An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
When everybody else has the same story on the top of the page, there's opportunity in doing something different. USAT is being smart.Isn't news telling readers something they don't already know?
USA TODAY knows it's always about us. People on the West Coast are buying up iodide tablets -- for no good reason other than they're frightened of the invisible radiation monster.Nuclear energy seemed on the verge of making a comeback -- more plants were possible in the U.S. Possibly not now. That story is not a bad angle for USAT to take.
USA Today has given up. This is the second quirky story on the nuclear reactor problems this week that I thought off-base and unfocused. It's clear they don't know how to do this properly.
Geez, they had their exclusive poll about domestic attitudes on nuclear power changing in light of Japan's crisis. Why not go with unique content? Think you're barking up a wrong tree here Jim.
12:02 I'm merely asking a question. I haven't offered my opinion.
'Merely asking a question.'Right.If you think USA Today is "missing" the news, say it. If you think USA Today is offering something different, while still covering all the news (the correct answer, by the way), then say that.But don't weasel out. Makes you look silly.
By the way, USA TODAY online did not "skip the nuclear option" earlier, as your link trumpets. I saw the story up there. I don't have the time stamp, but it was in the ballpark. To say USAT skipped the story is overblown.So yes, you are trying to make a point. Just spit it out, and we can discuss it.
4:40 a.m. This was a point-in-time snapshot. USAT eventually posted a similar story. But at the time I checked the newspapers' websites, I saw what I posted.Perhaps if I had gone to the sites 20 minutes later, USAT would have had the material. If you look at the time stamps visible on the pages I capture, you'll see that USAT was about 20 minutes behind its competitors in updating its homepage. That may have been because the paper was short-staffed on a Saturday.As to the examples above, I did not find the poll results to be as news worthy as the heightened radiation effects. It is not surprising that Americans would be less supportive of nuclear energy under these circumstances.Now, had the poll results shown support was still firm, that would have been a far more important finding.I did not say this at the outset because I didn't want to steer the conversation in that direction. I wanted to hear my readers' opinions first. As it stands, their opinions, like yours, are all across the board.
The people tasked with placing news stories on the website, as well as how they ares displayed, have little news judgement or editorial perspective. Unfortunately, this makes the brand look silly. Welcome to amateur central.
Where are the adults?
The newspaper is getting the story right, much of the time. It's not translating to the website. The website managers are deciding the news isnt revelant, or they are downplaying stories for their own subjective choices on display. You have to wonder not just who is minding the store, but who's minding the minders? Can someone else take responsibility BEFORE we look like fricking idiots for a change?.
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe in a reader