I mean, how many copies could USAT have sold of Passages, a roundup of dead celebrities "who left us" last year? (Is Tom Bosley's fan base really that big?)
Most of these retail for $4.95, excluding shipping and sales tax. How many must the paper sell just to break even on production costs?
Earlier: Gannett's marquee daily gets a minor makeover
Another example of where Gannett is not just heading but has landed, staking its "creatively dynamic" claim. Nowhere. Just sentimental fodder for the masses to be sentimental about, lest any demographic -- awash in plenty of more worthwhile perusals -- notices no real in-depth news content. Next thing, I guarantee they'll be touting editions as "collector's items."
ReplyDeleteDead people are easy to write about. They don't complain about being misquoted, and you can say anything you want because they can't sue you for libel. It's a win-win, except for the reader. In the days we are all looking for details of what government programs are being cut, it seems silly putting aside a huge hunk of the front page for a dead president, and pumping all these resources on the dead.
ReplyDeleteWhat a silly post. Slow news day Kim?
ReplyDeleteIMO, it is a lazy way out of covering the news to fall back on retrospective pieces and sentimental stories of dead people. You have to ask yourself as a reader if you want these incredibly demeaning Demand Media features and retrospectives of past presidents, or do you want real news. USAT used to be lively and in the forefront of discussing social issues. That took a lot of work. I don't know what has happened, but the paper has lost its edge.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, 8:21! Kim -- love it. I sense a new trend.
ReplyDeleteWhat will Kim play up next?
These special publications take a few staff members intense but short time, but are quite economical and make a very hefty return. They are helping fund the larger good.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, all these snipes about USA Today's fluff obviously come from people who don't read it. There is a very substantial and continuing investment in investigative journalism, continuing overseas reporting ande old-fashioned news you can use.
The problem is not the journalism, which while it can always be better is hampered by a dismal bottom line and thinner than ever newspapers.
Can USA Today get better? Yes, it should. But it is not the puff ball its kneejerk detractors, led by Jim lately who can only thrive on negativity, believe.
11:52. I invited you to read that Reagan-Bush piece again and tell me it is not pure puffball. As for the contention that there is "a very substantial and continuing investment" in investigative journalism, that is certainly welcome news. This constant reader is just curious when can we expect to see the fruits?
ReplyDeleteUSA Today has exposed schools threatened by factory toxic emissions, breakdowns in school lunch inspections, bungling or incompetent prosecutors protected by the justice bureaucracy, a double-dip "mentors" program where retired Pentagon brass stay on the public payroll (that series of stories led to a change in disclosure rules).
ReplyDeleteAnd that was just in the last 18 months, not to mention the 2010 Polk Award for a series of stories exposing credit card abuses by the nation's major credit card companies.
Fine examples, all -- especially against outrageous staffing cuts. (I believe the Polk Award was for a series published in 2008, however.)
ReplyDelete11:52 & Co. need to grow up. I've given USAT editorial a huge pass since Day 1 of this blog. You want to claim to be the Nation's Newspaper? Then expect some scrutiny now and then. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteKim is getting testy. He must know he's losing this battle.
ReplyDeleteJust blame "corporate," Kim, and try to save some face. You can't win any other way.
12:13 -- Good points, but I would argue that fewer than six major breakthrough stories in 18 months represents a massive failure. I think the NATION'S NEWSPAPER needs at least one every month.
ReplyDelete"How many must the paper sell just to break even on production costs?"
ReplyDeleteYou're a reporter. Pick up the phone.
I suspect there is a deeper reason behind that Reagan puffball, and that reason is Rupert Murdoch's new Daily which is aiming at USAT. Since Murdoch is a conservative and tilts his publications towards Republicans, looks to me as if USAT is positioning itself for the Murdoch onslaught.
ReplyDeleteJim, no the Polk business award was to Chu in 2010 for her credit card fees stories that appeared in 2009.
ReplyDeleteI've read USA Today and when it isn't fluff, it's a total lack of depth. I recall one story where the reporter accompanied the president overseas. The stories were so shallow they were worthless. And this is just one example.
ReplyDeleteAnd I hate to bring it up, but USA Today's supposed high-flying international news days were brought to us by a fraud named Jack Kelly.
Let's not forget USAT's coverage of 1) the outrageous salaries and benefits paid to college coaches, including publishing detailed breakdowns and even the text of hundreds of contracts online, and 2) the massive subsidy of college athletic departments by student fees, even as tuitions rise. This takes hundreds of FOIAs and thousands of hours of document work.
ReplyDelete6:54 Thank you for the clarification.
ReplyDelete9:30 Just FYI: His last name is spelled Kelley.
"You're a reporter. Pick up the phone."
ReplyDeleteHe refuses to do that. I think he usually blames corporate, as he does any time he botches a detail or starts getting clobbered, as he is here.
He deleted one of his pissy responses, though.
Jim does remind me of Jack Kelley. His escapades a couple of years ago when he hired a bodyguard were much like Kelley. No one was threatening you, Jim. Someone posted a nasty comment, and you took it literally.
The problem with all these examples of great USA Today reporting is that all but one of them (the factories pumping toxicity toward schools) are related to government ... and attacks on government are the easy pickings.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to be a government watchdog, but many Americans are finally realizing that most American politicians are nothing but mouthpieces for corporate America. When one is voted out or exposed as corrupt, he or she is simply replaced by another politician who has been bought and paid for.
If we're to have really meaningful investigative reporting, the newspapers need to be going after the source -- corporations and executives -- as well as the government. This will never happen, of course, because Gannett and all other mainstream media is under corporate control. And ... of all the mainstream organizations, Gannett and Fox News have always been the most willing to simply play the game.
The thing is, this has driven the most intelligent readers to alternative news sources. Therefore, fluff may be just what's needed for a paper catering to the masses. These folks haven't yet figured out what's going on and would probably rather read sentimental stories about a long-dead president then face up to the rather bleak future that seems headed our way.
12:10 So LOL!
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you're entertained, Jim. Did you call up someone from the street and claim you were being chased? I think Kelley did that.
ReplyDeleteIs it winter semester break? This thread reeks of professorspeak. "I would argue that fewer than six major breakthrough stories in 18 months represents a massive failure. ..." And this one: "... Gannett and all other mainstream media is under corporate control. ... The thing is, this has driven the most intelligent readers to alternative news sources."
ReplyDeleteI haven't heard such highfalutin' tut-tutting and bolshie drivel since I graduated.
10:51 -- If you're saying ... This post sounds as though it was written by an intelligent free-thinking individual and not like the usual blather we get from our politicians and CNN ... then you're right.
ReplyDeleteI've never understood the people who consider being an "intellectual" or highly educated a negative quality.
If you're buying into everything the mainstream media is selling you these days it sounds like it's high time to head back to school.
As for the other part of your complaint, do you really think one great story every three months is a reasonable business model? Why would I ever subscribe to that paper? Would you regularly watch a TV show that had three great episodes a year and was fluff the rest of the time?
10:51 calls out the right things but does it poorly.
ReplyDeleteThe statements mentioned are examples of generalizations. Jim thrives on those, so they usually go unnoticed.
It would not surprise me, if they already have a special issue ready to be publish, and sell when Neuharth kicks the bucket.
ReplyDelete