in terms of the Lexington (Communist) Herald it would be for fire making.:flame: LB

I think it should be about accurate and ethical, however I feel to those involved it's more about what sells.

I think it should be about accurate and ethical, however I feel to those involved it's more about what sells.

 

True but it should be about the story and how it is told.

I agree, but if its subscribers cared more about truth and accuracy than fanaticism and trivial Hollwood-esque waste we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

 

You mean if the majority weren't blithering idiots.

You mean if the majority weren't blithering idiots.

 

:lol: Pretty much.

We talk about the good old days when there were ethics in journalism, but wasn't the whole yellow journalism era peaking well over 100 years ago? I think the quality of the paper is based on which ones you read and the reputations that they have. Although there are some exceptions, most serious newspaper readers would go for the NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, etc...

I've told myself I'd stay out of this thread but given some of the responses, I just can't.

 

First and foremost, I can promise you that reporters, editors, beat writers, columnists, etc. worry not about revenue generation. Don't get me wrong, they want the Paper to do well so they don't lose their job, but they are NOT writing stories to sell papers. I can't speak for small local papers where everyone sits in the same room and breaks bread, but at a Major Metro, it absolutely isn't happening.

 

In fact, in most cases, there is a concrete wall (literally and figuratively) between advertising and editorial. Not to mention, 99% of the time, the run-of-the-mill relationships are adversarial....everyone thinks they are the reason the Paper exists.

 

The underlying importance of the paper is impossible to answer in silos. If you are speaking globally, than look at it like this: if the paper isn't considered "accurate and ethical" and doesn't do a Great (not good, great) job covering local interests than fewer people will want the content (either in Print or electronically). If fewer people want the content than the ability to leverage rates is decimated. If you're not able to leverage your rates with readers' interest (forget copies sold, you want readers. Just like you don't care how many TV's are sold, you want viewers), than your ability to continue to be profitable is impacted.

 

Everything the Paper hinges on being accurate, ethical, respected, and continuing to be the unquestioned source for local information. Nothing happens beyond that in terms of monetization if you don't have readers wanting your content. There isn't a respected Publisher (again, at a Metro) in America that doesn't understand how important the Newsroom is in building readers / credibility.

 

That being said, obviously, being able to capitalize on that and monetize it at every turn is where the ink and paper get paid for.

 

There are 7 papers in America increasing circulation over the last couple of years and the greater Cincinnati area is fortunate enough to have one of those in their backyard (as is Indianapolis for any Hoosier readers). Trust me folks, at the highest level of these Metros, being honest, accurate, ethical, and dependable (in terms of content) is of the utmost importance. Just make sure you can monetize it.

I think you can be ethical, honest AND sell papers/tv ads. The 2 can work together.

I've told myself I'd stay out of this thread but given some of the responses, I just can't.

 

First and foremost, I can promise you that reporters, editors, beat writers, columnists, etc. worry not about revenue generation. Don't get me wrong, they want the Paper to do well so they don't lose their job, but they are NOT writing stories to sell papers. I can't speak for small local papers where everyone sits in the same room and breaks bread, but at a Major Metro, it absolutely isn't happening.

 

In fact, in most cases, there is a concrete wall (literally and figuratively) between advertising and editorial. Not to mention, 99% of the time, the run-of-the-mill relationships are adversarial....everyone thinks they are the reason the Paper exists.

 

The underlying importance of the paper is impossible to answer in silos. If you are speaking globally, than look at it like this: if the paper isn't considered "accurate and ethical" and doesn't do a Great (not good, great) job covering local interests than fewer people will want the content (either in Print or electronically). If fewer people want the content than the ability to leverage rates is decimated. If you're not able to leverage your rates with readers' interest (forget copies sold, you want readers. Just like you don't care how many TV's are sold, you want viewers), than your ability to continue to be profitable is impacted.

 

Everything the Paper hinges on being accurate, ethical, respected, and continuing to be the unquestioned source for local information. Nothing happens beyond that in terms of monetization if you don't have readers wanting your content. There isn't a respected Publisher (again, at a Metro) in America that doesn't understand how important the Newsroom is in building readers / credibility.

 

That being said, obviously, being able to capitalize on that and monetize it at every turn is where the ink and paper get paid for.

 

There are 7 papers in America increasing circulation over the last couple of years and the greater Cincinnati area is fortunate enough to have one of those in their backyard (as is Indianapolis for any Hoosier readers). Trust me folks, at the highest level of these Metros, being honest, accurate, ethical, and dependable (in terms of content) is of the utmost importance. Just make sure you can monetize it.

