News notes

The Chicago Tribune, one of America’s greatest and most troubled newspapers, launched an experiment today that make sense.

It may be too little, too late. And it may not address the digital future.

But the Tribune’s move to a tabloid size for its street sale edition is a smart move from a reader’s perspective.

The digital future is upon us, and many people rushing to and from work are getting their news on cell phones. But many commuters in cities like Chicago still want to grab a newspaper to read on the train/bus. And the tabloid size simply is easier to read on the go.

Check it out here. Of course, it’s easy to look good on the eve of an historic event like tomorrow’s inauguration. Just run a big picture of Barack Obama.

But if the Trib’s design staff continues to create a compelling tab cover, combined with the news staff’s reputation for quality journalism, their single copy sales are likely to increase. And that’s the point.

The Tribune, which is in bankruptcy following the crazy escapades of owner Sam Zell, needs a few successes under its belt.

I was dismayed when I first read about the Detroit newspapers’ plans to halt home delivery four days a week.

What kind of a strategy is that? Why would they cut off their most loyal customers – the people who are willing to pay for the paper seven days a week? It doesn’t make sense.

Now, nearly a month later and after some time to think, I can see the wisdom in the move, although I feel sorry for the people of Detroit who are, in effect, the guinea pigs.

As a newspaper editor and/or publisher for most of the last 30 years, I’ve been involved in the ongoing debate over how to save newspapers in the age of the Internet. I’m on the side that thinks it’s possible – perhaps critical to our democratic society - but only with dramatic changes that the newspaper industry has been slow to embrace.

So, here’s what I think is happening in Detroit. I worked for the Gannett Co., which owns the Detroit Free Press, for 25 years. I was a publisher for five of those, attending some of the meetings of the corporate execs who make the big bucks to make the big decisions.

If they are anything, Gannett executives are smart and tough. And they’re willing to do whatever it takes to survive and thrive in the evolving world of Internet dominated media.

They’ve wisely invested in many Web-based initiatives, trying to put their company in a position to succeed.

But part of the problem is that nobody knows what the solution will be. The newspapers industry has boomed for nearly a century using a business model based on subscriptions driving retail and classified revenue. That model is falling apart and no new model has emerged to replace it.

As the revenue slide has escalated, especially in big cities like Detroit, Gannett is getting desperate. Desperate times call for desperate measures

The Christian Science Monitor announced last fall that beginning in April it will drop its daily newspaper and switch to a 24/7 news Web site and a weekly printed news magazine.

It’s a grand experiment that will either propel the Monitor into the new age, or kill it.

Most major daily newspapers aren’t ready yet to take that chance. But Gannett owns 85 daily newspapers, including Port Huron, Battle Creek, Lansing and the Observer & Eccentric and Daily Press and Argus papers in the northwest Detroit suburbs.

It can afford to pick one newspaper and risk its future with an experiment that probably won’t work … but then, nothing else seems to be working, so what the heck.

And if you’re going to pick one city for such an experiment, Detroit seems to be a likely candidate. Its economy is in the worst shape, its  prospects for emerging from the recession are among the worst in the nation, and its football team just lost 16 games.

I think turning your back on your customer base is a mistake. I think the Detroit News (owned by MediaNews Group in a joint operating agreement with Gannett’s Free Press) will fail within a year, and the Free Press will have a slight resurgence when it’s the only game in town. I think Gannett will throw out this experiment and return to seven-day home delivery within two years.

But, of course, I don’t really know any more than anyone else about how the future of newspapers will play out – in Detroit or anywhere else. Predictions are cheap. I don’t know who will win the Super Bowl, either.

The Detroit newspapers may have found just the right model for the future, cutting costs (newsprint is expensive and so is paying someone to deliver the paper) so you can save your franchise.

What I do believe with certainty, however, is that people still have an appetite for news. Some want it delivered to their door step, some want to sit on their sofa at 6 p.m., and some want it 24/7 on the Internet.

Smart news organizations will find a way to give it to them any way they want it.

And if they do it well, the financial model(s) will emerge.

My wife and I watch a lot of holiday movies. Films that would seem bland and vapid other times of the year somehow seem warm and comforting during the days leading up to Christmas.

One recent movie (”The Note”)  was fun because it involved a newspaper reporter who had a scoop being harassed by an unscrupulous TV reporter. Now, I don’t want to suggest that all TV reporters fit the stereotype of an insensitive jerk only interested in a sensational story. But I have bumped into a few over the years.

Anyway, the movie starts with a horrible plane crash, and images of reporters interviewing families of the victims. It’s a scene familiar to journalists at all levels. You can’t be a newspaper or television reporter for long without running into this scenario.

In my view, how you handle interviewing victims and their families is one of the issues that separates good journalists from bad.

 Coincidentally, this topic came up in my Introduction to Journalism class at MCCC within a few days of when we watched “The Note.” This is the Powerpoint slide I used in the class discussion:

As you can see from the slide, I think it’s a journalist’s responsibility to get that interview with bereaved family members – but to get it in a way that is sensitive to the family and focused on the good that can come from it.

I’ve seen so much good come from interviews with victims over the years. I could tell stories for hours. My favorite involves the dramatic increase in organ transplant donors that followed a series of stories on a young man and his heart transplant. Or the changes in state law that followed a series on victims of child abuse. Or the outpouring of support for a family that lost its father to a rare disease.

And, yes, there has been some hurt, too. It’s hard to get one without the other. And I’m ashamed of a couple of situations I’ve been involved with. But I’m proud of the vast majority, because I believe in the rules I mentioned above.

The key is making sure the family knows that it is in control. The reporter is there to listen when they’re ready to talk. No pressure. Just a gentle reminder that people want to hear what they have to say, both to share in their pain and to help if possible. And that telling their story may save someone else’s life or do good in other ways.