The youths have Spokane

[rknil]

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/conversation/media/reorg_report_20080710.pdf

Fast background: The Spokane paper commissioned eight young journos to create a plan to streamline the workflow at the paper.

The above link is to the report. I have skimmed it, and I have to say there are a few suggestions that make sense. There also are some that come off as -- dare I say this about the anointed young journos? -- naive.

Let's hit the high points until 3 a.m. or so. I'll color code these -- blue for good and red for naive.

To efficiently run a newsroom that is dedicated to publishing content online, the deadline model for a traditional morning newspaper must be abandoned. With the traditional model, city reporters turn in their stories close to -- or even after -- a 5 or 6 p.m. deadline, creating an editing bottleneck at the City Desk. These stories are then immediately pushed through the copy editing procedure and into the print paper, with minimal priority given to publishing them online earlier.
Meanwhile, throughout in the day, there is pressure to get stories online before they are
thoroughly copy edited.
 
To diminish these problems, the newsroom should operate as an afternoon paper would,
though The Spokesman-Review will remain a morning newspaper. Except for anyone working on breaking news or daily sports stories, reporters will have a deadline of noon.

OK -- so far, so good. Eliminating editing bottlenecks is always good, and I was never a fan of reporters turning in stories at 5 p.m. and running out the door at 5:05 p.m.

Similar to an afternoon newspaper, reporters will work on a story the afternoon prior to its due date, then polish it the next morning if need be.

This assumes all news is known early in the afternoon and that there are no evening events. Of course, that part can be amended to allow evening work when necessary, or at least I hope that's the case.

Reporters who already operate on noon deadlines will be required to turn in their stories one day earlier, allowing sufficient time for page design.

Thought that one would be red, didn't ya? I'm all for this, though, as long as these are features and soft news stories. If hard news is being held so designers have more time to make PFADs, then the whole idea of reporting has been lost.

Breaking news and sports stories produced in the evening will be subject to the current deadlines. Breaking news coverage should not be curtailed.

That answers the earlier question.

To assure content is edited before being published online, more copy editors will be required during the day. Copy editors on the newly created universal copy desk and the Sports Department will still be required during the night, but in fewer numbers. ...

Content would be copy edited throughout the afternoon, resulting in a smoother design and production process at night as the press deadline nears. This system also would alleviate deadline pressures on page designers and allow more time for thoughtful design at night. The night copy editors would then be more available to look closely at page proofs.

Some good here, but we're venturing into dangerous territory. So we'll have fewer copy editors at night, and we're going to allow more time for design -- again, not a terrible thing as long as news coverage is not being compromised -- but we're going to have more availability for page proofing. This is starting to sound like one of those political speeches where the candidate promises to balance the budget, increase spending and lower taxes. I don't think all of these things can be done, and I have a feeling we'll see the same erosion of proofing that's been taking place during the design-based era.

The next part of the report covers the assembly of an assignment desk. For outsiders, it comes across as vague because we don't know the specifics of the current editing flow. (This is one of the major flaws of any newsroom; the newspaper is not transparent, which allows it to say, "A-ha! You don't know what we've been doing. How can you say whether this is better or worse?" The best response: "Lame.")

Anyway, there are a couple of areas to highlight:

The new Local Department will encompass the former City, Business, Features, 7 and Voices desks. The head of this desk will be a "strong" city editor -- addressing another staff concern that the city editor has less power than in past years -- who will oversee selection and assignment of stories for all of the sections, read as many stories as possible and report to the managing editor.

Um, no. This is an awful idea. This person will die of exhaustion or a stroke within six months.

Line editing and supervision of reporters will lie with seven non-SES assistant local editors: breaking, life, culture, watchdog, money and Washington hyperlocal and Idaho hyperlocal.

No color here; there's nothing new or innovative.

This structure noticeably removes assistant managing editors across the board, placing greater authority in the hands of the local editor. The editor in chief and managing editor will continue their present duties.

