Newspaper websites offer no cure on health-care reform

Helpless to stop their print world from being pulped, newspapers are blowing a golden opportunity to use the Web to recapture relevance and audience. The occasion is a story that affects every man, woman and child in America – health care and how to universalize quality without busting the entire U.S. economy.

News about health-care reform is, obviously, all over the media, including newspaper websites, 24/7, but too much of it has a Washington dateline when, in fact, the issue is basically local. People seek care where they live, not on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue NW or on K Street NW in Washington. Most of the $2.2 trillion-plus in health spending is rung up within mostly compact triangles of doctor offices, hospitals and outpatient centers in thousands of communities.

In June and July, when Congress was grappling with five reform bills at the committee level, attention had to be on what was happening in Washington. But with Congress going on summer recess, the focus is shiftingto kitchen tables and town halls all over America.

Newspapers, with their still formidable local resources, should own this story as the locus shifts to their backyards. At a time when 63 percent of Americans say the overall health care issue is “hard to understand,” newspapers could make their websites the authoritative place for people to go for the A-B-C’s – how they would be affected personally, not as part of a statistical mashup that may or may not be accurate. Newspaper sites could become not only locally tailored information centers, but also help influence how reform will be shaped when Congress returns from recess. After all, Congress is made up of lawmakers who depend on votes from people who live in thousands of communities, all of which are covered – at least in theory – by local newspaper websites. But papers aren’t planting their flag in their own territory.

Yes, newspaper sites do features about local individuals and families that can’t get care they need because they’re not insured or are under-insured, or who have gone bankrupt because of catastrophic illnesses. But these publish-and-run stories amount to scattered, quickly fading pixels that don’t let users see the whole picture.

To cover a story that has such major and pervasive effect on every household, and which will be around for months, if not years, to come, newspaper sites should have a strategically developed, attractively designed and well-promoted special section on health care – and the emphasis should be local, local and again local.

Every newspaper site, no matter how modest, could be health care central for its community. A starting point could be comparing the cost of care at local hospitals. There is a wealth of published local data that newspapers could access free. One major source is the Health Care Intensity Index, produced by the Dartmouth (University) Atlas of Health Care, which compares Medicare-related costs – 22 percent of all health-care costs – among local hospitals and against the national median.

The Dartmouth Atlas offers Excel versions of its data, which means a newspaper site editor can, with just a few minutes’ work, show how local hospitals’ costs compare with other hospitals’. Here’s a chart I quickly produced comparing a selection of hospitals in Houston – which is in the high-cost range nationally – with the low-cost Mayo Clinic’s St. Mary’s Hospital in Rochester, MN:

Chart

The obvious question is why does the Mayo Clinic – whose health-care quality is rated among the highest in the country – spend far less per patient than most hospitals in metro Houston?

Editors at any local newspaper site could do any comparison – within the metro area, statewide or nationally, all within minutes.

More spending on care, especially in the form of expensive testing and elective surgery, doesn’t produce better outcomes, data shows. It would take a bit of shoe-leather reporting, but newspapers could find out why costs vary so widely within their metro area. Instead of just being passive platforms for rants, newspaper sites could invite (or, if necessary, arm-twist), local doctors, hospitals and outpatient centers to participate in live forums where they would explain and justify the disparities and answer user questions. The sites would provide the same platform for local small businesses and labor unions, insurers whose plans cover local residents, advocacy groups and – especially important – local members of Congress. Of course, community residents – insured, under-insured and un-insured – would be able to tell their stories and ask questions about contradictory claims.

Multiply all this content generated from the more than 3,400 hospital service areas in the country, and you’d have a powerful, instructive mosaic of health care as it is delivered and priced. You’d also have, very likely, hundreds of thousands of opinions – leavened by now easily accessed, locally driven facts and figures – on how much reform Americans want.

No longer would there be a vacuum that is now filled by the demagogues and naysayers who often make things up and get away with it because there’s so much confusion about the issue.

You’d have more – much more – than another Internet “conversation.” You’d have grassroots America, with the assistance of local newspapers, helping to shape the legislation that will ultimately emerge from Congress probably by the end of the year. But newspapers have to use their still-considerable local resources to exploit the untapped potential of the Web to turn talk into action.

Newspapers’ print world will probably be a quaint media niche by the end of the next decade. What will happen to newspaper websites – will they fade into the empty quarter of cyberspace?

So… what is the future of citizen journalism and social media?

In 1996 I was a communications student at American University, and had just discovered the Internet. I became an addict overnight. At that time, the public communications students were required to take many of the same classes that journalism students did. However, there was an innate understanding among my classmates that the journalism students were different. And they were. In many ways the training was more rigorous, and journalism was the only communications track that focused heavily on ethics.

Fast forward 13 years. Today, as a Web professional working for OurBlook.com, I find myself researching the “decline” or, depending on whom you talk with, the “transformation” of the same industry my professors helped me cultivate an almost obsessive respect for. The culprit? The same computer phenomenon I fell in love with in all those years ago.

