Newspapers Still Have Much to Learn About the Web
I’ve written previously on how the print newspaper is a dying breed, and how web clips are worth far more than print clips. Today I’d like to go into why traditional newspaper operations still have much to learn about the web and why they will have to adapt in order to survive.
Anyone reading this is already well aware newspapers are making the (slow) transition to digital, and just like the preferred format of music has moved from CD to mp3, newspapers will eventually move from print to entirely web-based/RSS operations. It’s just so much better and more efficient way of receiving information. Print is still hanging around but it won’t last.
Unfortunately newspaper Web sites, on the whole, are still playing by the old rules of the Web and are not nearly as nice as professional blogs to read and follow. A few things I’ve noticed from this perspective that are especially frustrating:
Taking down stories/changing link structure
Some papers get it and don’t change links on us or take down old stories, but I’ve seen plenty of sites take down stories after 30 days or so, or change the link structure to archive a story somewhere. The Internet is not the same as print media, it is not a broadcast medium, it is a communications medium. A story shouldn’t disappear after 30 days, it should remain up there as bloggers and social media types love to do research, piece things together and remix news as they see fit. Linking to a story only to find a few weeks later it’s down is about the most frustrating thing a news site can do, and will ensure I don’t like to that site again.
Not linking to external sources to reference things
Newspapers are still clinging to the old way of things. They still have the attitude of “if we print, it, it’s true and doesn’t need to be sourced.” That’s actually false – if you have a source on something, link it for us to check it out. It makes a site far more credible. A side note, The New York Times is one of the few sites that actually gets the web, does tons of external linking and is even developing a brand new API. Should be neat to see what this looks like, they could set a good example for the industry.
Forcing users to login to view stories
Don’t news sites want more readers and subscribers? The easiest way to discourage this is to force users to create a username/password, fill out a profile, then check their email address to activate that profile before they can view a story. It leaves a bad taste in most people’s mouths, and they are losing readership by doing this. If you’re going to play by the new rules, go in all the way and don’t cling to forcing people to fill out forms before they can access content.
Relegating comments to separate pages
If you’re going to have comments on your site, make it quick and easy for users to add comments and list them directly below the story. Having them on another page entirely just proves you aren’t fully embracing having conversation and discussion on your site.
Ease of use, search, RSS subscriptions by section, etc.
Why is it I visit my favorite webzines and blogs and it’s so easy to search for articles, find articles by topic, author or date, and everything is so simple and streamlined. Yet your daily newspaper Web site mimics the complexity and disorganization of its print counterpart. There are such amazing sorting, searching and tagging options now available for publications, yet newspapers barely embrace the depth and usability features now available to them.
Newspaper Web sites to me still suffer from superfluous content and bloat. They are trying to do too much not well enough and are failing. For example, why would I ever need to read the technology section in my local online newspaper site when I can read better, deeper reporting on technology from hundreds of other sites whose main focus is technology. Same goes with book reviews – do we really need local book reviewers when people are reading the same books and posting those reviews nationally? There seems to be plenty of overlap occurring.
A focus on local news/people stories and things not already covered by the Internet seems like the best way to go. Do we really need to see the same AP story we already read earlier today published word for word on our local newspaper site? I think not.
Related posts:
Ubiquitous Internet









Miss Cellania replied | Jun 1, 2008 (1 comment)
Another problem I’ve had is so many TV stations and newspapers don’t have their location anywhere on the site! They have an interesting story, but you can’t figure out whether it happened in Pennsylvania or Arizona or somewhere else. The big cities may be easy to figure out, but smaller towns put their stories up and assume that anyone who reads it would be familiar with the area.
Daniel replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
Unfortunately, not all news organizations have the budget to buy enough server space to let their stories live permanently on the Web. So decisions have to be made to let go of very valuable content. It’s a shame.
Veretax replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
I\’m sorry but I got to disagree on the comments on the same page. What if I don\’t want to read the comments? That\’s time and money spent on putting data to a reader that they won\’t read.
Chris Simmons replied | Jun 2, 2008 (2 comments)
Hello, I work as a Webmaster for Times Record News in Wichita Falls, Texas. I am proud to be major part of a site that “gets things right” according to this article. Our paper is owned by a much larger company called Scripps (yes the one that owns Food Network, HGTV, and a slew of other newspapers around the country) but a lot of the ground work is done by me and the other Online Department members here.