"noticeably removes" -- Nice writing. I guess that's opposed to non-noticeably removes. Anyway, this is an awful idea.

Instead of section editors drawing from a set pool of reporters to fill one part of the paper, editors will assign stories to the reporter best suited for a specific task. (For example, a story about renovations at Avista Stadium might involve a business-oriented reporter, a sports reporter or a hyperlocal reporter.)

Nothing new or innovative here. The example that's cited -- outside of the mention of a hyperlocal reporter, which simply could be semantics in this context -- is how things already should be done. This smacks of what it is -- people with not much coverage experience trying to sound smart. They fail here.

As a result of this structure, reporters and editors will all share weekend and holiday responsibilities, thus removing the burden on traditional City Desk staff.

I can only imagine the screaming that will take place about this one. I notice the absence of a reference to the copy desk here, though.

The next part covers editors' responsibilities. One thing stands out:

Wire -- This SES employee culls world, national, regional, business, arts and features wires, creating a wire budget, and choosing stories that will fill various sections. This relieves copy editors of that duty.

This is a metro paper, and it's just now grasping the concept of a wire editor? Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Reporters will continue to voluntarily assume additional methods of telling stories, such as photography and videography. Reporters who choose to do so will gather raw material and
edit it as they see fit, but that visual content will be subject to approval by the Visual
Department, ensuring quality control.

This sounds like a good idea, but I'm wary of the last part. I used to take my own photos when it was the most efficient way, and I'm pretty confident they would have passed muster. But who knows what the ruling will be in a subjective area where personality conflicts can be introduced?

The presentation editor will oversee two designers, two graphic artists and 11 copy editors. Current day and night desk copy editors will be combined into a single pool, overseen by two copy desk chiefs whose shifts are staggered from each other. Copy for all sections of the newspaper, with the exception of Sports, will go through the universal desk.

This part of the report has some weaknesses. How many copy editors will work during the day? How many will work at night? Why is Sports in its own island, and how many people are on said island? (The report refers to the specialization of Sports. Weak. Didn't we already use an example of a Sports article that involved a business reporter.)

Also, is said presentation editor a real editor or a design dolt? And if it's Door No. 2 (insert juvenile punch line here), why is this person supervising 11 copy editors? These questions are based on painful past experiences.

Rather than have designated day and night copy editors, all copy editors will work 10-hour days, four days a week, and their shifts will be staggered to cover a flow of work throughout the day. This means each copy editor might be responsible for two specific jobs each day. These responsibilities will be clarified in the scheduling process and will likely vary from day to day for most copy editors. Stories will be copy edited before being posted on the Web,
resulting in fewer copy editors working until deadline for print.

Vague. Needs more specifics. What are these "specific jobs" being referenced? Also, the last sentence is an open door for problems. A Web copy edit and a print copy edit should be two different things. The headline styles alone are different. What are the space limitations, if any, for the Web? Do these match up with print?

Ideally, copy editors will sit at a physical universal copy desk, with everyone in the same room. This desk will be close to the designers and graphic artists to facilitate communication.
 
Copy editing will be handled entirely by this desk, allowing two dedicated page designers.

As it should be.

Staffing breakdown:
* One presentation editor (no change)
* Two designers (no change)
* Two graphic artists (one is a current position; current part-time copy editor/part-time
graphics job would become full-time graphics)
* Two copy desk chiefs (current news editor and deputy news editor; these two chiefs would have equal authority and both report to the presentation editor)
* Eleven copy editors (3 current day copy editors; 5 current night copy editors (after moving one to graphics); one job absorbed from current Voices staff; one job absorbed from editorial assistant pool; one job absorbed from letters coordinator position)

OK, this answers some previous questions. (Note to the Not-so-great Eight: In the future, please note if important details will be referenced later.) Expansion of the copy desk = good. Having two copy desk chiefs with equal authority = very bad.

