I suppose that most people who actually follow my blog already know I’ve joined Twitter. But I thought I’d post an official announcement — at the risk of sounding too self-absorbed.
I resisted the trend for so long. I figured it was a fad — it probably still is. But, I must admit, it’s a pretty cool fad. I’m liking Twitter.
At this point, I’m only using it for personal use. I don’t want to further blur the boundaries between my professional and social lives. Also, I haven’t signed up for any media organization Twitter feeds, because I have a feeling my Twitter timeline would get cluttered up pretty quick.
For some reason, my profile doesn’t show up on Twitter’s user search. My username is njeaton, FYI.
I’ve been avoiding this topic on my blog, partly because I’ve been too lazy to write about it and partly because I’ve been trying to ignore it. But, obviously, the time has come. It’s time to post a tribute to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
This morning I spent an hour and a half reading the closure coverage in the P-I. Sipping my coffee, it was a ritual I’ve repeated hundreds and hundreds of times. Only this time it was my last. Tomorrow morning, the paper at the doorstep will be The Seattle Times. I’m not exactly happy about that — clearly I’d rather the P-I keep publishing in print.
But I must admit, I am excited to see what happens with the P-I’s transition to online-only. SeattlePI.com will be the nation’s first major experiment in whether a traditional newspaper can cut ties with dead trees and survive on the Web. Everyone in the industry is watching.
Pardon the upcoming romantic memoir.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer was the newspaper I grew up reading. Like so many other people in so many other cities with so many other papers, the P-I was my conduit into the journalism world. I cut my teeth by reading the comics — called, in the P-I, “Coffee Break” — and Mariners coverage in the mid-’90s fooled me into actually reading the newspaper.
But before I even cared about the newspaper’s content, the Seattle P-I had cemented a place in my heart with — what else? — its big, revolving, neon globe. Way, way back in the day, my dad had an apartment in the Lower Queen Anne neighborhood. From his balcony you could watch the P-I globe spin. My dad would look out the window and tell me, quoting the globe, “It’s in the P-I.” Yes, there was so much wonder in that big ball of glowing metal.
It was the hometown newspaper. The Seattle P-I, for as long as I’ve been alive, was the underdog. The Seattle Times was the big, mean Doberman. The P-I always seemed closer to the hearts of Seattleites; it had a better finger on the city’s pulse.
I’ve often wondered if my early experiences with the P-I steered my future toward journalism. The allure of newspapers brought me into the Daily Evergreen newsroom at WSU, and though it took a semester for me to find my reporting legs, I ended up falling for journalism. After a year of working for the Evergreen, taking on more and more important stories, I applied for an internship at the Seattle P-I. And got it.
There I was, just a year into my journalism career, working at the newspaper I grew up admiring. The internship did not disappoint — I took what I learned there, and my stronger passion for journalism, back to the Evergreen and ended up as editor-in-chief. That, in turn, landed me my job at The Spokesman-Review in Spokane. And I credit the P-I for all of it.
That’s why today’s closure of the P-I — at least as Seattle has known it for 146 years — hit me hard. It’s not like it was a surprise, since Hearst put the paper up for sale two months ago. And it wasn’t the first major newspaper to die this year, after the closure of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver last month. But the fact that it happened to the P-I — my newspaper — gives it a more personal sting.
I am sad for the 100-plus journalists who lost their jobs today. I know many of them, and many of them were mentors who helped me become a better journalist. I am more sad for Seattle, which has now lost its heart, and a voice. And I am devastated for the state of American journalism, both for its dwindling effectiveness and its incapacity to adapt to the digital age.
For most Americans, the demise of the P-I is yet another drop in the bucket. Many people are saddened at the loss of another important institution. Many people are disaffected, happy to see the Big Bad Media fall apart and excited for the future of online news.
I feel discouraged, only able to watch from the sidelines and so far unable to get another job in journalism. A significant piece of my life dissolved today. However close to home this downward journalism spiral has been, the P-I’s closure brings it closer.
But, as I mentioned above, I am still excited to see what happens. I’m rooting for the success of the online-only P-I. It would give struggling journalists like me, and so many people I know and care about, some much-needed hope in these dismal times.
So, rest in peace, P-I print. And welcome to the new world, P-I online. Godspeed.
Anyone who follows BoingBoing has probably already seen this, but I had to share it. It’s a 1981 report from a San Francisco TV station about newspapers starting to go online.
Hats off, once again, to The New York Times for its interactive graphic on Thursday’s plane crash in the Hudson River. It’s exactly what I wanted to see, and it was executed beautifully. And they turned it around so quickly!
The other day I wrote about how I felt ambivalent about The Spokesman-Review’s finally-launched new website. Well, today I am comfortable saying that I am impressed.
The Spokesman’s effort in reporting and presenting this week’s snow storm is commendable. With 25 percent fewer newsroom employees than last year, the Spokesman folks regularly updated thier written stories, took 40-plus photos, shot a video (that was Colin), recorded audio interviews and posted PDFs.