Understanding the scope of building the setup that runs behinds the scenes for all of these sites is a MASSIVE undertaking and luckily we have super talented coders that stay ahead of the game. We are constantly updating, upgrading and improving. But there are obviously companies that have not gotten the message yet that the world is changing.
Here is a link to our site:
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/
and see other Scripps newspaper sites here:
http://www.scripps.com/newspaper/newspapers.html
Now with that said, my town has a handful of local tv news stations that get it all very very “wrong”! Here’s a couple of them:
http://texomashomepage.com/
http://www.kauz.com/
You did good to mention The New York times but there ARE plenty of papers our there that are trying and doing so successfully!
theo geer replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
another really annoying one is paginating everything. The story may be 10 paragraphs long, and the newspaper site will paginate it to 2 or 3 pages, requiring a great deal of clicking and reloading to see the content. This goes along with the comments being on a separate page as very bad ui.
Regarding comments on the same page, @Veretax: — text loads very quickly. Your comments may need to be paginated due to the quantity of them, but it’s practically free to load them on the same page, and adds value to more use cases than it detracts from. If you don’t want to read them they’re very easy to ignore since they’re usually formatted differently, and listed after the actual article.
Another one that bugs me is newspaper sites that don’t have comments enabled for all stories. The New York Times drives me nuts with this!
Aaron replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
Maybe my local paper is not a good example, but I’ve yet to see the value added by including comments with articles. All I see is commenters using the opportunity to take anonymous pot-shots at stories’ subjects and each other.
Mike Lightner replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
There are plenty of design options to hide comments from normal view while still making them readily available using some sort of collapse/expand concept (and that’s only one way). Your concern is valid but trivial.
Name Require Why? replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
I agree completely with your article. It is right on the mark.
A few things wrong with your site (& others too).
Leave a reply: Why am I required to give you my email address and turn on Java.
If you want Java capabilities on your site, fine. Just realize that a lot of people have Java turned off completely because they don\’t trust most sites.
Chris Simmons replied | Jun 2, 2008 (2 comments)
@ theo geer
Jumping in again, though it is annoying from a normal viewer\’s side of things to be denied the right to comment on certain articles. You should see some of the insane posts made by posters at times. Sure moderation helps but sometimes you just know a particular subject will bring in the \"regulars\" who like to stir things up to a boiling point for their own amusement.
A great example is a recent article we had where a very gifted young teenager graduated from a rather well established college in the area here. We had people calling the guy a \"social reject\" for no reason other then he did look a little geeky.
Sometimes removing the comments has a valid point!
Though obviously the comment system is there for good reason, we do want regular viewers that contribute to the site as much as possible, often times abuse is to blame when something is removed.
Andrew F replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
You have no idea how much I agree with this article. I worked for a a local newspaper company (which will remain nameless) building an entirely new website and database for them to bring them back up to speed with the internet. Their previous site not only suffered from every problem mentioned above, but was so poorly built and maintained that it never displayed correctly.
Unfortunately, being as “old school” as they were, I ran into resistance every step of the way in building the site, not to mention I was the only person hired for the job, and had to build a site that housed information for upwards of 20 different newspapers. I managed to get through it though in relatively decent time, using a popular open-source CMS and whatever free time I had to get the site working properly.
When the day finally came to launching the new site (which many of the reporters congratulated me on for being a much easier site to work with), I was laid off by the new publisher and the site was scrapped. Instead, they kept using the old site.
The newspaper industry, if it is anything like the company I worked for, is horribly backwards in their thinking. They discredit web, calling it niche or gimmicky, failing to see their own readership flocking the web and their circulation dropping as a result. They also fear the (perceived) loss of control that happens when you go to a new format.
Though I don’t keep up with the newspaper company anymore, I have heard they are down to one paper now and are struggling to survive after scrapping the site. Too bad for them.
Steve replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
I strongly agree with Aaron’s comment about the use of comments on online articles. It’s very rare that I get any more useful information about the subject an article is covering by reading the comments. Unless they’re willing to moderate comments, be it automated with captchas and spam checks, or manually somehow there really is no place for them in newspaper articles.
