9 Comments

Comment by Brian Cubbison on July 3, 2008 at 8:46pm

I'm a big believer that you can post first if you can go back and make the story better. Can you update or edit your stories once they're posted? Or is it one way? Do you have comments on your stories? If it's a system where you have one chance to publish then it's on the next story, then you should probably give it the same editing the once-a-day print story gets. If it's interactive enough to keep improving the story, answer questions from readers, update as you find out more, then get online quickly and keep making it better.

Comment by Meranda Watling on July 5, 2008 at 1:09pm

The first newsroom employee at my paper is in the newsroom by 5:45 a.m. Monday-Friday. (About 8 a.m. on weekends.) We actually have a morning cops reporter whose job the first couple hours before other reporters and editors arrive is to follow-up any late-breaking or overnight news AND get it and as much other news from the wires up as possible before we see our traffic rush about 8-10 a.m.

Obviously, there are no editors there at that time. That reporter has complete publishing power and is expected to get the news up not wait around for editing. (As Brian noted, we can go back in and fix something or update it, if needed.)

During the day/night, however, our stories usually do go through a quick read by an editor before publishing. These are usually very quick takes on meetings, events, whatever. We follow them with a more in-depth piece for later in the day or print. (Sometimes, once we've filed the stories for print, those will go online to replace the earlier version anyway.)

Our editor reads it, processes for Web (formatting) then moves it to "Online." There, a member of the copy desk posts it. (The copy editors don't actually read it at this stage; they just post. I don't know if they're supposed to read it, but I can tell you in practice, they don't, so the story gets one read.)

If breaking news happens during a meeting or when none of our editors are around or have time, a reporter writing the update usually asks another reporter to read over it. If no other reporters are around and it needs or should get up, reporters can move it. In fact, we all have publishing access and (I think all of the local reporters) have been trained to post directly to the Web, so even if you're the only one in the office the news can go up. When we work on Saturdays (we rotate), we're expected to help keep the site fresh with our own updates and wire stories, even though until about 4 p.m. the reporter is the only one in.

I know mine is a morning paper, but I don't see why it couldn't work for afternoon papers as well. The idea is simple: Don't wait to break the news.

A few considerations to take away and bring up as your paper considers this:

• You have to trust the reporters you put in charge of your site and who you give publishing access. Not only do they have to be relatively clean writers without an editor (otherwise you could embarrass yourselves), but you also have to trust their judgment on what to post and when. You will also need to train them on writing headlines for the Web as well as posting to it.
• Know your traffic. When do you see a spike? How can you capitalize on it? — Knowing for instance if you see a spike at 6 p.m. when people get off work, might help you sell the idea of regularly posting at that time.
• Realize that the Web is a living medium. You can go back in an update a story with more details if you break the news in a two paragraph bite ("Police are investigating an armed robbery at the 7-11 on Main Street. The robbery was reported around 5 p.m. today, police dispatchers said. Check back with newspaper.com for more details as they develop.") Not only does this give your site the credentials of being known for breaking the news (before any competitors can get an on air), but it invites people back later to learn more — driving up page views.

Comment by Patrick Thornton on July 6, 2008 at 8:55am

At my old job, we sometimes posted one-line breaking news to the Web without going through a formal editing process. Usually more than one set of eyes looked at it, however.

It would be nice if you could have more than one person looked at breaking news, unless you really trust the reporter. The problem is that I wouldn't trust every employee to post raw copy to the Web. Certain editors and reporters have earned it, while others haven't.

Beyond that, you shouldn't need someone in the newsroom to post breaking news. This is the Web. It can be edited from anywhere. Why not have people on call? No sense in forcing people to wait around a dingy newsroom in case news pops up. Just have them on call.

Comment by Joe Ruiz on July 6, 2008 at 9:09am

There was a brief (thankfully) discussion in my newsroom (TV) about posting raw copy to the Web site in addition to the stories we repurpose (that's its own discussion for another time). It was straight broadcast copy, but had production code cleaned up and such.

I fought hard against the idea and luckily won.

For this discussion, we will post breaking news from one of the two editors in the newsroom from 7 a.m. until 10:30 p.m., but one of us is essentially on-call at all times. Meranda's last point is what we focus on in my newsroom. If we can get the info up fast, we do it and leave a "check back for more details." I'll send it to the proof desk on a breaking news code and they usually get it back to me within two minutes.

Honestly, if something breaks, though, somebody should be able to post it as quick as possible and be able to remote access newsroom computers if they must have something there (for example, I have access to record broadcasts and feeds remotely).

Comment by Suzanne Yada on July 6, 2008 at 10:52am

Once someone posted an unedited one-sentence update that spelled Las Vegas "Los Vegas." Before we had time to correct it, two readers responded with (rightfully-earned) ridicule.

All I'm saying is just be careful out there.

Comment by Brian Cubbison on July 6, 2008 at 11:02am

Meranda is too modest but if you want to see the future of online reporting, here's a post of hers I'll always keep in mind.

Comment by Brianne Pruitt on July 7, 2008 at 7:32am

Hey, thanks all! Everyone's responses are pretty much in line with where we're heading, I think, but it's always nice to look outside our own bubble and see what everyone else is up to. It's difficult sometimes to reconcile what has been the gold standard in journalism for millions of years with this new medium that really requires us to look at what we do differently. I appreciate all of the input!

Comment by Kurt Greenbaum on July 7, 2008 at 8:45pm

I agree with everything Brian and Meranda wrote here.

Just a question: What's the difference between trusting print reporters to post news online in "raw" form and trusting broadcast journalists to go "live" with news?

Also, at the risk of self-promoting, I blogged about an exchange this morning on the Diane Rehm show that, coincidentally, somewhat goes to the point of this conversation. I just thought it was an interesting exchange about political news and how readers consume it, interact with it -- and edit it.

Comment by Meranda Watling on July 8, 2008 at 6:28pm

@Brian, thank you. Though I'm not sure I'd say it's the future of online reporting, but it was definitely intense — and fun. But it's not something we do every day. I did it three times during primary campaign season. Since then, we've been relying more on live video feeds and less minute by the minute updates. (At Hillary Clinton we did both, since they do hit a different audience.)

@Kurt, I like your question re: going live. I don't think there really is a philosophical difference. You still have to trust the reporter. Chances are you're not going to put your college intern on live.* No matter who you choose, you have to train the person on how to do it.

There are two related differences in terms of printed words online and a live shot. That is the live shot is fleeting. You screw up and only those who saw you at that moment have it. (This is becoming increasingly less true in a Tivo generation, where out-takes find their way to YouTube. But that's a problem for the networks to worry about.) In writing online, you post it and it gets sent not just to your site, but out over your RSS feeds, where it's picked up by Google, bloggers, twitterers, etc. and forwarded by other readers. An error has the potential to expand far beyond your initial audience and quite quickly. HOWEVER, related to that, unlike an error in the newspaper whose future is destined for Jay Leno's Headlines segment, when you see a mistake online you can correct it, allowing for immediate publication and post-publishing editing oversight. (However, much like Tivo does for newscast flubs; it doesn't take a computer genius to take a screen shot.)

Add a Comment