Christine Brennan of USA Today made an appearance at my sports journalism class the other day.
Did you know she gave Tony Kornheiser the ideas for many of his columns back when he actually still wrote for The Washington Post and she's great friends with all the important TV people? Did you know that MLB Commissioner Bud Selig once called her up out of the blue and she gave him a piece of her mind because she's one tough hombre, but he still really liked her book even though she was tough on him? Did you know that she is the reason every exciting or interesting sports story you've ever read got published?
So she's got a bit of an ego. Oh well. So smugness has taken up permanent residence on her face in the form of a cocky half smile and every single one of her sentences involves a namedrop of some sort. C'est la vie. It's her life to live.
If she's doing her job well, I suppose complete self-satisfaction is tolerable.
But she isn't doing her job. And she admitted it to our class.
Today's columnists and news bloggers have a responsibility to interact with their audience. It's part of Internet journalism. That doesn't mean you have to respond to each idiotic response, but you owe it to your readers to take their thoughts into consideration. It's a dialogue of sorts and what better way to get a sense of what the general public is thinking than by reading reactions to your opinion? That should really give you more material to work with and a better understanding of what would make your articles more relevant.
I was shocked when Christine Brennan told us that she doesn't read the comments posted on her column. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the medium she works in.
I'm not completely talking out of my ass here. I've never been a prominent columnist in a national newspaper, but I know how this commenting business works. I spent two years sifting through comments sent into our high school online paper. Some of those comments were on articles I'd written, so I'd argue that I've been in a similar position to her own before.
Yes, there are a lot of stupid people out there on the Internet, but when you're posting somewhere millions of people have the potential to read what you've written, you have to expect some of those stupid people to say obnoxious things about your piece. Oh well. Deal with it. It comes with the job.
And who knows? Someone out there might actually have something intelligent to say or might have some information you can use to help further your investigation into the subject.
Brennan wasn't the first person I'd heard recently express an unwillingness to engage with the readership. I asked one of The Washington Post bloggers (hint: not Dan Steinberg) what he thought of the comments he received. He had much the same response, albeit he was far less obnoxious about it and didn't seem as contemptuous.
Still, it makes me wonder what percentage of journalists out there get it. Part of journalism must surely be having a thick skin and part of new media journalism must surely be finding a way to have a manageable conversation with readers.
My high school newspaper adviser John Mathwin understood this and he was by no means a man of cyberspace. To him, acknowledging the people sitting at the other end of the Internet tubes was just common sense. But if my incredibly tiny sample size is any indication, apparently it's something that needs to be taught.
A lot of media organizations seem like they're so close to getting it right. There are a lot of interactive features out there. They just need to hire the right people to carry them out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ok, I'm going to have to de-lurk here and say that I don't wholly agree with you. As someone who is in the journalism profession, I do a lot of online postings. And we do get a lot of comments. Problem is, almost every single time they're either opinion or a comment that is unnecessary or just someone who wants to see if they can get "BALLS!!!!" published on our site. It is my responsibility in my job to make sure that I am fairly and equally presenting both sides of the story; opinion isn't allowed. So why should we bother spending part of our 8 hours a day reading comments by people who don't seem to understand that, no matter how many times they re-post or how many capital letters they throw in, their opinion is not going to change facts? Plus, a lot of times, the comments section is where internet trolls sit, ready to bludgeon down someone's comment, and then it turns into an all-out war. Personally, I don't have the time in my day to sit their and moderate that kind of bullshit. I'd also like to point out that we do acknowledge our readers in other ways. We have industry events, such as trade shows, our advertisers, our letters/emails to the editor that we get, the media contacts that I make for my articles... These are far more effective ways to interact than to wade through pages of posts riddled with trolls, comment wars and comments that are irrelevant. I agree that there should be a way to acknowledge readers, but that's difficult to do online. What are we supposed to say, "Thank you for commenting, unfortunately, how you feel is how you feel, and we can't change what happened"? Before you go blasting her for stating the reality of the journalism world, you should really (and I'm taking it that you want to be in the journalism world when you graduate) look at both sides of the issue.
coming a little late to this blog, but let me say, nice blog! also, let me add as a counter-example to brennan one jay mathews, who made up the "top 100 high schools" column for wapo/newsweek. senior year, i wrote a column for chips online criticizing the list, and he commented on my article within a couple of days, and then corresponded with me about it for a few weeks. what got him to respond wasn't even a comment on HIS article, it was something i wrote for our online high school paper. and it's not like i'm a nationally renowned expert on how to rate high schools. so i guess some journalists get it, even if christine brennan doesn't. we the people occasionally have intelligent things to say about what we read, and it's in everyone's best interest to...my god! what's this? my hand, it's so high! what's it doing all the way up there? okay, so i've gotten a little carried away. still.
also, in response to losingit, if she ever comes back to read this: when skimming comments on articles or blogs, it's pretty easy to winnow out the valuable ones. first, it has to be fairly long. second, the first sentence has to provoke your interest. trolls aren't subtle, and all-out wars, as you put it, are pretty easy to spot, too. you're right, most comments are either of the "BIIIITCH MOTHERFUCKER STUPID" variety or of the "WORD UP, SANTA FE! I FEEL YOU!" variety. but every once in a while someone has something thoughtful to say.
the end.
Post a Comment