The newsroom sprung into action very early this morning to cover the three-alarm fire in the downtown Spokane Joel building.

Our coverage plan was textbook; this newsroom definitely knows how to cover breaking news. We mobilized reporters and photographers. We pulled in a videographer, a graphics artist, and online producers to package all the story elements online.

The result was a pretty rich online package by late morning, and an outline for the stories we're working on for tomorrow morning's paper.

I'm guessing the 10 or so staffers working this story haven't yet had time to realize we mobilized like an authentic multi-platform newsroom.

Yesterday during Steve's staff meeting there was more than a little concern about our ability to do that. Reporters and editors are worried about whether we can produce quality journalism simultaneously on the Web, on the air, and in print with fewer people and resources.

We just did.

(Click extended entry to read the rest of this post)

Read the rest of this entry »

I know we have the "too liberal/too conservative" debate frequently in this space.

But I received the following e-mail from someone from West Palm, FL, in response to earlier posts on the future of the newsroom.

Steve, I'm afraid that it is your "news values" that are killing you. Why don't you try a "Conservative and Liberal" point of view for a change. As long as most newspapers in this country ignore the Conservative side of the news, more and more will go out of business -- which, by the way, is happening here in my home state of Florida. Ask the Orlando Sentinel, Sun Sentinel and the Palm Beach Post how many people they are laying off. We are tired of the Associated Press running your newspapers. So, we Conservatives cancel our newspapers and go on the internet. We can't even get our news from TV -- it's all the same crap. Look at all this drooling over Obama, the Messiah. Doesn't that tell you something?

L. Graham
West Palm Beach, FL

I thought the note was worth sharing, if for no other reason than to enliven the debate here during a slow summer week.

So, from your perspective: Are we too liberal in our news columns? Are we too conservative? Are we just right? And do you distinguish between any perceived bias in our news columns and opinion on our editorial pages?

There is no right or wrong answer and I already know how many of the regulars feel. Maybe we can hear from some of the lurkers.

And would a perceived change in bias make you more or less likely to read the newspaper in print or online?

Steve

Good afternoon,

Even in these tough times, this newsroom and its reporters can produce provocative, insightful and world-changing journalism.

Kevin Graman's Sunday story, "Lives Lost at Home," about veterans who have killed themselves this year while under the VA's care, has been picked up by blogs and websites around the country and was the basis for a speech today by Sen. Patty Murray on the Senate floor.

Here is a link to the original Graman story.

Here is a link to Murray's statement.

Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher magazine, the news industry bible, wrote (link here) about Graman's story today.

And it also was linked out of one of the biggest blogs out there, The Daily Kos, which has quite a few user comments posted. (Link here)

This is all well and good. And I could not be more proud of Kevin's work.

But we still need your help.

Read the rest of this entry »

Vanity Fair, sister publication to The New Yorker, satirized the misguided, misjudged satire of the latter's Obama cover from last week with a McCain cover of its own this week.

It's really quite clever.

Here is a link to the VF site where the cover is posted along with a funny editor's note.

Steve

Good afternoon,

In a post Friday, I suggested the SR is becoming -- make that will become more of a niche publication.

That term -- niche -- caused a bit of a firestorm in our newsroom. We have talked about a smaller, more focused paper for some time. And we have talked about placing more emphasis on the mobile and web news platforms.

But I hadn't actually said the dreaded niche word before.

Because we haven't really talked about the newspaper specifically in those terms, there is a great deal of confusion about what I meant.

I asked Carla Savalli, our assistant managing editor for local news and an attendee at last week's digital media seminar, to define niche for the staff.

Here is what she wrote, caputring my views as well:

Read the rest of this entry »

Good morning,

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has released today a long-awaited survey of American editors looking at the rapidly changing face of American newspapers.

It seems, on a first, quick read, the most comprehensive survey ever looking at the unprecdented, seismic shifts in our industry. (I was one of the 250 editors surveyed.)

For those who have been following this blog and who have an interest in these issues, the survey results are a must read.

"The Changing Newsroom—What is Being Lost and What is being Gained in American Newspapers," can be found by clicking here.

The executive summary reports these key findings:

Read the rest of this entry »

Good morning,

As you all know, I wasn't very comfortable with The New Yorker's odd Barack and Michelle Obama cover last week. I thought it used incendiary imagery better suited to an editorial cartoon and so, as a result, muddied the magazine's message.

