Reaction to a post on the decline of longform stories at major papers
Yup. And there were a lot more all over the place, including this good exchange between Barry Yeoman and others on the difference between longform and narrative.
Like I said, a lot of reaction, much of it passionate. That’s the power of longform for you.
‘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)
What was James Rosen thinking?
How much of Rosen’s trouble is of his own making?
Cat Fall: A modern tragedy
Max Fisher and the problem with foreign-affairs blogging
“I hope my nudity doesn’t bother you. We’re completely committed to openness here”
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.
As a reporter who regularly writes long, but seldom 2,000 words long, nothing about the findings of your informal survey or the response surprises me.
Since USA Today started and since newspapers' circulation started to capsize in the 1980s, story length has been a whipping boy and often a scapegoat for the industry's problems. Editors over and over have tried to cut story lengths as a way of luring more reader interest and the track record of that strategy can only be seen in the continued declines in paid circulation at most dailies.
Obviously, long, rambling, poorly edited stories don't belong in the paper. But is the content of the WSJ, Washington Post and LA Times any better today now that the stories have been shaved? And if so, by what standard?
Is there any link between story lengths and circulation? WSJ's rose after Murdoch arrived. But was it the shorter stories that made the difference, or the switch to a general interest format?
Those are the kinds of studies I'd like to read.
#1 Posted by Tony Davis, CJR on Tue 22 Jan 2013 at 11:36 AM
The antipathy some have for the longform article is that it was often overdone in the past, long just for the sake of being long. Obviously, there are articles that demand exposition, so nobody is going to deny that there is a niche for longform. But perhaps there just isn't much of an audience for it, perhaps so much longform was just journalists being elitist, as Murdoch always says, and most readers don't miss it. It's also possible that longform has migrated online, to long blog posts, and to certain publications like the NYT, which you note has increased its 3000-word article output.
As for asking for "the data" that "digital outlets’ growth offsets legacy decline," as if there could be such a thing. The whole point is that there are thousands of "digital outlets," if you include bloggers, so you can't just do a simplistic analysis of such a huge data set, as you did by using a couple big newspapers. I agree with you that we need people getting paid to do investigative journalism, but I completely disagree that "big journalism" needs to be kept on life support to provide it. If there's an audience for it, they will pay for such work online. If not, it will disappear. I'm fairly certain investigative journalism will thrive online, and I'm sure all the current media institutions will die off.
#2 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Tue 22 Jan 2013 at 02:58 PM
I think focusing of length misses the point. Reduced story length simply a symptom of the real problem, which is a perception that the public can't handle issues that are complicated or have depth and nuance. So only stories that are simple and easy to understand are covered, or worse, complicated stories are caricatured or beat into familiar, probably inappropriate narratives.
#3 Posted by lopqoob, CJR on Tue 22 Jan 2013 at 05:01 PM
ha ha ha ha ha! "Jeff Jarvis"
#4 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 04:27 PM
All you Longformers are living the past. If you can't tell a story in 200 words, forget it, it's boring and I have other things to do.
And all you tweeters: Why do you need 140 characters -- 140! -- to express a thought? I get bored after 100 characters -- triple digits! (Yawn).
Any story worth being told (or sold) can be expressed in fewer than 10 characters.
For instance I read a great, thoughtful, powerful, illuminating, well-reported story recently that read in full: "Beyonce." It had all the nuance and subtext and storytelling anyone could ever need. (I thought the followup, which read "Beyonce!" went on a bit too long. Some writers are such prima donnas).
Here are the full texts of some of my other favorite stories recently:
"Implant"
"Clone"
"LIBOR" (an investigative piece)
"Lip-Sync"
"Israel"
"Planking"
"OMG!"
"Aqua Teen Hunger Force" (see, I can go for the occasional longform piece, as long as it's within reason)
"Christmas Sweater" (Touching. I laughed, I cried)
"Project Runway"
"Genocide"
#5 Posted by mwh, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 07:21 PM