Sunday, August 27, 2006

Callinan and Co. Spread “Get Published!” Feature

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

In this article from July 31st, we reported about how Tom Callinan seems to be replacing quality reporters with a new interface that encourages regular citizens to submit content for publication in the paper.  At the time, the interface was available through NKY.com.  Today, the Enquirer has announced the concept to a wider audience.

In an article from today’s paper entitled ”Where to find local news,” Callinan and Co. try to introduce the concept of user news submissions as an expansion of local news coverage.  Here is the entire article, as it is rather short:

Initially, the list of 184 web pages looks quite comprehensive, but a closer examination will show that many headlines and photos are used throughout.  For example, the picture to your right (swimmer Stephanie Conklin from Ursuline Academy) currently appears on every Hamilton County neighborhood link.  The photo gallery does not have many pictures, but after Stephanie you can find photos of college kids moving things into the XU dorms.  Those are the front pictures for all Butler County neighborhoods.  In that capacity, therefore, a bit of illusion seems to make the customization more particular than in reality.

But the “Get Published!” feature should raise obvious concerns.  It is really nothing more than a blog hosting service that reserves the right to edit for content.  Have news?  Submit it.  Maybe it will show up online.  Maybe it will be changed.  Maybe it will land itself in the print Enquirer.  Maybe it will be heavily edited.  No matter what, unpaid citizens have created content to help spread the Enquirer empire.

Take another look at James Jackson’s vision of local news:  bragging about kids, pet pictures, block parties, and church fundraisers.  This is the kind of content the Enquirer wishes to solicit from the public.  This is what they wish to use to fill their shrunken print edition.

Is this news?  Is this the future of journalism?

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

says:
27 Aug 2006  at  05:48 am | #

I just found this article, which is an advertisement for pictures for this new feature.

Sad.

David E. Gallaher says:
27 Aug 2006  at  06:14 am | #

I don’t see the problem.
Advertisers have always provided newspaper content.  Now ordinary people are showing how they beat their petty paces from day to day.
Isn’t that what jounalism means?
The only missing piece is a truly wise person to put it all into perspective.

says:
27 Aug 2006  at  06:15 am | #

I don’t see the problem.
Advertisers have always provided newspaper content.  Now ordinary people are showing how they beat their petty paces from day to day.

No.

‘Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

David E. Gallaher says:
27 Aug 2006  at  08:23 am | #

"‘Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

‘c’est la vie’?

says:
27 Aug 2006  at  11:01 am | #

Why is this so wrong again?  Regular citizens get to contribute, but there’s editing for content.  Nothing different from YouTube, Google Video, or Slashdot - some of which use paid staff editors, others of which use the most experienced community moderators.  None of the contributors get paid. 

Nor do they imply that the average readers are idiots.

You can hate on the politics of the editorial writers, or on their affiliation with corporate media providers - but you haven’t made anything approaching a case that there is something wrong with this way of collecting and disseminating the news.

(Offtopic comments in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...)

says:
27 Aug 2006  at  12:19 pm | #

Brendan:

Why should I repeat myself?  Here are excerpts from my previous article (linked in the top paragraph):

According to an anonymous source who claims to work for the Enquirer, since Tom Callinan has become the Editor, the paper has lost many positions, including investigative reporting, computer-assisted reporting, one of our two reporting spots in Columbus, all but “the most repellent” of the columnists, the minority affairs reporter, the movie critic, the music writer, the writing coach, two medical writers, the environment reporter, two business reporters, the photo director, one librarian, and several clerk jobs.

(snip)

Is this the paper’s strategy for not only saving money, but also for the ultimate dumbing down of our intellectual environment?  What kind of profile does the Enquirer expect to attract with their “Get Published!” options?  Do most readers have the same kind of time and access for quality investigative journalism?  (And if a reader did manage to provide such a report, is there any guarantee it would be published?)

From the surface, it looks like The Enquirer is trying to decimate the ranks of quality writers, and boil down their local coverage to announcements and feel good puff-stories authored by our neighbors.  What better way to make people feel empowered about their loss of quality information?  Maybe we won’t get a complicated report about the abuse of Area TIFs versus Project TIFs in Cincinnati—and what that means for local residents—but in exchange people get the thrill of knowing the person whose name appears in a print.  Or even (sakes alive!) being published themselves!