Nevertheless, I am saddened to see that the Obama camp's response has been to ban The New Yorker campaign writer from the candidate's plane next week. Here is what Rachel Sklar said in a Huffington Post report:

Wow. So it's gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate — literally, as in, it carries with it the very real risk of chilling bold, outspoken coverage. Whatever one thinks of the New Yorker cover — that it was clear satire that clearly lampooned ridiculous rumors, that it went way overboard, that it was a comedic misfire — a robust press can't operate under threat of reprisal for unwelcome items.

This notion that Obama is something new, a man divorced from petty politics, always has troubled me. JFK, the president Obama seems to channel, was the consumate politician with a petty streak now obscured by mythology.

Sadly, here is one bit of evidence that Obama may be more JFK like than many would like to believe. It turns out he is no more tolerant of diverse and controversial opinions than the president he strives to replace.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be president. But maybe it's time for some number of citizens, including members of the press, to take off the rose-colored glasses.

steve

Good morning,

This Los Angeles conference has been both sobering and encouraging.

Sobering because the pace of change in our industry is faster and the nature of that change more extreme than any of us imagined. Hearing from specialists in electronic/digital media organizations other than newspapers has made it crystal clear that whatever we have done to this point is dangerously inadequate.

If we don't change more dramatically and faster, there will not be an industry to support the sort of value-driven journalism that is at the heart of our craft.

The encouraging news is that the tools we need to make the needed changes are readily available to us and that our ability to deliver quality news and information can only be enhanced...if we make the bold leaps.

Read the rest of this entry »

Good morning,

Social networking was one of the major topics in our Knight Digital Media Center symposium discussions late Wednesday.

This is an area where the SR really is in the stone age. Our excuse, to one extent or another, has been bad technology. But new off-the-shelf social networking tools -- as well as our new back-end web framework that will support our rebuilt web site beginning Sept. 3 -- takes away that excuse.

But how best to use social networking tools in a "traditional" newsroom is an open question.

If you were in my shoes, what lessons would you take from social networks such as Facebook or My Space and how would you adapt such network systems to the newspaper/news organization universe?

How many of you know about Twitter? How can news organizations use Twitter to improve content?

Should we allow reader comments on some or all of our stories (beginning with the launch of the new site in September)?

steve

Good morning,

We had our first actual gay marriage announcement in today's paper. The couple had been married in California.

We've had civil union announcements in the past, but this is the first legal marriage.

Here is a sample of some of the feedback we expected from some people.

Anderson-Warhime. While I recognize their marriage was legalized in
California, same sex marriage is not legal in the state of Washington.
Thus, I feel the Spokesman Review has done a grave disservice to their
readers/subscribers by placing a picture of something not legal in the
celebratory section of the paper. It is one thing to place illegal
behavior on the front page when reporting criminal activity. It is
quite another to place it in a place of celebration. I highly doubt the
Spokesman would place a picture of a minor drinking alcohol in this
section. I find this picture similar in legality respects. As a long
time subscriber I enjoy the TODAY section for it's celebratory nature,
it's local flavor, and it's cultural involvement. This put a damper on
that enjoyment.

I'm sorry the reader was offended. However, a wedding announcement is a wedding announcement. If the reader chooses not share in the enjoyment of this important event in the lives of two people, that is the reader's choice.

Our weddings and engagements section exists to celebrate important moments in the lives of everyone in our community. We will continue to be inclusive.

And with respect, readers who are offended by such announcements should simply look away.

steve

One of the best presentations today came during lunch. Jeffrey Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future and a research professor at USC, discussed his long-term, worldwide research that describes the ever-changing nature of the (new) media user.

For several years, Cole has been studying the way the Internet and new media technology has changed media usage patterns.

As he has worked through his research, one conclusion echoes what most of us have concluded anecdotally.

Cole says that media development and evolution never leads to the demise of a medium. Radio survived TV, changed, became a smaller business, but remains healthy.

In the same way, newspapers will survive the current media revolution, but they will be smaller businesses.

That's a reality journalists have difficulty accepting, particularly as smaller newspaper businesses will lead to smaller newspaper newsrooms.

But he argues the ongoing revolution also presents newspapers with their greatest opportunities in generations.

Here is a crude summary of some of the conclusions growing out of Cole's research:

The Internet is not a threat to TV. In the old dialup days, it was because people concentrated their online time in big chunks, and that did take away TV time. Now, with broadband, online time is spent in countless little chunks and is even integrated with the time spent on TV. As TV and video merge, and TV viewing increasingly goes mobile, TV will explode. For the first time, TV viewing will be freed from the home. Research shows people are willing to watch 30-minute and 60-minute programs on small, mobile screens.