JS replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
Unfortunately, not all news organizations have the budget to buy enough server space to let their stories live permanently on the Web. So decisions have to be made to let go of very valuable content. It’s a shame.
Server space is CHEAP. If a news organization has enough money to compile gigs and gigs of content, then buying extra server space is nothing.
Daniel replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
Hey, doofus! The printed word will continue on far longer than you ever want it to. Beyond having a lasting effect and the ability of easy access (I can pull a book off the shelf far easier than opening webpages, as can anyone), the printed word as a resource is even easier. Library databases have existed since before much of the modern world came to be, and library cards seem to me to still be free. Now, if you don’t want to take full advantage of thousands of years of evolution (see: balance, opposable thumbs, bipedalism, and verbal communication) then you can moan and groan about a long standing physical medium (that is still experiencing much success as such) choosing to remain primarily so.
It’s a system of jobs, the printed word, and your wishes and dreams of having everything at your finger tips being run by macros, programs, and stored in insta-user-accessible databases on servers will crash an already declining economy that is constantly in search of creating more jobs while people confusingly want to erase more and more jobs.
J G replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
One irritating thing I’ve noted on various UK news sites, is that usually if they bother to include a relevant picture it is always some sort of eye straining and grainy 300×350 pixel halfassery.
It just doesn’t cut it anymore to skimp on details like that. An image gallery with 3 tiny useless pics in it is a joke in 2008.
Mike replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
“Unfortunately, not all news organizations have the budget to buy enough server space to let their stories live permanently on the Web. So decisions have to be made to let go of very valuable content. It’s a shame.”
Huh? Server space is CHEAP. That is, storage. Any given newspaper is going to have plenty of archived content. Most of it is text. The real hosting resource they would have to worry about is bandwidth and the server’s performance. Storage itself won’t cost them anything.
How well the CMS can handle spikes, whether they can afford a web developer to maintain the site, how they will migrate data into the CMS, etc. is another story.
Aaron replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
How ironic that I’m required to provide my e-mail address to comment here.
Ben replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
Utter claptrap. You are basically assuming that everyone is like you and, if online newspapers don\’t satisfy YOU then they are failing.
Take me as an example. I don\’t use an RSS reader, I don\’t read comments on news articles. I like to read about things that I wouldn\’t specifically search for. I like reading well-researched, intelligent news items written by people who really know what they\’re talking about, people that don\’t need to link anything to prove their worth. That\’s it.
Is a good article made bad because you can\’t comment on it? Is a bad article made good because you can? Of course not, it is utterly irrelevant and to suggest it is not is just to look at the world through blog-tinted spectacles.
Most blogs are worthless rubbish and life\’s too short to spend it looking for \"professional\" ones, they are just too few and far between. And why should I bother when well written, intelligent news items are a simple URL away?
John replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
As a newspaper employee in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, I have a blog at GazetteOnline and offer almost nothing to readers EXCEPT external links. Works great to complement coverage and for news tips.
http://lookinginatiowa.wordpress.com
Brian replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
Chicago Suburbs’ Daily Herald has a section called Beep.
when it first came out it was done right. Heavy user interaction with comments and RSS feeds. When they relauched the site RSS was no where to be found.
After that I stopped visiting the site.
Mike replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
You want to see a great example of how NOT to put your newspaper online? The Tallahassee Democrat http://www.tallahassee.com
I hate it. Its like someone filled a shotgun with Web 2.0 and splattered it all over my browser. Horrible.
Anon replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
\"Forcing users to login to view stories…
If you’re going to play by the new rules, go in all the way and don’t cling to forcing people to fill out forms before they can access content.\"
Newspapers make their money by advertising. Newsites do too, but it\’s not yet on a comparable par. They have to make their money by advertising and targeted marketing. If you want free content, register. Otherwise, pay for subscription.
DoesWhat replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
Newspaper websites are in a separate category to blogs. Is it necessary for newspaper sites to emulate the blog structure? They are for a certain type of people, if you simply want to know what has happened without opinion or anything else then they are perfect. Reading a mixture of blogs and online newspapers is probably the best way to deal with the situation.
