The editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer has had a historical brainwave. Bizarrely, against all received wisdom and sense, he wants to publish in the paper first. Forget the web, he says, we need to save new content for the newspaper. Unsurprisingly this has sparked a huge barrage of criticism.
You have to feel for the editor in question, Michael Leary, after he announced what he called his "Inquirer first" policy.
He wasn't just talking about one or two stories, but a lot in a memo sent to staff:
"Colleagues - Beginning today, we are adopting an Inquirer first policy for our signature investigative reporting, enterprise, trend stories, news features, and reviews of all sorts. What that means is that we won't post those stories online until they're in print."
There seems a bit of an us versus them thing going on with the paper and the website philly.com, as Leary goes on in his memo to say "we'll cooperate with philly.com, as we do now, in preparing extensive online packages to accompany our enterprising work. But we'll make the decision to press the button on the online packages only when readers are able to pick up The Inquirer on their doorstep or on the newsstand".
There is worse to come. While many are madly embracing blogging and the opportunities it offers for breaking news, developing stories and so much more, Leary, who maybe has King Canute's play book, insists that now blogger journalists at the paper cannot go willy nilly blogging until they have consulted editors:
"For our bloggers, especially, this may require a bit of an adjustment. Some of you like to try out ideas that end up as subjects of stories or columns in print first. If in doubt, consult your editor. Or me or Chris Krewson".
Maybe his brain took a holiday. Maybe someone told him the web wasn't going to last. Who knows, but bloggers were pretty much united in their derision.
Jeff Jarvis could hardly contain himself and put it as starkly as possible. He did not hold fire:
"You are killing the paper. You might as well just burn the place down. You're setting a match to it. This is insane. Even the slowest, most curmudgeonly, most backward in your dying, suffering industry would not be this stupid anymore. They know that the internet is the present and the future and the paper is the past. Protecting the past is no strategy for the future. It is suicide. It is murder. You should be ashamed of yourselves."
Another blogger, Steve Outing, had this to say: "But this is an argument that has been decided (or so I thought), so it's disheartening to see a major newspaper go backward."
Who knows what Leary thinks of all of this. He has not issued another memo. What we do know is this: in 1983 the paper was selling more than 500,000, in 1999 that figure was a little over 400,000 copies. Today that figure is around 334,509.
It comes, of course against a back drop of a really difficult time in the US newspaper industry as thousands of jobs are lost and pagination is cut.
Co-incidentally it is about what the Guardian now sells. Can you imagine it suddenly turning back the clock? Of course not, nor anyone else for that matter.Follow me on Twitter
Errr... We used to have the self same discussions at a major newspaper group I worked at 12 YEARS AGO. Jesus H Christ, what's this guy on?
Gordon Macmillan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 20 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 1,616
