Dave Butler’s vision for the Mercury News
Executive Editor Dave Butler sent the following email to the Mercury News newsroom. There’s a part of me that wants to deconstruct it line-by-line. But I think I’ll just let the words speak for themselves.
Colleagues:
Where are we headed? What’s my vision for The Mercury News? I’ve been asked those questions many times. In preparation for an upcoming staff meeting (time and date still to be set) I thought I’d spell out a few thoughts after having been here almost 3 months. Certainly a large part of our news mission remains focused on technology and diversity.
The Mercury News continues to be THE local news source for residents of Silicon Valley and beyond. It also can be and should be the leader for our Bay area sister publications in many areas of topical content. And, we can be and should be the leaders of news experimentation on the Web - trying new ways to satisfy the varying needs of our readers.
Are we still: The Newspaper of Silicon Valley? Or should we change that motto to get beyond the “paper” part to reflect the changing world? I donno - but we ought to decide soon.
One thing stands out to me - we need to pick up the pace of everything we do, from the number and timeliness of local stories, to how quickly management makes decisions.
When I came here, many of you were happy to hear me say we needed to focus on the core newspaper - and we do.We need to make it the most-compelling, interesting, lively and helpful newspaper that anyone can get. But at the same time, that does not - let me underscore this - that does not mean we should or will ignore the Web. We must embrace a “Web-first” distribution philosophy and approach, but by the entire staff. We can’t and won’t break the staff into separate print and online components. We are one staff and must operate more like a wire service that feeds various forms of distribution.
In the crazy media world of 21st century news gathering and distribution, we need to remember that journalism still matters. We also can’t dwell on the past and what was or what might have been. We continue to have a commitment to quality and we all want to be proud of our efforts. But we also need to adapt to this new world order for the media and many of you have gravitated in that direction while others still are hung up in the past. . We all acknowledge that newspapers have to make money. The business model has changed and we have fewer people and less space than we had or would like. But, we still are the largest news provider in the region.
While we must serve our traditional role of offering an assortment of coverage, be a community leader and a constant watchdog, we also need to take heed of what our readers are telling us and that is that their time is very valuable, that they want lots of useful information quickly and they want to pick what is most important.
Of course there is a natural tug back-and-forth between long-time readers who want no changes in the paper, and somewhat younger or newer ones who are crying out for change. I don’t think we’re going to attract a lot of very young readers to print. But I do think we can attract some and I’m confident that younger readers would benefit from seeing our content — the public journalism we do. And so what if they read it online? We just need to get them to read it from us!
That means we need to provide a wide assortment, in terms of subject matter, tone, emotional appeal, length and appearance. Yes, it means we will still run in-depth projects. But with a smaller staff and greater demands from readers, it means we must revamp our processes and we must produce more and shorter stories - and this includes more enterprise stories. These are my expectations of all of you. We want to have the highest quality but we also need to consider quantity and we need to know when our effort is “good enough” - when more time on a particular story comes at the expense of other stories.
I know that no matter how many times I say this, many people will come away thinking that all I want to do is to increase the local story or byline count. That is not what I am saying, but I am telling each of you that the days when you had 2 days to work on a story that could be done in 1 are over.
I am telling you that just because you did 1 story today doesn’t mean you can’t do a second one. Or a third!
Many of you are journeymen like me - you’ve been in the business a long time. You remember the days of churning out stories, of chasing ambulances. And, right here and right now we have a great team of breaking news reporters who do that today - but largely for online, with some material published in the newspaper. And then there’s everyone else. When I was a reporter it was pretty clear - I was expected to do daily stories and between them to work on projects and Sunday weekenders. That is largely what we all face today. Many of our colleagues at other regional newspapers would kill to have what we do here in San Jose. Think about that.
We have a handful of sister publications that can largely do community-oriented stories outside of San Jose for us. And, at the same time we have a big, fantastic industry that is a world leader - and that gives us plenty of opportunities for coverage that nobody else has. And there are topical beats we can specialize in, providing great stories not only for the Valley but also for the entire Bay area. We also have our share of professional and collegiate sports - and I mean big-time programs that deserve and get big-time coverage.