Skipping ahead to additional suggestions:

Sunday reporting shift eliminated or becomes hybrid online producer.

The N-s-g Eight has declared it: No news on Sunday! Make it so.

OK, it's 3:30 a.m., so we'll put a bookmark here.

EDIT: As with other posts, some punctuation was garbled when the information was transferred between servers.

[rknil]

Also, in this sea of information about online producers, etc., I see little to nothing about the provision of tech support. This is a critical area for any newsroom, and the omission of this concept is glaring.

[rknil]

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/conversation/

Editor Steve Smith is throwing out a weak rationale for this idea.

First he says: "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."

Later he adds: "The fact is there always have been opportunities for veterans to participate in such discussions."

These are two completely different concepts. Being asked to provide a report detailing change is not the same thing as deciding to go in and press for change. If you choose option No. 2, your suggestions have far less chance of being heard, much less implemented, than with option No. 1.

Smith knows this, or at least he should. This is simply a pathetic attempt to defend another roll of the dice by management.

[rknil]

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/briefing/archive.asp?postID=8123

The staff response to the report.

First, I have to say this is written in a much more professional fashion than Jessica DaSilva's recent clueless, witless, tactless blog entry.

That said, we have some new issues:

* Will an earlier deadline put stale news into the next morning paper? The goal was to line up the processes for print and online, such that the deadlines for the print newspaper would allow for S-R.com to take content as it is finished. So not necessarily stale, but perhaps better-developed, perhaps less about events and more about issues (* Nick Eaton). The philosophy also includes getting fresh quality stuff online. (* Parker Howell) Another goal is to run online content past a copy editor wizard, to make it more perfect. (* Andrew Zahler)

Blahblahblah. The answer is yes. And moving up the deadline will not lead to "better-developed" stories in most cases. Next.

If stories can be published in any section, what if one section takes a story originally planned for publishing in another section? Story 'theft' should be negotiated, and the section givee shall be compensated with a story for their empty spot.

Dream on.

Will it be harder for readers to track a multipart story series? (* music writer Isamu Jordan) Team says yes but we can publish a text box that says, 'Looking for this? Check page...'

That's a really bad idea. We hear designers whining about jumps, but now we're going to send readers all over the paper just to find an article?

How will editors divide up nights and weekends? (* city editor Addy Hatch)

Poorly, just as newspapers have done for decades. Why change now?

EDIT: Fixed garbled punctuation that resulted from switching servers.

[rknil]

http://masteringmultimedia.wordpress.com/

A follow-up:

Now a new group, made up of mostly of newsroom veterans is looking at ways to improve the content produced for both online and the print.

Sounds like a compromise to me. (And a sentence about improving content is missing a comma.)

Right now reporters are chained to their desks working with large desktop computers. That's so last century. Transition them laptops with cell phone data cards and get them out of the newsroom and into the community.

That should be entertaining. Will they swear in public, as they do in their newsrooms, about their computer "not working properly"?

Four newsroom reporters, who volunteered to make a radical change in their job descriptions, are about to undertake a brave new journey into the multimedia universe. Each is being equipped with a video camera, Macbook Pro laptop and Final Cut Express video editing software. For three days, I will train them in the fundamentals of video shooting and editing. After that, their success will rest in how well they integrate video into their present word driven workflow. I have high-hopes for these mobile journalists. They will be riding on the crest of a huge tsunami of change.

So, is there a plan for what should be integrated as video? To me, it sounds like they're getting three days of "training" and then they're on their own. Weak.

[rknil]

Nick Eaton has responded to some of my points here, and his answers need some rebuttals.

One common thread runs through most of his responses. Apparently his team either left information out of the report or did not write clearly, which then affected my response. I already partially addressed that issue with this earlier segment, which bears repeating:

(This is one of the major flaws of any newsroom; the newspaper is not transparent, which allows it to say, "A-ha! You don't know what we've been doing. How can you say whether this is better or worse?" The best response: "Lame.")

