No, I'm not saying goodbye to newspapers ... not yet at least. I finally got a chance to read the LA Times' obit on legendary editor Jim Bellows today. It was refreshing and moving to ingest the piece, which recalled fond memories of Bellows' dedication to journalism - like when the KKK, in response to a story he was working on, poured so much liquor down his throat he passed out.
You rarely see those kinds of characters in newsrooms today, mostly because staffs have shrunk, salaries have decreased and workloads have doubled. My own editor - who worked under Bellows for a while at the Herald Examiner - even admitted that the kind of journalism Bellows encouraged way back when just doesn't work today.
Why? Long, literary journalism is just too long for today's readers, it doesn't include enough 'keywords' to make your articles more easily searched online and you can't take a week off anymore to work on one story. With about a quarter the number of reporters in the newsroom, we're making more with less.
But does it really have to be this way? I have to say I was a little irritated when my editor made those comments, just because that's EXACTLY the mentality that has most of us reporters down in the dumps in the first place. There doesn't seem to be the same kind of passion, the same kind of drive and the same kind of push from hard-ass (pardon my French), but motivating editors who really mentor and lead in their newsrooms.
Who says that kind of storytelling can't work today? Maybe not in the print product - but nothing in the print product seems to be working, so why not take those longer pieces online? I've long suggested special projects on the internet that give readers what they want, and allow reporters to do the kind of good journalism we're taught to do.
But I guess hit-based journalism has really taken over. Gosh, Bellows would be disapointed.
No comments:
Post a Comment