TV advertising has been threatened for 30 years, long before the Internet. Biggest threats to TV advertising came from the remote control and then the VCR and its successors, TIVO and DVRs. But advertisers are coming up with tricks to fool the DVR generation.

Newspapers and other print products have the biggest opportunities growing out of the media revolution.

But there are some real challenges. For example, the current generation of teenagers is more interested in news than any previous teen generation ever. But they do not now and won't ever go to an offline publication (print newspaper) for that information.

The second biggest challenge is growing concern for global warming. Newspapers are not really a significant "green" problem. But the political perception may be the opposite. And digital isn't at all green, but the perception is otherwise. Increasingly, the children in a home are asking their parents to save a tree by not reading a newspaper.

But even with these challenges, there is opportunity.

For the first time in 88 years, newspaper journalists are in the breaking news business. TV may grow in importance in the new era, but local TV news will be the loser in this new competition.

While attitudes have changed rapidly, online users today accept online advertising as a necessary reality to pay for the product. Specific subscriber fees never really worked and will not work in the future. The average household may pay for cable or satellite TV, maybe broadband, maybe one other thing. They will not pay subscriber or content fees for news and information content.

Cole's research can be viewed online at digitalcenter.org. I haven't had time to look at the site. But some of you may well want to give it a look.

So now we know the Valley fire was caused by a smoldering "recreational" fire left behind by a Valley surgeon who over the course of three days did not, apparently, do anything to make sure the bonfire was fully extinguished (not to mention it was on someone else's property).

So, how should the doctor be held accountable for the disaster that followed?

And more to the point, how do you think she actually will be held accountable? Will position and money move the wheels of justice in a particular way?

If the traditional newspaper business model no longer supports large newsrooms, is it time for journalists to hitch their profession to something else.

A couple of speakers this morning talked about embryonic experiments with non-profits, foundations or even community groups underwriting journalism.

Clearly, partnering with such institutions would require journalists to reconsider some ethical standards.

For me, it;s a given that the journalist seeking a new partner relationship must find a partner who shares core craft values. Is that possible?

For example, could the Gates Foundation support a group of journalists whose job is to write about the foundation's primary interests -- public health, education, international relief, etc.?

Could journalists serve journalism as well as the goals and interests of the foundation?

I don't have the answer to that question. But it's a question that needs to be asked as newsroom after newsroom is sacrificed to the pressure of the immediate economic crisis.

Good afternoon,

I'm in Los Angeles this week for yet another conference of newspaper editors struggling to figure out how we save our businesses and our journalism.

Now the conference has just begun (we started Tuesday night), so it's too early to draw firm conclusions from what promises to be a provocative series of conversations.

But my first thought is that thus far we're framing our conversation in an unproductive way.

Most of us, in addition to being editors, are executives in our business organizations. So we clearly do have a responsibility to our businesses.

But these points are clear...the audience for our newspaper journalism is growing rapidly. All of us reach more readers/users/eyeballs than ever before in the history of our medium. We reach those people through print, through online, mobile (and in our case, radio).

In many ways, newspaper content is not the issue. The financial crisis that is eviscerating newsrooms is rooted in a fundamental change in the needs and behavior of advertisers who pay the bills that make our journalism possible. And that fundamental change now coincides with a worsening national economy, producing a perfect storm of economic woe.

Read the rest of this entry »

One of our readers asked the following after monitoring this morning's news meeting discussion of Sunday's ombudsman column on conflict of interest.

Hi, news friends. I'm writing in regards to the conflict-of-interest discussion about a reporter's rumored ownership of vacation condo in an area where she reports on contentious environmental issues. Had this rumor been true, how would the situation have been any different from a reporter owning a home in the city/county/state in which he reports on government/crime/education news? Would he not be daily covering issues that affect his taxes, services and property values?

Becky Tallent's column can be found here.

This morning, I expressed the view that if the rumor had been true, Becky Kramer would have recused herself (as she notes in the column) from Silver Valley news. A couple of editors asked how that is different from any of us living in a community and reporting or editing stories about that community that could alter our own living conditions or property values.

It's a good question and a good example of why no code of ethics can address every situation specifically. The short answer is, of course, "it depends."

In the Silver valley, the master narrative (the story out of which all other stories develop) is environmental management. The story is so central to the future of the valley and all who live there, that condo ownership would preclude any reporter from writing about the valley or an editor from editing such stories (as Alison Boggs recognized when she was business editor).