And all of it is easily accessible on the Spokesman’s new website.
That’s a link to Thursday’s story. Today’s story doesn’t have video but does have PDFs. Doesn’t look like too many people have caught on yet to the ability to comment — though a few have on SportsLink. The majority seemed hesitant about having to get used to a new website, and gone is the old backdoor through which people could read an entire news story, without being a subscriber, if they were linked to it from SportsLink.
Give ‘em time. For big stories like the snow storm, the new multimedia-friendly web design is just great.
Looks like The Spokesman-Review’s new website is finally up and running. I questioned whether this day would ever actually come.
Unfortunately, when I opened up SpokesmanReview.com and saw the refer to Spokesman.com this morning, I became instantly agitated. Why, I’m not sure. I feel a little left out, yes, but more ambivalent. I think because I waited so long for this while I was there — my excitement waning each time the launch was postponed. Now I’m gone, along with most of the other journalists doing video, and there’s not really anything newfangled to post on this newfangled site.
Nice to see, however, that the Spokesman’s flag is at the top, instead of plain text. And it looks like most of the advertising spaces are filled. Also, I’m glad Colin Mulvany has been able to put together a few videos.
But welcome to the 21st century, Spokesman-Review. Your website now looks like every other newspaper’s, except for the cutting-edge navigation system conveniently located near the top of the page.
I know a lot of hard work went into the new website, and I know the people who did it. And I thoroughly commend them; it was a frustrating ride for even me, way on the outside of the process. The new website looks and functions great — it really does — but it’s not really anything new. Which, ya know, at this point is just fine.
Now, Spokesmen and Spokeswomen, take this new site and run with it. Seize the opportunity and make some great journalism. There may not be much time left to do so. (Boy, that sounded cynical.)
Through her Rickrolling post, Lisa led me to the Wikipedia page for Rickrolling. There, of course, is information about the now-famous Rickrolling at multiple Eastern Washington University basketball games. The perpetrator was some dude named Davin Perry.
Wait. Davin Perry?
No, couldn’t be. How could I not have noticed this?
Davin Perry. This guy, below, whom I interviewed on camera for my EWU Swoop tryouts video.
Holy f*%king crap.
Via “What’s Next: Innovations in Newspapers,” I’ve learned about Google Print Ads, a new service from Google that confirms Google is taking over the news industry. But not only does this affirm that newspapers are still valuable, which is nice to see, it shows us that large newspaper advertising departments are becoming more and more obsolete, and are probably on their way out.
If you’re at all interested in this kind of stuff, check out Google’s online presentation. Seriously. It’s only about four minutes long. Looks like a lot of papers have already partnered with Google on this. I wonder if The Spokesman-Review has. UPDATE: The Spokesman-Review has, according to our online director.
This development seems somewhat related to an item on Poynter’s “E-Media Tidbits” on Monday: Can partnerships with Craigslist save newspapers?
Why are print newspapers losing readers to the internet? What does the internet offer you can’t get in print? Is it because people are so intrigued by multimedia they’re leaving the print product? A resounding no. Is it because they want to read 700 newspaper blogs ranging from the profound to the superfluous? No way.
It’s because, on the internet, they can get their news for free.
The daily print paper is, what, 50 cents? Twenty-five in some cities? The price is already telling people the daily paper really isn’t worth that much.
Just make it free.
Seriously. Think how much circulation would increase. Print readership would skyrocket. Think of the spike in advertising revenue versus how much you lose from individual sales. Maybe you still charge a small fee for home delivery (and make that operation — the paper boys — self-sustaining). And I don’t think I should even have to mention here that newspaper websites should be completely free.
Weeklies are already doing this. The Spokesman-Review’s most popular niche products, the Voice sections, are free. College newspapers are free and often make a profit, without a professional advertising staff. Heck, the other two largest news distributors — radio and broadcast TV — offer their product for free to the audience; the audience just needs the means (a receiver) to consume it.
So make the daily paper free. Then, when you have a product that actually offers more than the daily paper — I’m talking the Sunday edition — charge some money. Maybe charge more; show people it’s worth buying. Make it $4 instead of $2 — as long as the quality increases along with the price. Treat it more like a magazine, with more features and news analysis.
The old, stingy business model is gone. It’s dead.
Lisa (Waananen, a recent Washington State/Murrow College grad, for those of you who don’t know) has a thoughtful and in-plain-English post in which she attempts to bust the myths of the print-internet crossover. A short excerpt:
The fear is that people won’t realize the website has So Much More to Offer! unless we differentiate them. … That’s just the newest reincarnation of the old newsroom assumption that readers are complete morons. Unless they’ve been reading too much Harry Potter, most people know newspapers will never present video in print. Savvy consumers will come to expect video from newspapers anyway — and know where to find it.
The ideological battle is not to convince people the web offers more than print, but to convince them newspapers offer more than print.