 

Your response makes perfect sense. However, when I read it and then I read the article from the CJ about the alleged recruiting, the two don't mesh very well for me.

 

Thoughts hssb? Anyone?

I haven't read said article, so let me start there.

Okay, I read the article. 'Ru, to be honest, I don't see how that "doesn't mesh" with what I said.

 

Clearly it was an article written giving (for the most part) only one side of the story, but I don't see the problem.

 

Don't get me wrong, reporters / columnists write articles to generate conversation and controversy, but it is more ego driven and not in an effort to monetize something.

 

I don't see the dsiconnect with the article and what I said. May he have an axe to grind (he being Mr. Hall)? Sure. However, it is more than a little conspiracy-ish to suggest that the Publisher even had a sniff of this article before it hit the stands.

OK, take this part of what you said:

 

Everything the Paper hinges on being accurate, ethical, respected, and continuing to be the unquestioned source for local information.

 

While I don't think I can go as far to say the article was un-ethical, I don't think it was honorable (which is a synonym for ethical).

 

Furthermore, I think the article accurately details the accusation/rumor but given it is just an unsubstantiated accusation/rumor at the very least I think the author has a responsibility to seek out a response from St. Xavier and Trinity which to my knowledge he did not do. In other words, I think it is irresponsible and inaccurate in that it only gives one side of an unsubstantiated rumor.

 

Respected in this case? Not a chance.

 

Unquestioned source for local information? Not when you run with unsubstantiated rumors and don't even seek comment from the other side(s).

While I don't think I can go as far to say the article was un-ethical, I don't think it was honorable (which is a synonym for ethical).

I don't think I understand this part. You don't think it was honorable. And you say "honorable" is a synonym for ethical. But you can't go as far as to say it was unethical.

I've told myself I'd stay out of this thread but given some of the responses, I just can't.

 

First and foremost, I can promise you that reporters, editors, beat writers, columnists, etc. worry not about revenue generation. Don't get me wrong, they want the Paper to do well so they don't lose their job, but they are NOT writing stories to sell papers. I can't speak for small local papers where everyone sits in the same room and breaks bread, but at a Major Metro, it absolutely isn't happening.

 

In fact, in most cases, there is a concrete wall (literally and figuratively) between advertising and editorial. Not to mention, 99% of the time, the run-of-the-mill relationships are adversarial....everyone thinks they are the reason the Paper exists.

 

The underlying importance of the paper is impossible to answer in silos. If you are speaking globally, than look at it like this: if the paper isn't considered "accurate and ethical" and doesn't do a Great (not good, great) job covering local interests than fewer people will want the content (either in Print or electronically). If fewer people want the content than the ability to leverage rates is decimated. If you're not able to leverage your rates with readers' interest (forget copies sold, you want readers. Just like you don't care how many TV's are sold, you want viewers), than your ability to continue to be profitable is impacted.

 

Everything the Paper hinges on being accurate, ethical, respected, and continuing to be the unquestioned source for local information. Nothing happens beyond that in terms of monetization if you don't have readers wanting your content. There isn't a respected Publisher (again, at a Metro) in America that doesn't understand how important the Newsroom is in building readers / credibility.

 

That being said, obviously, being able to capitalize on that and monetize it at every turn is where the ink and paper get paid for.

 

There are 7 papers in America increasing circulation over the last couple of years and the greater Cincinnati area is fortunate enough to have one of those in their backyard (as is Indianapolis for any Hoosier readers). Trust me folks, at the highest level of these Metros, being honest, accurate, ethical, and dependable (in terms of content) is of the utmost importance. Just make sure you can monetize it.

 

Circulation may be increasing for some but how about the bottom line. A few years ago we decided to get the Sunday Enquirer. About 2 years ago we get a call from an Enquirer rep and she asks me if we would like to recieve the paper on a daily basis. When I informed her we were happy with the Sunday edition but wasn't really interested in anything else, she asks me if I would like to recieve the daily paper free. I said no, thinking this was nothing more than a ploy to get it free for a little while and then an extra charge would come in. She then tells me that is not the case, that just paying for the Sunday paper now gets you the paper all week, no charge. I accepted, and to this day have not paid anymore to get daily papers. Guess what circulation just went up.

I don't think I understand this part. You don't think it was honorable. And you say "honorable" is a synonym for ethical. But you can't go as far as to say it was unethical.

 

Look up the definitions and tell me what you think.