I Want My StribTV.
By Brian Lambert
Why is it that I can never find something when I need it?
A couple weeks ago I squirreled away a comment from some grizzled newspaper veteran. I think it was in response to billionaire developer Sam Zell and his plans for the Tribune Company. But now, after chatting up Stribbers about this latest "StribTV" incarnation, I can't find it. (It's under my stash of Bunny's $5 off pizza coupons, I just know it.)
In the context of newspapers exploiting every available asset, the guy's point was that routine water cooler/barroom conversation (OK, gossip) was every paper's greatest untapped resource. Anybody who has ever knocked back a couple with a reporter knows what he -- and I -- am talking about. There's the story in the paper -- maybe -- depending on space and timing. Then there's everything else that is going on, or sure as hell looks like it is going on based on everything people who work the beat for a living have good reason to believe. Shouldn't there be some forum for trading in that information?
David Brauer over at MinnPost recently reported on the Strib cranking up an on-the-premises TV studio with a line-up of "shows" featuring James Lileks, gardening guru Connie "Coco" Nelson, everyone's favorite barroom crony, TV critic Neal Justin, sports guy Michael Rand and more to come, I guess. (The fact this studio sits in the space once occupied by those sweet old switchboard ladies Par Ridder "right-sized" out of their jobs last year isn't lost on anyone.) Top editor Nancy Barnes deployed the usual fuzzy verbiage for how it is all supposed to work.
Said Barnes in a memo to the staff: "As we move forward, it’s important to remember that all of us are responsible for growing and sustaining our entire audience —
in print, online and elsewhere. That means we’ll continue to look
beyond the photography and video staff for video content, whether it’s
on-camera work, shooting breaking stories or even helping in
production." (No one expects to be paid a nickel more for helping with all this "growing" and "sustaining" stuff.)
What I didn't hear anywhere, and still don't after talking to some of Barnes' staff, is anything remotely like "tapping the great untapped resource". As Brauer points out, the early line-up could just as easily play on some ditzy, inoffensive cable channel. Entertainment info, consumer advice, sports celebrities and others ... and Lileks doing his "quirky" thing. (Not to rip Lileks. He clearly knows where the newspaper frontier is stretching. But is he the only one over there capable of "quirk"? He's the one and only "funny guy"? If she wanted I could give Barnes the names of a dozen Stribbers who strike me as pretty damned funny, albeit in a more, uh, mordant way than she'd probably ever find comfortable.)
In short, while pleasant, quirky and "useful" enough, (Connie, save my hostas!), this StribTV is not exactly adventuresome stuff. There's not a hint of anything provocative. Nothing risky. Nothing ... even different enough to be interesting. Nothing, in other words, much resembling -- or tapping -- the essential product of a major daily newspaper, which would be, you know, the news, what's behind it and what it all means. (Maybe my mistake is I keep thinking the Strib is a company chock full of people who knew a lot of interesting stuff about what's going on in town.)
What the newspaper veteran in my missing quote was suggesting was something a lot less formal and a lot more guerrilla and provocative than a newsroom studio, local affiliate-style lighting, good grooming and innocuous prattle. The far better idea? Get the grunts talking about what they couldn't get in the story. Ask them where the action they reported seems to be pointing next. Get a Hi-Def camera, costing less than $1000, (two weeks salary for one of those nice switchboard ladies), and walk over to say, Nick Coleman's desk. In the background is a realistic big city newsroom already set decorated. Toss him a half dozen fresh e-mails calling him a "pinko commie faggot" for suggesting that Bush and Cheney should be impeached and ask, "You got a response to this, Nick?" (OK, no one in the newsroom calls him, "Nick". But even on a website I don't think you can get away with, "Hey, a**hole.")
Likewise, Katherine Kersten. "Katherine, a mob of turbaned bike riders are circling the building in a threatening manner. Would you mind coming out front with us and talking to their leaders, Muhammed and Moktada?" Good TV.
Or roll the camera up to the desks of people like Paul McEnroe, Mike Meyers, Rochelle Olson or Randy Furst and get 'em to talk about the half or three-quarters of their latest story that didn't make it into the print edition.
The point is that like any office, a newspaper is made up of the full range of personalities, and I have the feeling only one range of personalities is being tapped to get the full StribTV spotlight.
To use the always salient high school analogy, there are the boot-lickers forever agreeing with anything the teacher wants done. "Great idea, Mrs. Barnes!" There are the drones, who'll go along with whatever everyone else does. There are the nitwits, who shouldn't be trusted with anything with buttons or batteries, and then there are the obstreperous, skeptical, know-it-all cranks, the kids who have seen all the dog and pony shows that have come along before and aren't interested in skipping to the same hokey, feel-good beat the principals, teachers and boot-lickers think is such great fun.
There was a time, I guess, when newspapers prided themselves on having a well-stocked roster of know-it-all cranks. (Before my time, apparently.) But not anymore. In today's heavily commercialized climate, where all hint of obstreperousness has been boiled from the ranks of management, leaving only company boot-lickers and drones, crank reporters are anathema to the tightly constrained visions of the management class. Cranks are "negative". They are not controllable. They have opinions ... about things that matter, not just sports and TV. They are not "happy faces" a nervous manager can safely put on the company "product". What the cranks are of course are world class bulls**t detectors, one of the most valuable talents any news consumer can hope to "tap" in today's spin-crazed world.