On the other hand, except for circumstances that directly impact a journalist such as the closure of a reporter's neighborhood school or the zoning of a Wal-Mart next door, the routine effects of community decision making are so diluted as to not pose a direct conflict of interest.

We do have journalists who have recused themselves on specific neighborhood issues from time to time. So we do pay attention. If there is a question, we make sure it's discussed.

Meanwhile, I should say that the spreading of the condo rumor ivnolving Becky Kramer comes at the hands of a Silver Valley activist who has simply refused to accept the truth of the matter. Many of us have dealt with this person in recent months, offering all the evidence necessary to prove the rumor false.

Continuing to spread this slanderous rumor is shameful. And I hope Becky Tallent's column puts an end to it.

Thanks,
steve

Good afternoon,

The staff had its first crack at the Gang of 8 report this afternoon. A second staff review will be held tomorrow.

For those who are interested, here is a link to the actual report.

I was not able to attend today's meeting. I'm told the discussion was friendly but lively. The focus apparently shifted from overall reorganization to possible changes in deadlines, particularly to a news cycle built around a noon deadline rather than early evening.

I've asked Andrew Zahler, a Gang of 8 member, to add some observations to this thread.

And Thuy Nguyen will be blogging on the meeting on Daily Briefing sometime this evening. I'll add a link to that as soon as she has posted.

Again, it's important to remember the group's report is not a blueprint. It's a starting point for discussion.

Thanks,
steve

We don't do "Finding the Frame" often enough.

That's the online feature in which our photographers explain how they came to take one of our significant photos.

Colin Mulvany's shot of two people walking away from a burning home was our lead photo on Page 1 Friday.

In this Finding the Frame, Colin explains how the photo came to be.

I hope we follow up with more on the victim Colin photographed. There is a great human interest story in his loss.

Thanks,
Steve

Good morning,

I've been asked by a couple of folks to start a thread on the controversial cover of this week's New Yorker magazine. It was intended, I suppose, as satire, a comment on the outrageous rumors dogging the Barack Obama campaign. It depicts Michelle Obama as a black revolutionary in fatigues and carrying an AK-47 and Barack Obama as as muslim cleric. There even is a portrait of Osama Bin Laden hanging in the Oval Office and an American flag burning in the fireplace.

Of course, the cover has generated a huge controversy, bigger even than the tasteless Golf magazine cover that showed a hangman's noose as a comment on Tiger Woods.

Here is a link to a Huffington Post piece on the New Yorker cover.

Here is a link to a CNN.com interview with African-American columnist Clarence Page (who is not troubled by the New Yorker Cover).

And here is a link to the CBS.com blog Politcal Animal, where blogger Kevin Drum takes the opposite point of view.

If you check the Romenesko industry news site, you'll be able to find other reaction through the day.

Personally, I find the cover offensive. I can't imagine running it. I understand the editor's thought process. But I agree with Drum, this sort of satire will never work in this day and age. There was another way, surely, to make this point.

I'm interested in your reactions.

steve

Good evening,

The study group I set up to look at newsroom structure and process has completed this phase of its work. Their report came to me and Managing Editor Gary Graham yesterday afternoon and was presented today to the senior editors.

As noted here before, I had asked the group to rethink the newsroom to take into account the realities of our downsized world. I thought a group of young journalists with fewer ties to the past and with their careers ahead of them might generate some ideas that could help drive change discussions in our newsroom.

But it's important to keep in mind this most important point: This report is NOT a plan. It is a series of ideas and possibilities suggested by one group of journalists after 10 days of intensive study. Because they were asked to look at structure and process, there is not much discussion about content. Obviously, we must deal with content as we move our conversations forward.

I took a bit of heat from inside the newsroom and a bit more from outside for handing this assignment to young journalists as if I was suggesting our veterans could not bring experience and knowledge to the table.

The fact is there always have been opportunities for veterans to participate in such discussions. Too often it is the smart young journalists whose ideas are discounted.

Nevertheless, as I have told the staff, this is just a starting point. The ideas contained here will be examined, worked over, reshaped or discarded by other groups in the next few weeks. For this round of revolutionary change, we're just beginning.

The entire newsroom now has access to the report electronically. And we'll hold meetings for more formal presentations on Monday and Tuesday.

I'm linking to the report out of this post for people who have an interest in the details. There is a lot of "inside baseball" here and many of you may have no interest.

