(Mary Nesbitt)

We're awash in reports about how traditional news organizations (read "old newspaper companies") are making the transition to the Web. Tim Rutten of the LA Times observed last week, a propos of the Wall Street Journal's redesign and print/online strategy, that it's back-to-the-future mode, with newspapers recapturing the AM-PM zeitgeist. Online is like the AM edition with mostly breaking news and factual information; print is like the PM paper, offering mostly "analysis, context and exploration of the important back story."

Rutten sees a "simultaneous and complementary stance in both venues" and his publisher, David Hiller, agreed, writing in a memo to staff: "This means most critically, being focused on how, where and when people want and get their news and information."

Who can disagree? The consumer is in control. (Hey, not only are YOU person of the year, YOU are ad agency of the year as well. How do YOU get the time to do so much?)

Heck, the consumer has been in control for quite a while now.

But I wonder about the wisdom of a focus on the how, when and where of consumption without an equal focus on the what's being eaten. Because the consumer has taste.

A print edition of reflective thumbsuckers would have limited appeal; and beyond the magic of fast, refreshed and sometimes multimedia news (no small things, to be sure) what are you giving people online that they really care about, that's more than diversionary?

So it seems to me that all roads lead back to the age-old question: where do good stories, and good story ideas, come from? And how can we get more of them, in any medium?

Three ideas for starters:

1. One place they don't come from, Edward Wasserman might say, is the current newspaper beat system. Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University, wrote in The Miami Herald this week that beats as currently constituted and operated are "an endemic conflict of interest" because beat reporters can't afford to burn the sources and contacts that feed a reliably steady flow of information.

I wouldn't do away with beats, because they give reporters a defined yet roomy area to explore. But I'd focus them differently, putting your intended audience at the center and representing and writing to their real interests -- because we're now richly and digitally equipped to discover, quickly and constantly, what those interests are, what they're thinking about, what they're talking about, what keeps them up at night, what they'd like to know, the questions they'd ask, how we can help them solve problems, and so on.

2. I like Carla Savalli's idea for enterprise "hit teams." Savalli is senior editor for local news at The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, WA. This confessed "technology curmudgeon" spent last fall gathering ideas for the newsroom of the future and blogging as she learned. As part of her just-published report and recommendations, she identifies the need to bring "something unique and surprising to our online journalism" because only providing real-time breaking news is not enough.

In previous years, the City Desk successfully generated a steady stream of enterprise
news and feature stories by creating rotating teams of reporters and photographers who worked together for two or three months at a time with the goal of producing several packages per month and as many dailies as possible. The concept increased the number of good stories we were able to tell, but it also offered staffers a chance to step back from their regular beats to stretch their interests and abilities.

Although the staff was much larger at the time, careful planning might allow us to try it again, especially if it leads to news and feature stories that can be told both on the Web and in print.

3. Identify the reporters and editors in your newsroom who routinely come up with the most creative and compelling off-agenda story ideas, both serious and light-hearted – the kind that turn up on the Web site's most e-mailed list, or regularly make the front page, or generate the most talk and feedback.

Then figure out why this is so. What are these journalists like? Their personal characteristics? Interview them to find out how they think, live, who they talk to, what they read and watch, how they go about their daily life, their routines. Get inside their heads. What could other journalists learn from them? What does this tell you about the people you should be hiring? Are there more people like them elsewhere in other departments? How can you tap into them?

These ideas are three small inroads into a large and critical challenge. We'll return to it periodically this year. Your ideas, comments, successes and learning experiences are welcome.


By Mary Nesbitt (m-nesbitt@northwestern.edu)
Mary Nesbitt is managing director of the Readership Institute.