It’s no secret that newspapers are doing all kinds of things these days to stay relevant in an age where the reading of the traditional daily broadsheet is rapidly becoming a societal atavism — like fox hunting. Frankly, the internet, as well as cable TV and talk radio, have been able to give consumers what they really, really want: a sense of being informed while they actually cherry-pick forums that validate their points of view. They know what they’re getting – whether it’s the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Amy Goodman, Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olberman.
The daily, home-delivered newspaper, whatever its editorial slant, obviously faces a formidable slog, one that won’t be winnable for some.
But here’s a suggestion for newspapers who feel their options are pretty much relegated to downsizing, outsourcing, links-adding and news-diluting. Get off the mantra that the product is more reader friendly because of cosmetics and consolidation.
Try honest labeling and better categorizing. In that way, readers – both the time-challenged and the emotionally sensitive – tangibly benefit and have more choices.
Too much of the news, quite arguably, is either depressing, disgusting or utterly inane. How often have your eyes run across a child-porn, animal-cruelty or bimbo-tell-all story while on your way to the jump of a big-oil profits or FCAT piece? It’s like sitting through Adam Sandler and “Saw” movie trailers while waiting for “Shakespeare in Love.”
So, why not try some truth in labeling so readers will neither have their senses unnecessarily assaulted nor their time needlessly squandered. And all without sacrificing the news hole or engaging in censorship. Try these labels:
* “Topical & Relevant” (From geopolitics to economics to local government.)
* “Batteries Included” (Purely practical stuff: the house, the car, the kids.)
* “Unabashedly Feel Good.” (For those of us who need a puppy fix or a random-act-of-kindness respite.)
* “Awful & Depressing” (Horrific accidents, fires, rapes, genocide.)
* “Creepy” (Voyeurs and assorted sickos.)
* “Natural Catastrophes Somewhere.”
* “Another, Easy-To-Assemble, Anniversary Rehash.” (Most, of course, are not 9/11 or Pearl Harbor retrospectives.)
* “Borderline General Interest With Excruciating Detail And Lots of Space – But Excellent Prospects For A Journalism Award to Use in an Ad Campaign.”
* “Generic Celebrity Piffle.”
* “The Bollea Family.”
* “Political Snapshots & Gratuitous Overanalyses.” (Plus polls, polls, polls.)
* “Doonesbury & Dilbert And A Bunch of Filler.” (That’s it. No Blondie. No Beetle Bailey. No Dennis the Menace. Nobody cares.)