But then there is that other matter — the anxiety about the future. We live in uncertain times, with the communications industry changing daily. We know there will always be a need for good reporting, good editing, good photography, good graphics and good design - we just don’t know what form those jobs will come in.
I’ve told many of you that I will be heartbroken if it is my generation that lets what I call “newspaper journalism” die. That’s strong enterprise reporting, and commentary; that’s emotional columns and powerful photos; that’s lively and compelling design; and that’s making a difference in the lives of our readers.
Are we as essential as we once were in the lives of the populace? Many people think not. And yet, with all of the sources of information available, many people seem woefully ill-informed, whether it’s about politics, or the environment or whatever. This is where we must continue to help people learn - to give them a combination of what they want and what they don’t know they want - until we offer it to them.
The next few years undoubtedly will be challenging for newspapers. If you’re unwilling to change, to experiment, to seek out new adventures, then you’re probably in the wrong business. But for those who stick with it, there are fabulous opportunities. I don’t think we have to reinvent the newspaper but I do think we have to constantly change it. A vision for the future? It will be constantly evolving and nothing - absolutely nothing - is more important than our ability to adapt to change much more quickly in order to better serve readers. I do think we need to strengthen the basics, we need to provide more useful service material, and that means we need to be more relevant in the lives of our readers. But those were always our goals. Doing all of that does not mean longer stories, it means better ones - and as many as we can produce. It means boiling down the wire story from 25 inches, localizing it and collapsing the last 15 inches into 5 bullets. It does mean producing a newspaper with more energy and flair, with scores of stories available each day, with reporters once again vying for 1A because we have more stories than we can print. The best stories come from reporters who are out talking to people. It does mean being better organized and planning ahead. And thinking about photo, graphic, design and online possibilities EARLIER in the story development process.
So, what you’re going to see in the weeks ahead is an evolution - with content and design. Yes, we’ll be rethinking some beats and reorganizing some departments because we’ve reassessed our priorities. Matt, Kevin and others will be refining the design of the Merc - keeping its grace and seriousness while adding more excitement and color. It will be more lively. You’ll also see a newspaper that is designed to accommodate more stories overall, and certainly more shorter stories. Does that mean we’ll still do big projects? Of course. Does it mean we’ll run long stories? Of course
But it also means we will tell stories in other ways - in more Q & As, in more boxes, in more graphics. It means we will be thinking about how we can complement what’s in print with what’s only online - whether that’s video or audio or a slideshow, or a sidebar.
You’ve heard much of this before. What’s different this time? Well, let’s forget about studying what we’re doing, and let’s forget about preparing some long report and instead let’s concentrate on making the paper just a bit better each day. Let’s make our Web site just a bit better each day. Let’s each commit to doing both. Let’s all go home each night and rather than dwell on the past, let’s imagine the future. Let’s think about how we can raise hell, take names, have fun, give readers the unexpected. Give them something special to look forward to each day. D We can do all of this but only if we work together - and have a vision of a caring and interesting newspaper and Web site that are in touch with our diverse community.
To borrow an old expression, let’s carve some new trails in the jungle of journalism! That is the future.
-Dave Butler
26 Mar 2008 Michael
do it mike we need your thoughts, seriously, god know we want to do, but we can’t for fear of, well who knows. i love that it’s out there. bless your former colleagues for passing this on
I prefer the abridged version:
“Do more with less.”
Where have we heard this before? “The next few years undoubtedly will be challenging for newspapers. If you’re unwilling to change, to experiment, to seek out new adventures, then you’re probably in the wrong business.”
What it’s always meant before, and most likely does here, is “Marketing has us by the balls, folks, so we’re going to do whatever they say - make it shorter, make it fit on a cell phone screen, and make it as dumb as it can be without falling off the curb.”
I counted more than a dozen BUTs in this cliché-packed screed by Mr. BUTler.
Here’s a question: Aren’t editors supposed to know how to write?