For those who do, here is the report.
I will be happy to answer questions posted here by those really interested in more detail.

Those who merely want to insult the study group by challenging their youth, calling into question their professionalism or calling them names are asked to take their comments elsewhere.

steve

Good morning,

I'm quite proud of our journalists this morning. Their work last night and through the morning was exemplary. Today's paper is strong, but without portraying yesterday's wildfire as the apocolypse.

Still, the fast-moving story highlighted some of our technological weaknesses. As much as we strive to be competitive on the web, we were behind TV all evening in presenting visuals.

We had photographers on the scene. But our laptops and cell phones were not working well. Calls were dropped, photos could not be uploaded, and even reporters had trouble filing their stories.

We've equipped our staff with some of the best field equipment available, but are still overly reliant on cell networks. With the fire disrupting cell service from the field, we were at a real disadvantage.

The TVs have satellite trucks. We don't need those fancy, enormously expensive rigs. But we do need to invest in our own satellite technology. There are solutions available and we'll fix this problem soonest.

My family was forced to evacuate about 9 p.m. last night, but my wife is safely back home this morning. Our neighborhood escaped all but a bit of smoke damage.

But for a time last night, I had no TV and no radio, and only the SR mobile edition to rely on for information. It was a reminder that newspaper journalists and journalism are still pretty damn important.

Any of you have stories to share?

steve

Good afternoon,

The Inlander's piece about the newspaper industry's troubles and The Spokesman-Review's specific situation has been posted on the Inlander web site. It will be in the print edition Thursday, I assume.

Here is a link.

I think reporter Joel Smith did an excellent job. In my memory, it's by far the best reported, most accurate story The Inlander has done on the SR.

Former reporter Jim Hagengruber is quoted commenting on the layoffs implemented last December and his version of the layoff/buyout process is wrong. But that's not Smith's issue.

In the end, even if Hagengruber were correct, it wouldn't have made any difference to him. As a victim myself of a seniority based layoff 27 years ago, there is nothing fair about the process if you are low in seniority (and everything fair if seniority saves you). Merit has nothing to do with it.

Thanks,
steve

This is very, very funny in a twisted way.

A conservative Christian news site uses software to automatically convert the word "gay" to "homosexual" when the g-word shows up in news reports.

But the filter works too well as American sprint champion Tyson Gay became "Tyson Homosexual" in the site's version of news reports out of the U.S. Olympic Trials this past week.

Here is a link to the washingtonpost.com's The Sleuth blog which offers up the details.

steve

Good morning,

This is a twist...the President of the United States is arguing with the Prime Minister of Iraq over a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals (link here).

Of course the irony is that the Iraqis want us out -- just as do most Americans as measured by virtually every public opinion poll -- while the president is going to fight to keep troops there.

How can he send young men and women to fight a war in a country where we're no longer wanted (if we ever were)?

The 9/11 connection was a lie. The weapons of mass destruction reports were a lie. And now we know that any argument we're there to support Iraqi democracy is a lie in progress. Accepting Iraqi democracy would mean accepting their withdrawal timetable.

What do we tell the mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, husbands and wives of those yet to perish in Iraq and whose sacrifice is no longer desired by the Iraqi people?

steve

Good evening,

Assistant Managing Editor Carla Savalli, who has been driving a great deal of newsroom innovation since her future-of-the-newsroom report 18 months ago, has launched a series of Monday innovation discussions for the staff, dubbed "iSalon."

We've had four or five salons so far this summer and each has attracted a large number of staff members and each has generated some good ideas to pursue.

The Gang of Eight proposal actually grew out of an iSalon conversation that came back to me. You can expect to see more ideas mature in the future.

Meanwhile, Thuy Nguyen, who handles our Daily Briefing blog, has been blogging out of the salons.

Here is a link to her report on today's wide-ranging discussion.

I'll be addressing some of the ideas raised today as we move through our reorganization process.

Thanks,
steve

Good afternoon,

Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post takes on the online Huffington Post today for its report on stories the mainstream media failed to report.

He notes that the stories cited by Huffington were, in fact reported, even making Page 1 in the nation's biggest newspapers.

That steams him. It steams most editors (me included) who daily receive e-mails from folks claiming they saw something on the Internet and are wondering why it wasn't in our paper. Often, it was in our paper (and online, too) if they had only bothered to look. Or it wasn't true.

The Huffington Post is considered one of the more credible of the news blogs. This report, however, is pretty damn shoddy.

Here is a link to the Achenbach post where he also links to Huffington.

steve