Pointing to the future of newspapers?

Jeff Jarvis’ offers some interesting ideas on the potential nexus between blog-like online publications and traditional newspapers on his BuzzMachine blog. The gist of his argument can be summed up with his opening line:

Try this on as a new rule for newspapers: Cover what you do best. Link to the rest.

It is, as I said, an interesting idea, one worth considering, though I’m not sure how useful it will be for community weeklies like the Post and Press that focus on the most local of issues.

For bigger dailes — especially for papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post — this may be an approach that can allow them to provide real, useful and important news without ignoring the fluff and celebrity stuff that seems to be of interest to many out there. It is a way of targeting resources toward their best use.

“(I)n the age of the link,” Jarvis writes, the old ways are inefficient and self-defeating.

You can link to the stories that someone else did and to the rest of the world. And if you do that, it allows you to reallocate your dwindling resources to what matters, which in most cases should be local coverage.

This changes the dynamic of editorial decisions. Instead of saying, “we should have that” (and replicating what is already out there) you say, “what do we do best?” That is, “what is our unique value?” It means that when you sit down to see a story that others have worked on, you should ask, “can we do it better?” If not, then link. And devote your time to what you can do better.

We make this decision nearly everyday, picking and choosing what to cover, how much space and time to devote and how to play it. No newspaper can cover everything or devote the kind of resources we would like to the stories we do cover. And our resources are shrinking at a lightning pace.

So we have to rethink the “architecture of news” by finding new ways to cover things. Is the Jarvis model the right one? Perhaps, though there maybe other approaches. It is, however, something that is very much worth thinking about.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

The long campaign

What if you ran for president and no one cared? Why, you’d probably drop out. Just ask former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

As silly as a story like this seems when we remain a full year before the first primary, it does raise some interesting questions, as Josh Marshall asks in this post from Talking Points Memo:

(A)rguably the big story so far in the 2008 cycle is just how fast the race is developing — how quickly frontrunners are being annointed, how soon formal announcements are being made, how quickly people are dropping out, etc.

And I’m curious how much of this sped up cycle is due to blogs and web media. I don’t mean to ask whether this is the ‘netroots’ flexing its muscle, though that’s an interesting question in itself. But the pre-primary presidential winnowing process is largely a matter of buzz and a feedback loop between buzz, organzing and fundraising. People generate buzz, they get supporters, they get more money, that leads to more buzz, etc. Or in other cases, people have a lot of money. So they look formidable. And they get supporters and buzz, etc.

We can argue over whether money is driving buzz or vice versa. But a lot of the pre-primary phase is this process of sampling, often with relatively small sets of people. And the perceptions of those samples pick up steam and often become self-fulfilling. So is it the web and the more rapid sampling it allows — partly in fundraising but much more in buzz — that’s ramping the process forward and making it so fast?

I don’t have any answers, personally, but it is worth thinking about — especially with the primary season being condensed in 2008.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

The mirage of reform

The Star-Ledger today offers a summary of the state’s tax reform effort that presents the last half year in a somewhat better light than I would.

Of the 98 recommendations made by four special joint committees, the paper says that about half were enacted as law. And while that maybe true from a technical standpoint, the most important were not and many of the other controversial items were either watered down in committee or between the release of the reports and the passage of the legislation.

Take the consolidation bill. The one that became law essentially created an advisory panel with authority to study the issue, but left the final decision to voters in the communities to be merged. Normally, I would never oppose giving voters a choice, but the history of municipal and school consolidation is one of failure and inaction, caused only partly by fiscal considerations. Other tangential issues — red herrings like the amorphous “identity,” as if villages like Kingston that are not independent municipalities lack identity — have come into play keeping the expensive array of overlapping and repetitive governments in place.

The bill originally on the table would have addressed that by giving the state Legislature and governor final say — the merger panel would recommend towns to consolidate and the state would act. That would have been infinitely better.

Go down the list: The ban on dual-office holding? Still waiting. New school aid formula? Wait until next year. State comptroller? Sort of — a far weaker comptroller was created than proposed.

The Legislature did manage to create a new, executive county superintendent — a silly idea that creates a new level of bureaucracy — and impose a set of tax levy caps destined to do little more than hamstring local governments and schools. Our best hope for the caps is that they create momentum for greater shared services and mergers — if you can’t spend, after all, you have to find other ways of providing services.

How would I grade the governor and Legislature at this point? I’d give them an incomplete — and make no mistake, this grade applies equally to Democrats and Republicans.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

Of titles and school board candidates

I received the following e-mail today:

Would you please explain to me why Harry Delgado is routinely also described as “South Brunswick Police Capt. Harry Delgado”, when other incumbents or others running for the school board for the first time are not also identified by their jobs? (see “Deadline Looms for Board“)

The answer has nothing to do with qualifications, Capt. Delgado’s or anyone else’s as the rest of the e-mail implied. Capt. Delgado — and all police officers — is identified by rank in all stories in the same way that all religious leaders carry their honorifics with them (it would be the Rev. Francis Hubbard whether we were writing about something going on at St. Barnabas Epsicopal Church or happened upon him while doing a story at a local ice cream shop).

We also refer to school board member Matthew Speesler as Dr. Speesler on second reference, even though his medical degree has nothing to do with his service on the board.

Politeness is part of it, but there is a practical reason for this with police officers, as well. Officers, though they work in shifts and can be said to be “off duty,” are always on the job.

I’m comfortable with the policy, but i’m willing to hear what everyone else thinks. Send me an e-mail.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.