Print-thinking

Gerry McGov­ern is no stranger to the cheeze puff. He mainly deals in cor­por­ate web-sites and ‘killer apps’ but beneath the web­site hype he’s mak­ing all the right noises:

What is print-thinking? Print lends itself to length and to eco­nom­ies of scale. It’s not that much more expens­ive to print a 120-page report than a 100-page one. It’s often not much cheaper to print one copy than to print 1,000. These eco­nom­ies of print influ­ence how we write in subtle and vari­ous ways.

Is the concept of the annual report a print-specific idea? Why do we need an annual report when we can get an instant update by vis­it­ing the web­site of the organ­iz­a­tion? Often, the con­tent of an annual report is assembled months before it is pub­lished. It can be out-of-date and irrel­ev­ant long before the ink dries.

When an organ­iz­a­tion prints customer-related con­tent, that con­tent is nearly always to be con­sumed out­side the organ­iz­a­tion. Thus, it is writ­ten in a very par­tic­u­lar way, with lots of con­text, and with many sen­tences begin­ning with the name of the organ­iz­a­tion. It is designed to go out.

The con­tent on an organization’s web­site is designed to stay in. The web­site itself is the con­text, and the very fact that the cus­tomer has vis­ited the web­site implies that they have a cer­tain aware­ness of the organ­iz­a­tion. This cru­cial dif­fer­ence can change the whole dynamic of how you write web content.

Print con­tent is often leis­urely and flowery. Web con­tent is lean and pared to the bone. Often, the best web con­tent is not a sen­tence at all, but rather a descript­ive link.

Link­ing is the essence of web con­tent, and a good web writer thinks in webs of links, rather than in series of pages. This is per­haps the greatest chal­lenge for someone trained in print—to break that lin­ear mode of think­ing and think linking.

[HT: Alastair Rolfe]

Tactics or strategy in running orders?

I’ve lav­ished praise on CBS NewsPub­lic Eye site before. A recent post raises the influ­ence of demo­graph­ics on the con­tent of the Even­ing News, and the dilem­mas that poses — always, but always, in second-guessing story selection.

My per­sonal view is that it’s a mis­take to break news­casts down story by story. You’re much bet­ter off deliv­er­ing a coher­ent broad­cast because, unlike news execs, view­ers tend to not to judge pro­grammes in isol­ated chunks. In other words, story selec­tion should run stra­tegic­ally, not tactically.

Call to mind the oft-quoted Sun Tzu line: “Tac­tics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” Small tac­tical wins that don’t relate to a stra­tegic — and shared — vis­ion of where a broad­cast is going won’t beat a well-articulated long-term strategy with cor­res­pond­ent and pro­du­cer buy-in. Get­ting buy-in is tough. Just because people keep tak­ing the net­work cheque do you think there’s buy-in to the new Even­ing News across CBS? Not enough. And without the buy-in the vis­ion for the new Couric broad­cast — how­ever neces­sary — can only be imposed, and the sound you’re hear­ing is of teeth grind­ing away in the background.

Any­way, enough of my pitch for the appar­ently recently-vacated EP job at NBC News!

Newspapers before focus groups…

In the 1840s Amer­ican poet Walt Whit­man was a news­pa­per editor in Brook­lyn, run­ning the Daily Eagle. Before Paul Laz­arsfeld came up with the focus group, here’s how one of Whitman’s edit­or­i­als described the rela­tion­ship between journ­al­ist and reader:

We really feel a desire to talk on many sub­jects to all the people of Brook­lyn; and it ain’t their nine­pences we want so much either. There is a curi­ous kind of sym­pathy (haven’t you ever thought of it before?) that arises in the mind of a news­pa­per con­ductor with the pub­lic he serves … Daily com­mu­nion cre­ates a sort of broth­er­hood and sis­ter­hood between the two parties.”

I like the idea of news­pa­per conductors…

Ian Reeves

A blo­go­spheric wel­come to former Press Gaz­ette ed, and good egg Ian Reeves — I’ve added him to the RSS and the links (btw it’s M-o-n–C–k — people died to win that extra ‘C’).