In December 2008, OurBlook.com launched a Future of Journalism project. The website is a collaborative, Web 2.0 platform created for the exchange of research, information and dialogue on national and global issues. For both this and other topics, research is conducted in two steps:
1) Interviews with industry leaders are collected and published online.
2) An online book is created using the the interviews as a research base.

Given that the editor of the site is a retired journalist himself, and the founder has a long history of philanthropy in the journalism world, we expanded our research to include subtopics such as citizen journalism and social media.

As of now, we’ve collected over 90 interviews and op-ed pieces written by journalists, journalism academics, and industry insiders. Featured contributors include people like Charlotte Grimes, John Yemma, Chris O’Brien, and Gordon Crovitz. However, we are continuously updating the website with new interviews.

Its unfair for me to try to summarize the entire content of the project in one blog post, since almost every interview is filled with amazing insight and sheds light on a different facade of a complex situation. Additionally, as someone who has continuously worked on the fringes of the industry, I also don’t think it’s my place to speak for the journalism world. As a result, I would rather share pieces of interviews, that for one reason or another, I thought were unique. However, one thing is certain – while it is true that journalists are communication professionals, the reverse does not hold true. While this seems like a simple statement, its actually a fundamental difference that I don’t think a lot of people understand.

Adam Stone, publisher of The Examiner community newspapers in Putnam and Westchester counties in New York.

Stone’s story is an interesting one. Less than two years ago and without financial banking, this former reporter launched a newspaper in Westchester County. Since then he has launched an additional paper in Putnam County. As a result of his age, 31, you would almost expect Stone to attribute his success to some complicated, technological strategy, but that’s the farthest thing from the truth. In fact, Stone’s success is attributed to his complete dedication to high quality, local news. This formula is working since, besides expanding, his circulation continues to increase.

In response to whether Citizen Journalism can save newspapers:

“My belief is that newspapers, in their traditional form, can still be enormously popular. And if newspaper publishers largely reject the Web, and go back to basics, they can decrease their operating expenses and generate enough display advertising to return to profitability. What is plaguing the newspaper industry is a business model that no longer seems viable. I think it’s been the mainstream newspaper industry’s embrace of new editorial formulas and approaches that has been leading to its demise. The premise of the question seems to suggest that the newspaper industry must develop new ways, citizen journalism included, to remain relevant. I disagree with the assumption that newspapers must adapt significantly in the Internet age. While my opinion runs contrary to what most inside and outside the industry believe, there’s no doubting that recent attempts to adapt have failed, seeing as how so many newspapers are losing money or are going bankrupt or are out of business.”


Mitch Joel, journalist and social media expert

Joel is considered in many circles a social media guru. He was branded Canada’s rock star of digital marketing. His responses and solutions are the most “relevant” and “out of the box” I’ve seen, to date. It makes you wonder if professionals like him, who straddle both the technological and journalism worlds, were on the payroll a few years back, if the industry would still have found itself in the current situation.

In response to what newspapers can do to survive:

“I think fundamentally publishers have two issues on the table that they are not directly addressing. The first question is what do you sell. What I find unique is that publishers have gone online and said ‘actually, we sell content.’ In the 200-plus years of printing newspapers… they never sold content once. They sold advertising… The problem with that one trick pony, as it is right now, is that this sort of ‘wantiness’ of investors to invest in a company whose primary raison d’être is to sell banner ads, is not all that great…. People involved in online marketing know the banner ad is not the future of online advertisement or online marketing.

“When a lot of people say ‘Hey, how come newspapers just didn’t do Craigslist?’ It’s a fair question. But the bigger question is how come newspapers didn’t do Skype, or how come they didn’t do eBay for that matter? There is nothing saying that a publisher can’t go out and publish great platforms for consumers, and then use that money to somehow support and bring together journalism.”

Chris O’Brien, a business columnist and also the head of the Next Newsroom Project.

The Next Newsroom is funded by the Knight Foundation. The project aims to research and design the newsroom of the future. Considering all the multidisciplinary and dynamic work the team is doing, we should expect good things to come from this project. O’Brien, himself, even seems to embody the essence of the “future journalist.”

When asked about what the Next Newsroom project, and what the future newsroom will look like, O’Brien said:

“One of the early insights we had was that there would NOT be a single ideal newsroom, but rather, that we were entering an era of many next newsrooms. These would include everything from metro newsrooms to bloggers to non-profits to citizen journalists platforms. So the next step was to identify a handful of principles we thought should be embraced by any of those newsrooms:

1. The newsroom should be multi-platform.
2. The newsroom should be a center of continuous innovation.
3. The newsroom should place its community at the center of everything it does.
4. The newsroom should collaborate with other newsrooms in its local ecosystem.
5. The newsroom should practice transparency to build and maintain trust.”

To access the complete list of interviews and online book, visit the Future of Journalism homepage. You can also chose to receive OurBlook Twitter Updates. For more information, or to be part of this project, please email Sandra Ordonez at sandy[at]ourblook.com.

