I built and ran a daily operation at a magazine a few years back — and I definitely did the bomb-throwing (sometimes ill-advised), so I can related. However, there was a method to the madness. I don’t know the Post situation — but web operations are often underfunded, under-understood and expected to change RIGHT NOW because it’s the Web.

I’ve had the unfortunate experience of being a part of the decision to fire people who had been with a publication for 20+ years because their skills didn’t translate to what we needed.

Do I think that was great? Nope. But the fact remains we built a better journalism product by doing that.

What surprises me here — and like Ryan I have spent the better part of two years working with news organizations, keynoting journalism events and all the normal hubbub — is that even progressive-thinking journalists don’t get what the Web does best.

Even here (and yes, this is a sweeping generalization, but not meant as a condemnation), the discussion about the Web is still print centric. The Web shouldn’t reproduce what’s done in print — it should do something entirely different (not outside of the ethics and such of reporting).

That doesn’t mean SlideShow and video and blogging. It means completely revamping sites so they do what no other medium can (and yes, this is vague because I’ve laid out what each section of a paper should look like at my blog, if you’re really interested).

The end goal should be, IMHO: create teams of people who are specialized, reporters, programmers, designers, photographers, ect — and unleash them together.

You can’t out-Google Google. You can’t teach a copy editor to out program a coder. So don’t try.

My two cents.

Love the topic and discussion! Very smart.

Not expendable – Able to be done in a different way and one that requires a lot less sitting at a meeting for seven hours.

reporters who do their homework (reading agendas and minutes; talking a lot to officials, clerks, people affected by decisions, etc) are never surprised by what happens at a Muni or school board meeting. To apply the old Lenny Bruce line, in the halls of justice, the justice is in the halls.

I’ve never covered Congress, but I agree my proposal wouldn’t work there; nor would i recommend it for the San Jose City Council, etc.

I’m talking about smaller places where reporters simply can’t spend so much time watching something that’s in almost every case nothing but an official stamp on a decision already made. If I can’t make a friend with one lousy board member who will flag me about some kind of poison pill hidden in an agenda item, I’m not much of a reporter.

Nor Do I advocate never showing UP – As I said in my post. There are lots of other good reasons to show up and I show up a lot, often on my own time because I understand that’s part of being the kind of reporter I want to be. It’s not a 9-5 job.

For cops and fire stuff, I think there’s a debate to be had about how to track them and whether to track them, but running around all day chasing non-stories (as most of them are) is not a good way to be of value to readers.

And yes, Ryan went too far with kill the meeting stories. I’m talking about killing the time wasting (though I like his colorful meeting vote grid idea).

I mean, how else can I fit in all the state of the industry blog conversation I have scheduled for today?

m

Thanks for writing, and allow me to clarify: it’s some of the responses to the question that have been academic, not asking the question itself.

So I’m guessing you don’t agree with Ryan’s characterization of portions of your post (meeting stories being “next up against the wall”, etc.) as well as your own line of “i just don’t think we need to do it”?

The trouble I have with your first and third items is that in the first case you don’t say whether those incidents would still be tracked somehow, and if so, how. On meetings, I can only say that it’s my experience that showing up for those meetings, while not always enjoyable, yields far more insight than trying to track developments remotely or through someone else’s experience. When I was covering Congress, I learned the most about the institution itself and its members during marathon nighttime sessions. That helped me spot stories I otherwise would have missed. Same thing occurred on the local level, where councils frequently tried to bury important agenda items.

It’s hard for me to take seriously the “pick your spots” line when you write things like “Almost every public meeting is a show trial.” Local officials would love reporters to think that they only “talk about nothing” at meetings.

All that said, this isn’t bomb-throwing stuff. But it’s a far cry from a proven case that what you’re giving up is expendable, imho.

I offered a handful of practical solutions of ways to create more time for better and deeper reporting, almost all of which included getting help from active citizens.

I never suggested no more meeting stories – I said pick your spots and otherwise let trusted citizen accomplices put in the long hours listening to officials talk about nothing. I said use crowdsourcing to report on a.m. traffic trouble rather than force a reporter to waste time every day doing it.

I’m not saying tell the reporter we don’t need him; I’m saying tell the reporter you’re free to do work of greater value to most readers, the kind of stuff people can’t do for themselves, if only because they don’t have the time.

Every hour I’m sitting in a meeting is one less I’m doing CAR work.

So Derek, please read my post and see If I’m tossing grenades or trying to find ways to give us all more time to get some work done.

Actually, I think you and others would be more knowledgeable about the situation than I would. Other than brief conversation about Django issues, I didn’t work with Curley’s team in any real capacity. So if I’ve been too kind – and I honestly didn’t think his tenure at WPNI would be as long as it was – then I’ll be glad to have others fill in the gaps. A bad fit may be a kind way of putting it, but that pretty much acknowledges that there were problems all around.

@Aron:

Yeah, I hear you. But since this post went up, I’ve heard from several folks, including one who basically stopping blogging because of people with attitude’s like Pat’s. I guess I feel that if no one else is going to say something, I might as well. But I won’t be reading anymore. I don’t have to.

Fire in the hole!

Honestly, Derek, I don’t know why you’re wasting your breath on this. Pat seems like a nice enough guy, but he’s one of those bloggers who seems so completely comfortable with his own ignorance sometimes it’s almost breathtaking. This was the last straw for me. I dropped him from my reading list right then and there. Maybe you should do the same.

You were absolutely closer to the situation than I ever was, but I think you are TOO kind to Curley in your post.

The attitude at WPNI now is get Curley out of the building at any costs. Don’t throw any bombs until he is gone.

So after he picks up and leaves officially for Vegas, I think a lot of folks will be glad to fill in the gaps of the Curley at post.com story.

RW