from the dew-drenched junipers. Then he would digest every single word of the front page and the sports page as he chomped on his Post Raisin Bran cereal. I would listen to him chew and wonder why it was more interesting than talking to me.

Nowadays I grab a paper occasionally (I won't subscribe) and feel like I just wasted 50 cents.

Much has been written recently about the downward spiral of newspapers and the rise of Internet journalism. The other day I stumbled on this 2002 post from newsroom vet Tim Porter that had provoked some good discussion about the issue and perhaps hinted at the real truth...that newpaper reporting has lost its way.

In addition to the freshness problem, the attention span problem, and the margin problem, newspaper organizations (some might say all news organizations in fact) have a shortcut problem. They take too many. They try to get by on less money, shorter deadlines, and fewer people to make the same product. The result is, in the words of long-time journalist Mike Martindale, "a product with such consistent, numbing sameness that pages and editions all blend together."

Hence, they have fewer and fewer readers and less and less money.

The real question for newspapers and, I think, for all mega-corporate news organizations is this: can you make readers/viewers and shareholders happy at the same time? Mr. Porter hints that newspapers should re-invest in quality to get back on track - not cut costs further.

My question: would they even remember what quality reporting looks like? And if so, would they be able to guard it against future cost cutting?