How early online newspaper production tools led the industry down the wrong path

Wisdom is the ability to see your life and career not simply as a line going forward from wherever point you are, but as an arc that extends from the past into the future. That’s why I believe it is important to teach online journalism students about the history and development of the Internet and for online news professionals to remember the early days of their craft. (It’s also why I find books like Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” so interesting.)

I’ve written about how legal precedents shaped the thinking of early online news managers. Today, I’d like to suggest that early online publishing technology affected industry thinking in profound, and, ultimately, tragic, ways as well.

For those of you who weren’t working on a newspaper website around 1996, let me take you on a trip into the pensieve (or, down memory lane, for those of you overdosed on Harry Potter references this week). I started on the Rocky Mountain News website in November 1996, and was the only person at the paper updating and maintaining the news side of the website. Every morning, I came in around 5 am, selected a couple dozen stories from the newspaper, then called them up on the paper’s ATEX terminals. One by one, I sent a copy of each story to a queue we’d created which interfaced with the Pantheon Bridge program on a Windows NT box in the paper’s computer room.

Pantheon was a set of programs used by many newspapers at the time to port copy from the papers’ publishing systems into flat HTML files. One by one, I’d call up each story in Pantheon, to make sure that it had come over and then to assign the story to the appropriate section in which it would appear on the website.

Pantheon built index pages for each section, in addition to create an HTML page for each article. To do those things, it had to read the head, deck, byline, publishing date and story copy into fields in an Access (!) database, from which it would push each article into page templates. (Heaven forbid that anyone on the copy desk had decided to use a different way to mark up a head or byline, because that would break the parsing process.)

I pulled whatever photos I needed from the paper’s photo server (on a Mac) and Photoshopped them to the specs I needed. After that, I fired up Notepad to hand-code the paper’s front page.

Finally, I would use two FTP programs to manually transfer each JPG image and story and index file to the Rocky’s webservers, then at Scripps headquarters in Cincinnati (Fetch for the images from the Mac, and WS_FTP for the HTML files from the Wintel box).

When I moved to the Los Angeles Times website in January 2000, I was delighted to find that the Times staff (which numbered in the dozens) had written a series of scripts to move every article and some images from the paper’s print publishing systems onto the Web. But human staff needed to check the feed every morning, to see that it had come through uncorrupted. Several mornings, it hadn’t, and tech staff needed to debug and restart the feed.

Still, Times online editors hard-coded most top stories in HTML, manually editing images in Photoshop and building index pages by hand.

By today’s standards, the work was ugly and mundane. But it had to be done. Online readers wanted to see the newspaper online. They wanted the freedom to read the paper on their computers at work, so that they could hit the road from home a few minutes earlier each morning.

On the advertising side, automated scripts at both papers helped bring classified ads online. And at the Rocky, inside sales reps “upsold” classified advertisers to put their ads online. At the Rocky and at many papers, that incremental revenue from upsold classified ads paid for the online production staff, in both editorial and advertising.

Why does this matter now? Shouldn’t those of us who remain at newspaper websites just be thankful that we don’t have to go through that hassle to get our sites online everyday?

Let’s remember that arc, though, and how what happened then has shaped what is happening in the industry now.

I believe that the hoops we had to jump through to get newspaper stories online influenced newspaper managers’ perceptions about the difficulty of online publishing. Sure, many of us had personal websites and knew how it easy it was to slap together a page in HTML (or by using an early page editor). But senior newspaper managers, the people plotting the business future of the industry, saw online publishing only through the prism of getting their content from their proprietary print systems through programs like Pantheon and onto the Web. That led many of them to see online publishing as something difficult, creating a high barrier of entry for potential competitors.

If newspapers were worried, it was about big-money rivals such as Microsoft’s Sidewalk. Individually published websites and blogs, when they started to appear, weren’t n anyone’s radar as competition. Managers saw online publishing as demanding complicated, expensive, technical solutions.

So online staff were put to that task, not to noodling around with online-only content, independently conceived and produced. Today, we can look back and see the opportunity missed. What if the Bay Area newspapers had developed a free online classified service, and attempted to upsell some of those free advertisers into a paid print ad – the opposite model of what so many newspapers pursued? If they had, perhaps there wouldn’t have been a Craigslist, and the future of the news industry could have developed along a radically different arc.

What if more managers had paid attention to the ease with which so many of us were cranking out our personal websites and charged us, on company time, to develop tools to allow all newspaper readers to do the same? Can you image what could have happened had newspapers developed and controlled the first blogging tools?

What if newspaper ad sales teams sold ads into those bloggers’ webpages, before Google got into that game with AdSense? What would the industry’s market share look like today?

But, of course, none of those things happened. Because, I suggest, 1990s newspaper managers looked at us, toiling with the likes of Pantheon and hacked-together Perl scripts, and concluded that online publishing was complex, frustrating and difficult. So by the time that online jockeys who didn’t have to struggle getting newspaper copy online had developed tools like Craigslist, Blogger and AdWords, the competition they unleashed overwhelmed the industry before newspaper managers could change their thinking.