The WSJ Rides The Cluetrain

LOOK CLOSELY at this screen capture I made of this morning's Wall Street Journal online edition front page (click the pic for a bigger view). Notice anything? I did: Three podcasts and a blog on the law. Of course, the content has to be good -- I've not yet listened to the podcasts, although the law blog (subscription may be required) is substantive and appropriately "bloggy" -- but this is great to see from the Journal.

Last year I gave a speech to the Associated Press Managing Editors (full text here). The theme of the day was "The Newsroom of the Future," and I spoke about how the Internet was changing journalism (with blogs as a case in point). One point I tried to make was that in a connected world newspapers needed to focus on truly being editors -- professionals that (1) know their audience better than anyone else, (2) know the news (and more likely, some element of the news) better than anyone else, and (3) connect those two things by scanning the world and surfacing issues relevant to their audience. This is not how most news sources typically act: They're much more like brokers, treating news as a commodity that they simply pass from source to consumer. As I said then:

I think that in the newsroom of the future the role of the editor will change from someone who works primarily as a gatekeeper of the facts with an interest in quality, to someone who “serves” the reader as a consumer based on an understanding of what readers will consider relevant ... and on an understanding that readers will judge the veracity of the content based on comparisons to a much larger and transparent flow of information and ideas.

I also asked ...

So where is the value for the newsroom of the future?

It might be in doing little to no national or international coverage ... coverage that’s highly commoditized and democratized ... and instead offering a deep, detailed level of local coverage that’s unrivaled and that readers value highly.

Or it might be that the writing in the newspaper of the future looks more like news magazine writing ... a level of detail and analysis that the wire services don’t provide.

Or it might be that ... like stock brokers ... you become more of a consultant, and less of an information broker ... offering not just news to your readers but expertise and counsel in how to deal with that news.

Regardless, you’re absolutely going to have to find a new way to add new value.

My performance was well-received, but the reaction to the content was (as I'd expect) mixed: Some enthusiasm, some energy, some suspicion. A year later, when you review how many papers are using the connectivity the web affords, most still aren't getting it right. While many certainly have said "We gotta do this blog thing," many made an equally superficial attempt, usually launching blogs that were simply web-based versions of traditional print features, or blogs that were simply links to items in non-newspaper blogs (there's nothing wrong with link-based blogs, but there are many other choices that do a better job).

I think the Journal's got it right. They seem to appreciate that blogs and podcasts are unique mediums adept at communicating specific types of content, and rather than fitting existing content in to a new channel, they've made an appropriate match (admittedly, I judge the podcasts by their titles).

That content appears to be specific expertise, even counsel, that plays well to where the Journal would be credible as an editor of the world -- specific financial topics -- and that is relevant to its readers. Finally, the blog seems a "real" blog: Full entries, first person, comments (not essential, but nice if we're trying to engage readers), frequent updates, permalinks, and trackbacks.

So, good for the Journal. They continue to lead the way online. Let's remember that the Journal was one of the first papers to have a "pay-for-full-access" online version, which many derided at the time. They're now in the black. In the Q&A of the APME speech I suggested that it would be strategic for papers to charge not only for the full online version, but to charge significantly more for the full print version. This was taken by several folks as heresy, but in keeping with the logic of the experience economy, "you are what you charge." Start charging three bucks a paper and it forces the question: What are we doing to make the paper worth three bucks?

A final note: While the law blog is the only WSJ blog to date, it sits in the "blogs.wsj.com" domain -- here's hoping there are more Journal blogs to follow.

Tags: journalism, newsblogs, newspapers, citizen journalism, apme, wall street journal

Winecast

Tim Elliott has a great podcast on wine (called "Winecast"). Runs about 12 minutes and is well worth the subscription (which is free). Also, iTunes now helps you manage podcast subscriptions, and it's really quite handy.