As to your comments—again, why not be more particular in your supposed disagreement?  Are you comparing YouTube to the Enquirer?  That hardly coheres.  Firstly, YouTube is not a print newspaper.  Secondly, they do NOT filter for content.  Videos are available within a few short minutes after uploading.  They simply ask that you not upload porn or stuff that violates copyright laws.  Additionally, they provide a service:  I am able to host video footage online for free. 

They do imply that average readers are idiots.  Just look at what they cover, or propose to cover.

I have made arguments about why this idea is wrong.  You have failed to address my points in a coherent and pointed rebuttal—hiding, instead, behind your constant “holier-than-thou” rhetoric.

(More bombast from Brendan in 2 ... 1 ...)

says:
27 Aug 2006  at  01:29 pm | #

Where to begin.

You set up a false expectation of what journalism should be and then criticize the Enquirer for failing to meet that standard.  There’s no evidence to suggest that what readers really is want “quality investigative journalism” that helps maintain the “intellectual environment”.  Certainly you want that - given the never-ending cycle of complaints here at the Beacon - but the Enquirer wants to sell newspapers and meet the needs of their readers - readers who don’t want preaching.

You claim I have a holier-than-thou attitude?  If you don’t like me saying it, how about one of the longest-lived journalistic publications around, The Economist, from a few days ago:

Consultants advising newspaper groups argue that they need to adjust their output. Research into the tastes of mainstream newspaper readers has long shown that people like short stories and news that is relevant to them: local reporting, sports, entertainment, weather and traffic. On the internet, especially, says Mr Chisholm, they are looking to enhance their way of life. Long pieces about foreign affairs are low on readers’ priorities—the more so now that the internet enables people to scan international news headlines in moments. Coverage of national and international news is in any case a commodity often almost indistinguishable from one newspaper to the next. This impression is exacerbated as papers seek to save money by sacking reporters and taking copy from agencies such as Reuters. “Our research shows that people are looking for more utility from newspapers,” says Sammy Papert, chief executive of Belden Associates, a firm that specialises in research for American newspapers. People want their paper to tell them how to get richer, and what they might do in the evening.

By this standard the Enquirer is doing exactly the right thing.  The article goes on to give examples of how “citizen journalist” (not activist) efforts are proving fruitful from Brazil to Korea - doing things like submitting news.  What’s the conclusion?

Over the next few years it must decide whether to compromise on its notion of “fine journalism” and take a more innovative, more businesslike approach—or risk becoming a beautiful old museum piece.

The Enquirer seems to be in the process of making that decision - and it’s chosen it’s own survival.  They are engaged in the business (and yes, it’s a business) of directly serving their readers and trying to preserve those customer relationships.  They are not going after some activist agenda based around “gotcha” investigations and harping on issues about which readers simply have no interest.

Your problem isn’t with the Enquirer, Dean.  It’s with everybody else around you, people who doesn’t have the same fixations and fringe politics.  The problem isn’t that too few people know about Heimlich’s dark secrets and the issue needs more publicity.  It’s that everyone who cares, knows. And it’s a very, very small crowd (albeit a noisy one).  Everybody else wants to know the traffic report and news about the church fundraiser.  You can go down the street banging on doors and attempting to get them to care about something different ...

... but I guess bashing the Enquirer is much less work.

says:
27 Aug 2006  at  04:19 pm | #

What’s too bad, Brendan, is that you won’t approach the issue fairly.  This has nothing to do with fringe politics and Heimlich stories.  But, in your desire to discredit a criticism of corporate media, you dismiss the stories we have covered and the current criticism as one and the same.

C’mon, Brendan—the success of The Beacon has been in covering what does not get covered elsewhere.

And, if you like news as “business,” that is your choice (though I question the ethics and morality of making such a choice, given what is at stake).  Though the Enquirer has been making decisions that fit with the mainstream market analyses of consumerism and cost-savings, that still does not make their decisions right.