The obvious response to the notion of sticking a camera in the face of a crusty reporter and asking them to elaborate-- and even, God forbid, speculate -- is to huff, "Well, besides being journalistically irresponsible -- this would only dilute our primary product, the paper itself."
Sorry to break it to the boot-lickers and drones, but that paper product you're so proud of is already badly diluted by the internet and silly TV, and getting thinner by the hour. More to the point, your real product, your greatest asset, the one no other competitor has in such abundance is right there in the heads of your most experienced, highest profile reporters.
Never mind that some of them don't play well with others.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
I like it. You still have to make it generate revenue though.
I have two beats that I can suggest to the Strib that would increase their circulation by multiple thousands:
Run a daily feature on shopping at Target - 800 words or so. Whats new, whats their, what the rumors are. I mean really, what Minnesota woman doesnt make 3 or 4 unnecessary trips a week to Target?
And...
Give amateur baseball the coverage it deserves. A big sunday piece or a couple features a week on the local action. These papers have no idea theyre tunnel vision is so affixed to the Twins and Vikings.
Posted by: 108 on June 12, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Are these people getting any training in the production of video? Or will this just be the usal unwatchable crap no better than your average home videos we're treated to from our brethren in print and radio?
LAMBERT: I believe there is training, yes. But my point is that could dial back on the "production values" if that's what it took to deliver some compelling content.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on June 12, 2008 at 7:30 PM
I would much prefer that the Strib go with Sid-Cam, a 24/7 look at the man who defines Minneapolis and singlehandedly brought all the major league franchises to town.
LAMBERT: Doesn't Sid already have three or four "SidCams"? "Sid 360"!
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on June 13, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Um, wondering why CJ and the Glancers aren't mentioned in your StribTV plot rundown?
Wouldn't they be the REAL attraction of such a silly channel?
LAMBERT: On this one you're probably right. I actually think Claude and Rick, your old camp buddies, would be pretty entertaining.
Posted by: bertram jr on June 13, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Back off Connie Nelson, one of the hardest working editors in the newsroom. She's created a solid H+G section while maintaining a blog, creating a weekly podcast, and researching all things Zone 4 for her gardening videos. Northern gardening is challenging and we are lucky to have her as a resource.
BTW: No one calls her "Coco."
-Jaime Chismar
LAMBERT: I've loved Connie ever since we worked together 30 years ago at the Twin Cities Reader, and I've called her "CoCo" ever since. If I could only get her to come over and tend to my schefflera plant.
Posted by: Greengirl on June 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Maybe they AND CJ could co-host a "Who's Doing Who"? segment.
I oughta be in TV!
Posted by: bertram jr on June 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Unleash the Strib Wise-girls and Wise-guys in the newsroom with their off-the-cuff hunches, opinions, or just plain vitriol, about hard news stories on a StribTV? If you do that, what's a responsible media for?
If you make hard news reporters "TV talking heads" do you not compromise their credentials as unbiased reporters? It may work in Washington, D.C. I don't think it works for local news.
And legally, it's still actionable, as they say in the legal business, if serious factual errors are committed with malice in delivery of somebody's hunches, or off-the-cuff ideas, even on a StribTV. You could get a very big lawsuit off something like that, especially if it's in the realm of "hard news", and not gardening.
If you just ask some Strib or PP reporter to give their "take" off the cuff on some unpublished dirt, it's probably not been given due diligence - I mean, serious reporting treatment or editing - or, it would have been in their story. That, some lawyer will argue, is "reckless disregard" of the truth. That might be fine for some blog that is "judgment proof" - with not enough financial resources to make it worth the while to sue, unless you really want to just put it out of business. But the Strib, or PP, still have enough assets to make a lawsuit worth filing. Think Par Ridder, in another legal vein. I suggest you talk to some media lawyers. I see stuff in the blogosphere that I think is ripe for a libel lawsuit. So far, they just aren't worth suing because they have no assets. But that could change....
I'm not saying the newspapers shouldn't do this...but it can't be done on the cheap. Not if they want to keep their integrity (not sure they care) or avoid lawsuits (which I'm sure they do care about.)
LAMBERT: Spoken like a corporate manager. I think it goes without saying that veteran reporters long ago learned where the line was regarding libel, and I seriously doubt any of this is going to go out "raw". Moreover, there are a lot of reasons why things don't get into the print edition, not all of if because the reporter doesn't have his/her facts in order. My point is that in an internet age that values transparency and authenticity this is a way to tap an unusually informed authenticity with clearly discernible content value.
Posted by: Paul Gustafson on June 13, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Hey Brian, did you ever have any interaction with Tim Russert? Sad news coming out of DC today. I think NBC/MSNBC did a heck of a job so far with the coverage. It can't be easy for everyone who's been on air so far. Brokaw, Williams, Mitchell, and Gregory have been great.
He's leaving some huge shoes to fill.
LAMBERT: A shocker to be sure. I only met him at the TV Critics Press Tour circus. He was an encyclopedia of local politicians and obscure political factoids.
Posted by: ML on June 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Spoken like a corporate manager? Ouch. I can tell you the current Strib newsroom managers would not agree that I was in tune with them...
You gave short shrift to my last line....that it might work if people get the time to do it right.
You say you don't think it would go out "raw?" