Chicago Tribune Reporters Don't Want Readers' Pre-Approval 176
theodp writes "Irked by the Marketing department's solicitation of subscribers' opinions on stories before they were published, 55 reporters and editors at the Chicago Tribune signed an e-mail demanding the practice be stopped. 'It is a fundamental principle of journalism that we do not give people outside the newspaper the option of deciding whether or not we should publish a story, whether they be advertisers, politicians or just regular readers,' the e-mail read."
Re:Their marketing people are idiots. (Score:2, Informative)
Hate to break it to you, but for the most part reporters no longer exist. Give you an example (and you'll quickly see why I'm posting anonymously): if a company I own wants to have an article about it in run in a newspaper or magazine, I call my PR person and have them write the story. That's right, WE write the stories about OUR company. We then "shop" them to reporters. Sometimes they'll "buy" because they find the content genuinely interesting (this actually happens), sometimes we resort to incentives. They then take our story, maybe change a word or two, and print it under their own name. This isn't just business news, this is all news. Political stories come out of partisan "think tanks." Same with science, entertainment, etc. If the news these days reads like a press release it's because it probably began life as one.
We no longer have newspapers or news magazines, we have aggregators and bundlers of content. They way they operate isn't terribly different from your average porn site that buys pictures and video from various photographers and sells subscriptions to it.
My personal opinion regarding why newspapers (and news magazines) are failing is because people have figured out they're being sold a huge, steaming pile of bullshit. I mean, this is life, we know we're going to be lied to and sold to from time to time, but why on earth should we pay for it (the joke about Pinnochio having sex not withstanding)? There are other reasons, of course - dead tree format can't keep up with our favorite series of tubes, nor with the highly partisan and more entertainment-driven cable news channels. I don't think people are willing to pay for media that sells political, business, or economic opinion even they happen to agree with it, except for the people who derive some sort of pathetic self-esteem boost from it. At least I hope they aren't. I'm kind of clinging to my last shreds of faith in humanity here :-)
Re:In other words (Score:2, Informative)
Objective reporting would attract readers of all stripes since the who, what, where, when and why, AKA facts (not opinions) are what we, the news consumers, are looking for.
If I want opinion I will read Ann Landers.
Good riddance Boston Globe!
Re:"The News" is supposed to be a historical recor (Score:5, Informative)
I once worked for the Dallas Observer, a largely editorial news weekly rag. The music editor wrote an opinion piece that stated things largely as he saw them. It insulted, in some way, one of the paper's advertisers. The music editor lost his job as the advertiser would accept nothing less.
This is a true tragedy in the world of journalism. The editorial and sales sides are always at odds with one another, but I have never seen editorial win... not ever.
To their credit, the journalists at that paper truly work in the spirit that the press is supposed to work under. I have witnessed the animosity first-hand. But too often, money wins.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can't figure out who else might do this .. (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree. Newspapers have sometimes been propaganda driven instead.