One other point: Kinsley presents an argument for why people who get their news on the Internet feel that newspaper articles are often too long. It’s less clear that newspaper articles are too long, or too laden with quotes, for people who read newspapers—and there are, despite everything, still a fair number of them. Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander wrote the other day that only 19 percent of the Post’s print readers also read its Web site. That seemed awfully low, but Greg Harmon of Belden Interactive told me that the figure, while probably on the low side of industry norms, was unsurprising.
The fact that a lot of people still read newspapers, and only newspapers, suggests that they may like—or at least, feel accustomed to—the way newspaper stories are written. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have to think about better ways to write both on the Web and in print, of course, or cope with the many other challenges posed by the shifting and fragmentary nature of the audience. But while we’re out there creating the new model, there are still people who like getting their paper in the morning, and newspapers should continue to serve them.
Behind the News
03:46 PM - January 5, 2010
Is Shorter Really Better?
Why all those quotes in newspaper stories are a good thing
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
This is the best moment to be in journalism (25)
The WSJ editorial page hits rock bottom (19)
Obama DOJ formally accuses journalist in leak case of committing crimes
Yet another serious escalation of the Obama administration’s attacks on press freedoms emerges
A rare peek into a Justice Department leak probe
Court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist — and raise the question of how often journalists have been investigated as closely as Rosen was in 2010
Reporter deemed ‘co-conspirator’ in leak case
The Reyes affidavit all but eliminates the traditional distinction in classified leak investigations between sources, who are bound by a non-disclosure agreement, and reporters, who are protected by the First Amendment as long as they do not commit a crime
“At some point you have to say, a law that people don’t obey is a bad law”
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
But too much quoting is done just to show quote marks, not to really impart much new information. Too many are lightweight, restate what's already been said, and could be easily paraphrased. I've actually had students ask me if it's all right to write a story without a quote when I've deleted all their nonquote quotes and told them they could paraphrase it much more easily and directly for the reader. And in one way, I think that's what Kinsley's saying. Even the quote he cites, though it has some meat, could have been paraphrased. And in an age where the Web is starting to put expertise a notch up, I think he's saying if you are the expert, just say you've talked to so and so (and so) and they confirm the thesis that .... and skip the quotes unless they are really solid and move it forward. Too often just getting the quote is an excuse not to talk to the multiple sources needed to write with authority and really tease out the nuance.
#1 Posted by Doug Fisher, CJR on Wed 6 Jan 2010 at 02:56 PM
An interesting debate is unfolding around what constitutes an optimal article.
Mike Kinsley identifies an interesting point when it comes to the issue of reinventing text-based journalism for digital formats. It occurs to me that it is seldom the case that the correct journalistic response in a web environment is the 300 to 400 word text news story.It is at one and the same time too long as a piece of breaking information and either not long enough or, more probably, not rich enough, to engage a user looking for more depth. Yet it is the format for which many news reporters have been conditioned to write, and for a linear newspaper it provides a handy summary size, and it is therefore the format around which the vast majority of newspaper newsrooms are organised - which is a challenge when it comes to convergence.
Twitter has taught us the new language of news marketing - 140 characters and a link to something of depth and value delivered in real time by someone you trust is the obvious shape of all future news delivery. This should put a question mark over the future of the 'middle economy' of stories which have so long been the staple of news page layouts.
#2 Posted by Emily Bell, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 04:54 AM
For an article about newspapers doing diligence, Mr. Kinsley certainly does none. Jesse Brill and his CompensationStandards.com resource has been the primary source for practical guidance about how to rein in excessive CEO pay and instill responsible pay practices for years.
Those "in the know" recognize Jesse as such and his annual conference on responsible pay practices are widely attended by most in the executive pay design industry. Jesse's writings were one of the main drivers for the SEC to overhaul their executive compensation requirements back in 2006 - and major CEOs such as Jamie Dimon, John Reed and Ed Woolard have spoken at his conferences. No small thing for a CEO to speak out about excessive pay.
If Mr. Kinsley spent 10 minutes googling Jesse Brill, he might have put his foot in his mouth sooner...
#3 Posted by Broc Romanek, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 09:09 AM
Your argument seems to be for citation rather than quotation. A story gains authority if it cites experts, but it need not quote them in extenso, or even at all.
#4 Posted by John Cowan, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 06:27 PM
@ John Cowan --
It's a good point. But I would still prefer to see a quote -- allows me, as a reader, to evaluate whether the quote is really evidence for the point the reporter's trying to get across (which is not always the case).
@ Doug Fisher --
I agree with a lot of that (and again, I agreed with a fair bit of Kinsley's column). And yes, it doesn't do anyone much good when reporters go around finding people to fill "quote bubbles." But I'm leery about the "if you are the expert..." bit. Most reporters aren't experts. Even the ones that are can usually benefit from talking to other experts -- and readers can benefit, too.
#5 Posted by greg marx, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 12:03 PM
Greg:
Don't disagree with your statement that most reporters aren't experts. Lord knows I covered lots of stories where I wasn't one. But that doesn't mean you have to quote the person to convey the expertise. And I think Kinsley is touching on the growing idea that in the digital space the "general assignment" reporter may be a dying breed, so that was the context in which I use the "if you are the expert" phrase.
In any case, I think he's dead on with his criticism of the impacted lede, just as I hate the old wire service staple of "A downtown building collapsed Thursday, killing three people" that puts too much emphasis on the actor and not the result "Three people died Thursday when a downtown building collapsed."
#6 Posted by Doug Fisher, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 04:50 PM