Hey Merc alum, I love how your comment — the SECOND comment on this — completely ignores the entire point of the e-mail.
Quit whining, get creative and get to work! Good lord. This industry has been bitching and moaning for a decade. Get over and and start helping. If you don’t, you’ll find yourself being pushed out to make way for those who are willing.
Though judging by your screen name, looks like someone smart already did.
Why is it that no top editors at major newspapers have any specific ideas they can articulate? Go back and read this, pretending the date is 1973. There’s not a single thing in here other than the word “online” that could not have been said, and has not already been said thousands of times, by a new editor in any of the past 35 years. The reporters and writers are out there doing new things every day, and the editors serve up pablum like this . . .
It’s almost funny how dumb this memo is.
Oh and if I hear (or read) one more more editor essentially tell a newsroom that the old days are over and you better get used to it, my head is going to explode…
The old days when you could get away with putting out a crap product and no one minded? Yes, Virginia, those days are over, as well they should be. Thing is, reporters figured that one out long before anyone in top management did…
dinosaurs will die.
Well, “a reader,” my post was exactly nine words long. I must be some fantastic writer to give you such a window into my soul in so scant a phrase.
Beyond that, if you somehow see in Mr. Butler’s words anything helpful or the least bit visionary, I cannot help you.
Is this memo actually proof that there are reporters who cannot complete more than one story per day? I always thought the more money you make as a journalist the less work you have to do. And now it’s a shock when someone expects the staff of a large newspaper to do the work of someone at a small newspaper? Oh the humanity!
So, Mike, what were you hoping to accomplish by posting this?
Everybody on the inside got this memo and it’s not exactly relevant to anybody on the outside, except to the morbidly curious.
@Tom: What’s wrong with morbid curiosity?
But seriously, I think it’s fascinating to watch the newspaper industry try to remake itself during these trying times. Memos like these offer insight into where things are headed. I think anyone who cares about newspapers generally (and the Mercury News specifically) wants to know what top editors are thinking about the present and the future. Romenesko would have died off long ago if people didn’t care.
To Scrappy: Which dinosaurs, exactly, at the top echelons of newspaperdom are dying right now? Wait, they are still pocketing exorbitant bonuses for helping to drive their companies into the ground.
i’m going to try not to have an apopleptic fit after reading “make it as dumb as it can be without falling off the curb.”
dumbing things down is not only killing journalism, it’s killing the country.
make it smarter, yet more digestible. that’s not making it dumb. that’s making it informative. use prose, but don’t get fancy — people are skimming, so mix in a few short sentences. and please don’t use contractions in a story of substance.
find something that matters and make people care. use display type smartly so they can decide whether to read the whole story or move along. write well, so editors won’t waste their time fixing fundamental errors before the story is distributed and can instead focus on their own jobs. think of the reader.
if we do these things, we can still slay broadcast and web-only media — by being journalistically relevant and helpful on a daily basis, we will get the attention of a large audience (the responsibility) and generate revenue (the necessity).
C’mon, Mike, are you a blogger or a mouse?
You can’t be all “RIP Mercury News” one week and then chickening out the next when the leadership airs its views on keeping the ship afloat. Well, you can, but guys like me are going to nag you to do your duty.
Those of us on the inside are not free to speak our minds on this … not because we fear getting fired but because airing our gripes publicly is corrosive to the cause of keeping the paper in business, which is Job 1 right now.
We’re rowing like hell and bailing like hell and will consider ourselves fortunate if we can get to shallow water and run aground long enough to fix the hull and get back out at sea again when (and if) favorable tides return.
You’re free to say whatever’s on your mind. How about it?
Ha - all the stuff about changing the look and feel of the paper is old news, but I am glad to see the editor demand that his staff actually do some work. I live far away from Silicon Valley but through experience can definitely imagine how the newsroom is there. Full of lazy complacent lifers along with a sprinkling of people who are either young and hungry or just simply good hard-working journalists who love to chase stories.