So cut the chase, Brendan.  Can you address the issue, or not?

says:
27 Aug 2006  at  04:21 pm | #

BTW, my son likes candy.  Should I give him more?  And more?  And give it to him as cheaply as possible, so he can get even more?

says:
27 Aug 2006  at  06:18 pm | #

I never said I like or don’t like news as a business.  But the business angle is nothing new - go back a hundred years.  These days, though, the situation is worse.  If they don’t make these kinds of changes they might not even survive.

The analogy about giving your son candy doesn’t work except to reinforce the high-minded and condescending sense of purpose which you think the Enquirer should operate - as if the people who visit their website and buy their newspapers can’t decide what they like and don’t like - as if they’re children who need to be shown what’s right.  You’re supposed to have that type of relationship with your son, but don’t suggest that grownups in the general public can’t make their own decisions.

What issue am I not addressing again?  You mean the strawman delusion about media serving some higher progressive purpose?  You can attempt to “discredit” them all you like - whatever that means, in practical terms.  I’m not taking that right away.

As to the Beacon’s success - you (and to a lesser extent Brian Griffin) have cornered the niche on proxy blame - taking out your frustration with the fact that Cincinnati is unflinchingly conservative, corporate-minded, and unfortunately quite dull - taking it out on the media which seeks to serve that public.  Again, your real complaint is with the people in this town (and Ohio) – but since you can’t reasonably rail against them you tilt at the windmills of businesses and media.

Now the bigger irony here - if you actually follow the Economist article - you will discover that with regard to the specific issue at hand - news stories that originate with citizens - the Enquirer is actually doing something that isn’t conservative at all.  It’s quite risky.  And it’s following some of the leading global trends in media.

Sorry, wasn’t that the issue?

(For the record, I read the print paper maybe twice a month, and generally only look at the website when I need the weather report or maybe a couple of times a week when somebody is linking to a story that I’m supposed to be all upset about as evidence of corporate media wickedness.  I’m mostly indifferent to the Enquirer, with the possible exception of Borgman, who is consistently good.)

John Galt says:
27 Aug 2006  at  08:51 pm | #

Brendan doesn’t want to see any “quality investigative journalism” conducted as it inevitably exposes his republican heroes as the crooked scheming thieves and hypocrites that they are.

says:
28 Aug 2006  at  04:24 am | #

You read it once a month?  Then obviously their marketing is working wonders…

I have never known you to debate fairly online.  Happy to talk via email or in person.  But c’mon—I do not use The Beacon to complain about Cincinnati nightlife.  What are you talking about?  You’re just attacking…

freedom Fighter says:
28 Aug 2006  at  10:22 am | #

I never or rarely, I should say, purchase the fishwrap. For years they have displayed such a corporate, political bias that I refuse to give them any of my earned income.

I think the guest writers may be progression ?

If they censor and editorialize, like they do their blog for which I hope they do, than they will be exposed as the hacks they are and hopefully decide this market is not worth their time.

Dean, yes you are right that you have gained readership because you have provided information they will not publish.

In my humble opinion, though, you could lose readership unless you maintain objectivity in all that you post.

says:
28 Aug 2006  at  05:42 pm | #

FF, I have been “objective.”

Where have I lapsed?

Xman says:
28 Aug 2006  at  08:41 pm | #

C’mon, anyone who has read the Enquirer closely over the past eight years knows exactly the point the Dean is trying to make. The U-post program online is nothing more than an extension of the paper’s conversion from news provider to family scrapbook. Apart from the must-do stops for Marcus Fiesel and Comair 5191, the Enquirer is now saturated with candy-coated stories about kids going back to school and people donating their time and money to good causes. The paper bungled Chiquita, but Larry Beaupre, the editor sacrificed in the name of legal expediency, deserves a medal for taking on the company and exposing its sleazy business tactics. Do you think that Callinan & Co. would ever embark on such a project again? No way. While he dumbs down and downsizes the paper, he has no choice but to put on a show of maintaining content to fill in those shrinking space between the Dillard’s ads, and what better, cheaper source of content is there than that written by the readers themselves. You’ve got to give them credit. They’re fooling most of the readers most of the time. No one will know when the last reporter is gone and stories from City Council are Get Published by a 24-year-old mayoral aide.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: