Visual Editors
Visual Editors, NFP was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2004.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
douglas e. jessmer
VizEds Moderator
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 1364
Location: Tampa Bay (Clearwater)
Posted:
Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:51 pm
|
|
| |
Depends on what you call a "smash" hed.
If you mean one of those two-word, huge-ass bold bullet heads, well, they can be trite sometimes.
Many sports departments lean on bullet heads, for whatever reason, and they can be just about as informative as an unprinted cardboard box. Or they can just be a bad or overused cliche, which is just plain cheap. Readers are smart enough to know what the big news is without giving them an unnecessary big-ass head. (Don't get me wrong, but there are times when that big hed is unavoidable — Sept. 11, space shuttle accidents, etc.)
Maybe the better question: "Should we use smash heads over the latest news?" The answer, in that event, should be "if it tells the story." If it doesn't tell the story, don't use it.
And if it's going to be a day late, I think you've answered your question. We're in newspapers, not in the industry of making history books.
(By the way — you really mean to quote yourself in your signature? A little gutsy, don't you think? ) 
_________________
I've upped my standards — now, up yours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
douglas e. jessmer
VizEds Moderator
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 1364
Location: Tampa Bay (Clearwater)
Posted:
Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:08 am
|
|
|
| |
John says newspapers aren't in the breaking-news business. I don't disagree. But please let me underscore the fact that we can't take our eyes off the need to chronicle the news as it happens, as well as the necessity to play it forward.
I've spent a little bit of time outside the newsroom recently, as some of you may know. And in that time, I came to see newspapers a little differently. While we can't be in the business of acting like breaking news happens right on our deadlines, there will always be the need to report the five Ws and H, and we can't ever neglect that. Readers, including me, expect no less. Journalists, including me, should not take their eyes off that nuts-and-bolts ball as we try to move the news forward and provide depth and breadth.
The Internet services newspapers have are not going to be profitable for a long time to come, if they ever are. So while breaking news will be the domain of the Web and traditional broadcast media, don't expect a large part of your readership to exclusively choose those other media over print. Give your reader what those other services can't, but don't forget to give them what they expect and need.
OK, enough rambling for now.
_________________
I've upped my standards — now, up yours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
john josey
Juke Box Hero
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 37
Location: Hickory NC
Posted:
Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
| douglas e. jessmer wrote:: | John says newspapers aren't in the breaking-news business. I don't disagree. But please let me underscore the fact that we can't take our eyes off the need to chronicle the news as it happens, as well as the necessity to play it forward.
I've spent a little bit of time outside the newsroom recently, as some of you may know. And in that time, I came to see newspapers a little differently. While we can't be in the business of acting like breaking news happens right on our deadlines, there will always be the need to report the five Ws and H, and we can't ever neglect that. Readers, including me, expect no less. Journalists, including me, should not take their eyes off that nuts-and-bolts ball as we try to move the news forward and provide depth and breadth.
The Internet services newspapers have are not going to be profitable for a long time to come, if they ever are. So while breaking news will be the domain of the Web and traditional broadcast media, don't expect a large part of your readership to exclusively choose those other media over print. Give your reader what those other services can't, but don't forget to give them what they expect and need.
OK, enough rambling for now. |
I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above, but the challenge is how to present that. If you go with the nuts-and-bolts story with facts that everyone already knows, the newspaper isn't relavent or immediate enough when readers have already been bombed all night long by TV and the Web. It's the biggest challenge we face in print. We can't ignore the nuts and bolts, true, but we also have to find ways to move beyond what readers have already seen and heard. The example that comes to mind is Saddam's capture. He was pulled out of the hole on a Saturday night, but we in the print biz presented it as if it happened on cycle Sunday -- every single one of us -- and the papers hit the streets on Monday with WE GOT HIM emblazoned everywhere when we actually got him two days ago and readers had been flooded with Saddam coverage on CNN, Fox and MSNBC. The very best in the print business fell into that trap, and it exposed a major weakness in how we present so-called breaking news. If you have X number of inches dedicated to a story, I'd rather see the smallest part of that number spent recapping what happened and the bulk of it telling me why it happened and, most importanly, what's next. That's how we printsters stay relavent and engaging in the age of immediate media. Again, that's just my opinion. I'm a reader, too, and I also have my expectations. I do not expect, however, to see a 40-inch story dedicated to stuff I already know from watching TV coverage. To be quite honest, as a reader I feel cheated by that. That's where the bullet points come in. Do it right, and it's extremely effective in recapping the news succinctly and without making me read a whole story of stuff I already know. Tell me all that up there with the headline, but tell me why it happened and what's going to be done about it in the big story.
_________________
See the city, see the zoo. Traffic light won't let me move ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Previous topic
Next topic