“OH MY GOD I HAVE TO WRITE TWO STORIES A DAY?!? I HATE BUTLER HE’S SO MEAN”
As a recent victim of magazine layoffs, I’m here to tell the employed journalists out there to “get on the bus”…the days of writing one story a day or a week ARE OVER!!! Listen to what Butler is asking his staff to do — produce. The house is burning and they are still looking out the window at yesterday. Yes, the web has changed everything. Get over it. Soldier on and be thankful you have jobs.
It’s not just you OtherTom who fears reprisals in the form of lost jobs for colleagues for speaking out, its become an epidemic in the newspaper world. Until there is an open and honest discussion from the bottom up, not the top down, there are going to be more and more missteps. Fear is no way to grow a business or get it healthy again.
I love this industry but I see near suicidal decisions being made on many levels. According to a survey by the Minneapolis Tribune last year, the average newspaper reader is 54 years old. That is up 20 years from when I first started. The newspaper print reader is following the babyboomers to its demize. And I fear for this country if the major watchdogs of the government are not around to tell us the truth.
His production seems a little slow. Mr. Butler could have punched out 2 or 3 more memos of this sort before calling it a day. ‘Carving new trails in the jungle of journalism’, what the hell is jungle boy talking about.
“Many of you are journeymen like me - you’ve been in the business a long time. You remember the days of churning out stories, of chasing ambulances.” I don’t know about the rest of you journeymen, but I don’t remember chasing any ambulances when I was cranking out three or four stories a day for the L.A. Daily News. I do remember being chained to my desk and phone, unable to spare the time for face-to-face interviews because the only way I could finish three stories in a day was to do a max of two interviews per story, over the phone, and then write no more than 15 inches for each. When you calculate what’s involved, it’s amazing I got the job done in the 10 to 12 hours I gave it each day (without overtime pay, of course). Figure 30 minutes per interview, not counting phone tag, and six to eight interviews each day. There’s three to four hours gone. Figure 45 minutes to an hour to write each story — on a good day. Chalk up two to three more hours, although realistically that would be more like four hours. Add another hour daily for staff meetings, conferring with editors, and dealing with editing questions about the three stories. We’re up to nine hours — and we haven’t attended a single “news event” or government meeting or actual off-site interview. Oh, and lunch? Bathroom breaks? Fahgidaboudit.
“The best stories come from reporters who are out talking to people.” Who has time for simply talking to people when you’ve got to churn out a couple of stories each day? If the conversation isn’t guaranteed to result in a story, there’s no time to talk.
“Does that mean we’ll still do big projects? Of course. Does it mean we’ll run long stories? Of course.” Uh — yeah. Right. You’ve laid off most of your senior people and you’re not letting the younger ones get the kind of experience they need to produce the weightier thumb-suckers you’re talking about here. I’d say the days of project journalism at the Murky News are long gone.
Working hard isn’t new for most of the newspaper people I have known.
What I wonder is, will David Butler and crew be able to produce a newspaper that is relevant to its readers?
Inside the decaying Mercury News:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hellvetica/sets/72157604470612285/
caption: “the last round of layoffs and buyouts really hurt me. i mean, each one does but this one especially. this place feels like a morgue. an abusive relationship. remnants everywhere. empty cubicles. empty chairs. abandoned office equipment. goodbye emails. besides looking for a new job and building a massive assemblage, this is a way for me to deal.”
The comments on this blog post are apalling, this is exactly the arrogant unimaginative attitudes that are ruining the future of journalism. As an editor it isn’t really Butler’s job to have all the answers, it’s his job to see the need for answers and point you in the direction. Then you content-producers find them and make them work.
Do your jobs.
If you think it’s cliche because you’ve heard the memo so often maybe you should shut up the cliche by actually DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
If you knew anything about your “profession” you’d realize you’re pretty much doing a bad job and places like WikiNews, Indianapolis Star, Wii News and a small collection of others have figured out the answers and you have not.
Butler is right, listen to your readers and stop resisting change. Journalism has been evolving for 300 years, give up your ancient ways and realize that you’re still doing good journalism just on a new platform.
What a bunch of wussies.