Darrell Berkheimer, a retired reporter and editor, says in the current issue of “Editor & Publisher” magazine that newspapers have been declining the past 30 years because they have lost relevancy and fail to provide pertinence to the lives of most readers.
“Many daily newspapers continue today only because they offer the same old, dull news that is pertinent mostly to those people who grew up in the community and never left, and those who left briefly for education and then returned,” writes Berkheimer.
“That’s the news of births, obituaries, engagements and weddings, building permits, and the court dockets. Only a few feature stories and the sports section show some small degree of passion for what’s happening locally.”
Berkheimer says newspapers need to reflect the passion their readers.
“How can newspapers expect readers to show loyalty to the newspaper if the newspaper can’t show more loyalty to what’s relevant to its readers?” asks Berkheimer. ”It’s time for newspapers to bring more passion back to the issues of their readers. They must find or develop ways to extract the passion of their readers and report that passion.”
“Simply put, today’s newspapers are too bland. And only when they can overcome that blandness will they become relevant again.”
PRETENDING TO BE RESPECTABLE
Absolutely agree.
Strange, because the history of newspapers has most metro dailies bordering on scandal sheets and Union/political calling cards. Now at the tail end of their history they pretend to be “respectable” and ignore their roots.
SHRINKING NEWS HOLE
To begin with, newspapers are working with a “news hole” that’s considerably smaller than it used to be, this the direct result of a diminished revenue stream as measured against fixed operating costs. Consequently, it’s imperative that the editorial staff use sound judgment in determining what stories should (or shouldn’t) occupy some portion of the “news hole.” Relevancy? What’s relevant to me may very well be irrelevant to you, and vice versa.
So how is a newspaper to know what’s “relevant” to its readers unless it conducts some sort of a survey, which begs the question: When was the last time The Star, for example, conducted such a survey? Of course, here I’m thinking in terms of the print version of the paper, but I will point out that the paper is monitoring the traffic on its Internet site and thus is able to tell its viewers there what stories are being read the most and what stories are being commented on the most. That’s a start, but only a start.
I still maintain that all papers that desire to be seen as relevant need to be finding ways to engage readers in those areas in which they are most passionate by providing ample space for letters to the editor and encouraging reader-submitted stories and photos. Names, names, names! The more names in the paper the better. Aside from the police/court news and the obit section, people like to see their name in print.
In short, papers must make their readers feel as if they are truly valued as consumers of the finished product. The Star is doing some of this already, but there’s certainly room for improvement.