Opinion (By Lowell Prescott)

Home > Words > Opinion

May 27, 2008

Site Index Updates Comment Contact

Election '06: On the Media

Random Thoughts

What's In a Font?

10/13/05+15:52:05 Media

For the editors of the Star-Tribune, on the occasion of your redesign:

My first impression of the redesign is to say that the deck chairs have now been officially rearranged.

No redesign could address the real problem with the paper: by the time it comes, I've read or heard about everything of interest somewhere else. You must stop thinking of yourself as a "newspaper" and realize that you are a "news gathering organization". There is a big difference, and it's more than just psychological.

Your redesign goals, as I understand them, are condescending. I don't want shorter stories, or easier-to-digest news, or quicker-to-read news, or fun and fresh, or whatever. These goals just gussie up (or edit differently) the news that's already out there. I want to read something relevant to my life which cannot be found somewhere else. I want to feel like I know what I need to know about the community in which I live.

I get my news in dribs and drabs throughout the day. I see Yahoo headlines almost hourly, and AOL headlines every time I check email. I hear MPR for an hour or so each day. I watch the ABC news and Jim Lehrer's News Hour several times a week, and Almanac quite frequently. I'm not really a news junkie, but the news is positively everywhere.

Your look is fresh, but your content is stale. You follow the herd, covering stories which are being extensively covered by other news organizations. There are precious few articles I will read in the paper just in the hope of finding the one additional nugget you have which no other news organization has.

The Vikings scandal, as an example, is being hyped relentlessly everywhere from ESPN to the local TV news to USA Today to the tabloid TV news shows to talk radio. I didn't read your front page article today because I've already heard enough. You can lay off. While everyone else blabbers on about 17 morally bankrupt millionaires on a boat, Hispanic gangs are running south Minneapolis (at least that's what the ever-shrinking police force tells me). Which story is of greater service (if, perhaps, not of greater interest) to the public in general?

Is you mission to entertain or inform? Is your mission to cater to what already interests people or broaden those interests through excellent writing? Is your mission to be neutral to the community or a positive force for change within it?

In my opinion, your mission should be to engage people in that which is important to them, and screen out that which it just clatter. Your mission should be to inform and educate.

So, if you want to improve your product and help me out, offer things like:

- Summaries each day of the previous day's official acts (not PR activities) by my elected representatives (city, state, county, and federal). Example: What are Coleman, Dayton, Sabo, Kennedy, et. al. working on right now? (Such a feature might actually stoke the politicians into some sort of activity which could be reported.)

- Coverage of the local police and law enforcement issues. Example: My wife's car was stolen a few weeks ago. Only then did I find out that she was driving the most stolen car in Minnesota. Only then did I find out that Asian and Hispanic gangs are responsible for most auto thefts in Minneapolis. Only then did I find out that the police solve ALMOST NONE of these crimes. I found out these things because I asked the police and my insurance company. Why aren't you asking those questions and effecting change as a result?

- Stories digging into the numerous and highly complex development deals going on all around the Twin Cities to see if everything is legal (and wise). Example: The economic impact argument for public stadium financing has long been discredited, but there are still many other reasons to build stadiums. There are also real risks, costs and trade-offs. Is it really worth it? People tend to argue this one on instinct and emotion, without much in the way of real knowledge. A series of short articles is better than one long feature which few will read. How about a regular column which helps the public understand what is at stake and develop an INFORMED opinion?

- Stories (more than once a year) about the current con artist scams working their way through the neighborhoods. Example: A representative from ACORN came to my door last week and described a new real estate flipping scheme working its way through the Hispanic community. Why has this not been investigated?

Finally, sports coverage is done very well on the web. By the time the newspaper arrives, WHAT happened is well-known. But there are many stories still to be told and much analysis to be done. Your sports coverage should really focus on analysis that gets behind the routine conventional wisdom. (Step one: Hire John Bonnes, the TwinsGeek, as your baseball editor -- before he gets too far into his self-imposed exile.)

In other words, you should strive to become a truly LOCAL newspaper, and not just a repeater of whatever is in the news cycle pipeline. I've subscribed to the Star-Tribune (and its predecessors) for more than 25 years. For the first time I am considering cancelling my subscription because the content feels derivative and redundant.

I want to be clear: I do not dislike your redesign. It's a nice facelift that doesn't really impact one way or the other my feelings about the content of the paper.

But here is a prediction: Newspapers which concentrate on fonts and section names will be gone in 25 years. News gathering organizations which concentrate on aggressively identifying and investigating important things, then delivering the information in an engaging fashion (regardless of medium) will continue to thrive.