Ian’s prom­ising to vlog (pron. vee-log/vuh-log/ver-log?), and is after cri­ti­cism. Well, we do cri­ti­cism out here. But con­struct­ive cri­ti­cism? That’s consultancy!

Reporting Tony Blair: inaccuracy or partiality?

How do you get this:

Tony Blair says his belief in God played a part in decid­ing to go to war in Iraq. The Prime Min­is­ter tells ITV1 he prayed over the dif­fi­cult decision. Tonight the start­ling insight into how Mr Blair’s faith influ­enced Britain’s part in oust­ing Sad­dam. So was it holy war?”

ITV News Sat­urday, 4 March 2006

From this:

Tony Blair: The only way you can take a decision like that is to try to do the right thing, accord­ing to your con­science. And for the rest of it, you leave it, as I say, to the judge­ment that …
Michael Par­kin­son: So…
TB: ….his­tory will make.
MP: So you, so you would… you would… you would… pray…to… to God whenever you make a decision like that?
TB: Well I… you know… I don’t want to go into…
MP: No, but I mean, hey, you said that…
TB: …this side of this but it’s… [NB These two lines spoken sim­ul­tan­eously]
MP: …you said that…you’d…
TB: Yeah I … you, you… [NB These lines also spoken sim­ul­tan­eously]
MP: …been informed…
TB: but you… of course…. It’s…. you, you struggle with your own con­science about it because people’s lives are affected…

Michael Par­kin­son show, Sat­urday 4 March 2006

Accord­ing to industry reg­u­lator Ofcom, the inter­pret­a­tion placed by ITV News on Tony Blair’s appear­ance on the Michael Par­kin­son show broke the reg­u­la­tion on due accur­acy.

You can watch the full clip of the inter­view here. See­ing it is more com­pel­ling than read­ing it, and in my view, whilst ITV News repor­ted Mr Blair accur­ately, they didn’t report him impar­tially.

Here’s the ITV intro again:

Tony Blair says his belief in God played a part in decid­ing to go to war in Iraq. The Prime Min­is­ter tells ITV1 he prayed over the dif­fi­cult decision.

And, here’s the BBC News intro (which gives Parky a big­ger plug):

The Prime Min­is­ter has said in an inter­view that he prayed to God when decid­ing whether or not to send UK troops to Iraq. Tony Blair told ITV1’s Par­kin­son chat show that he had struggled with his conscience…

The Beeb launch into a Richard Lister pack­age, but then ITV con­tin­ues with this:

Tonight the start­ling insight into how Mr Blair’s faith influ­enced Britain’s part in oust­ing Sad­dam. So was it holy war?

ITV took a view on Blair’s exchange with Par­kin­son and — without exactly mis-representing it — they ‘over-represented’ it, fail­ing to pro­duce any­one in their report­ing to defend a pos­i­tion they had cre­ated by amplification.

If you’re a Chris­tian, isn’t it right that you pray for guid­ance over dif­fi­cult decisions? After all, we’re not talk­ing about con­sult­ing a Ouija board. As a firm athe­ist I know that prayer won’t be deliv­er­ing any­thing back, but if we take prayer as a socially accept­able euphem­ism for reflec­tion, then is there really any­thing offens­ive, shock­ing or sur­pris­ing about this admis­sion? One doesn’t have to agree with Tony Blair on any­thing, not least his com­mit­ment of troops to Iraq, to tol­er­ate his right to reli­gious freedom.

Still, accur­acy is the offence as far as Ofcom is con­cerned. I guess it’s a less ‘polit­ic­ally sens­it­ive’ crime than impar­ti­al­ity which might make you vul­ner­able — unfairly — to accus­a­tions of stooge-dom. I’d like to see the reg­u­lator have a little back­bone, and tough it out one of these days…

Incid­ent­ally Richard Lister’s report on the BBC didn’t have any­one defend­ing Tony Blair either, but then the BBC piece didn’t shout as loud.