Jonathan replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
Mike
The Tallahassee Democrat is owned by Gannett – which I believe is the largest newspaper conglomerate in the states – and employs a design seen on many Gannett sites. For example, here’s a paper from Michigan – the Lansing State Journal – that looks startlingly similar: http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/
I agree with all of these points. Some papers have begun to use blog content management systems, such as movable type, to organize their sites. The result is a blog-like display with the most recent stories on the top of the page.
Adam Singer replied | Jun 2, 2008 (550 comments)
@Aaron: providing an email address is far different than having to register a login name and password. I’m merely taking steps to prevent spam.
Tiimbo replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
What you say is true and reasonable as far as it goes. But newspaper publishers are not idiots. They already understand all of this. What they want to know is how they can continue to generate revenue by publishing the news, whether paper, digital, or both. They have much more overhead than bloggers. Someone has to employ reporters and other staff. What are bloggers going to write about if all the reporters lose their jobs?
If you want to make a useful contribution, try proposing a viable future business model for newspapers.
I don’t mean to be sarcastic. I doubt that you know the answer either. No one does. The newspaper publishers are extremely anxious about this, and constantly trying to figure it out. They don’t seem to be getting anywhere.
Craig replied | Jun 2, 2008 (1 comment)
The argument is not about whether or not to have comments. The point is if you are already having comments, why put them in a different place?
Tom replied | Jun 3, 2008 (1 comment)
An interesting read and I totally agree with you. I can never understand why articles go offline after 30 days – crazy. Although I do understand why they would want to get people’s email addresses, although perhaps a subtler way of doing it would be better… Like a competition or signing up to a newsletter, rather than blocking content – Not good for search engines either!
Laura G. replied | Jun 3, 2008 (1 comment)
I consider the NY Times the gold standard of newspaper websites. One of the big reasons is that its home page actually looks like the front page of a newspaper. My own hometown newspaper\’s website, by contrast, looks nothing like a newspaper and only contains a few select stories, not its entire day\’s content. Also, it has that annoying pagination thing that makes it impossible to print, copy and paste or do anything else to share their stories.
Bryan Pearson replied | Jun 3, 2008 (1 comment)
First off, I think its hilarious that the people complaining about comments, and saying how they “find no use in them”, are leaving comments. Can’t they see the benefit in this discussion? On this very page? Comments serve a great purpose, and connecting with readers and having discussions with the people who are paying the bills is nothing to blow off.
Secondly, as a person currently employed by a large newspaper company to do web development, I see a lot of scared faces in the ‘suits’ calling the shots. They simply don’t understand the way that the ‘kids’ are getting media. They just don’t understand the way that the next generation of consumers will gather information.
Text messages, social networks, email, RSS, cell phones, the web, and anything else that arises in the next few years are the technologies that future generations will use. Not delivered paper.
Although I believe there will be plenty of print products well into the future, it will slowly fade from being the mass product it currently is, to a niche product that select few will have to pay a premium for.
On the front of “who will pay for the journalism if there’s no subscriptions and everything is free?”, the answer is, the web. Although the margins will be deadly thin and profits won’t be nearly as high, the newspapers of today will simply have to find a way to squeeze interesting and in depth reporting into a smaller office on lower budgets.
Tim Jahn replied | Jun 3, 2008 (59 comments)
Great stuff here. It gets me how it\’s 2008 and newspapers still haven\’t grasped the basics of social networking and the current state of the social Internet. Their lack of understanding in this realm is only contributing to their ultimate demise.
And bless you for not requiring me to sign up or log in to your site…you\’ve gained a new subscriber. :)
Tim Woods replied | Jun 5, 2008 (1 comment)
Very insightful, constructive input for the newspaper industry. The newspaper that adopts even a few of your suggestions could very well rule the web.
For several years I worked in the newspaper industry back in the mid-1980′s and not a lot has changed, industrial-strength, bulk production, and generally mediocre design. Newspapers should take some queues from the magazine industry to better embrace the web.
Thanks!
News Quiz replied | Jun 5, 2008 (3 comments)
Very true issue raised here.As the newspapers will loose here there existence.If they don’t improve and update thier quality
of presence on internet with regular changing trends on internet.