I always seem to find the Spokane material late at night, but I'll try to develop some short responses.

Report: The new Local Department will encompass the former City, Business, Features, 7 and Voices desks. The head of this desk will be a "strong" city editor -- addressing another staff concern that the city editor has less power than in past years -- who will oversee selection and assignment of stories for all of the sections, read as many stories as possible and report to the managing editor.
Wenalway: Um, no. This is an awful idea. This person will die of exhaustion or a stroke within six months.
The local editor is essentially an assistant managing editor, with a different name, who is more involved with line editing than in the current structure allows at the S-R. This editor has help from seven assistant local editors.

So why did the report say: The head of this desk will be a "strong" city editor -- ... who will oversee selection and assignment of stories for all of the sections, read as many stories as possible and report to the managing editor. And why did it not include that last part? Also, "read as many stories as possible" is a fast sign of someone who has little to no clue about workflow.

Report: Stories will be copy edited before being posted on the Web, resulting in fewer copy editors working until deadline for print.

Wenalway: [T]he last sentence is an open door for problems. A Web copy edit and a print copy edit should be two different things. The headline styles alone are different. What are the space limitations, if any, for the Web? Do these match up with print?

No, these are not two different things. Content published online is still published for public consumption, and should be held to the same standard as newspapers hold it to for the print product. The line of thinking that web is completely different from print needs to be abandoned. This philosophy, I believe, is one reason newspapers are struggling to make it online.

Weak. Lame. More of the "If you don't agree with us, then you want newspapers to fail" tack.

Yes, Nick, the basic story is the same content.  

But the headline style is different, and the lengths are different. Later I can find a link or two to explain this concept to Nick, who clearly doesn't grasp it.

Two copy desk chiefs (current news editor and deputy news editor; these two chiefs would have equal authority and both report to the presentation editor).

* Having two copy desk chiefs with equal authority = very bad.

This equal-empowerment is solely because one copy chief cannot work seven days a week. Shifts would be staggered through the week so that one copy chief is on duty every day. A 4-day, 10-hour schedule would result in one day during which both copy chiefs are at work, on which day the senior editor would assume the role.

Thanks for pointing out that part about not working seven days a week, Nick.  

Also, none of that proves why there should be two copy chiefs with equal authority. One person has to supervise the shifts seven days a week. That doesn't mean two people need to have the same authority.

Also, in this sea of information about online producers, etc., I see little to nothing about the provision of tech support. This is a critical area for any newsroom, and the omission of this concept is glaring.

Our team was charged with looking only at the newsroom. Tech support is a separate department at The Spokesman-Review. Additionally, online producers would have knowledge of the website's workings and they would answer to the online editor, who as we speak is building the new S-R website himself with the help of a few online developers, who are included in the report.

Beyond weak. Tech support is a separate department at many newspapers. But it's still vital to the operation. Its omission from the report is a glaring one. The lengthy chain that finally gets us to a group that's included in the report proves little.

Finally, I do see where Nick, like many who cannot make arguments, has linked to a false, clone post. All that does is prove to me he's not a good journalist, and he has no business making any recommendations that affect real journalists who have invested their time in an organization.

[rknil]

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/conversation/media/content_report_20080728.pdf

Next up: The content report. This one was not done by the Kids of America, or whatever name they're going by today.

Later, I'll analyze this one, which has some glimmers of hope but also a couple of comments from the pinhead crowd.

[rknil]

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/media/pdf/20081001_steveresign.pdf

Sayonara, Steve Smith. This should put an end to some of the nonsense that's been taking place with these age-based committees.

Also, it bears repeating: Saying newsroom veterans were free to come in and suggest changes is totally different from forming an age-based committee to present changes. Anyone who does not grasp that concept probably has no business managing a newsroom.

Smith had been off track for at least a few months. It was time for him to go. Good riddance.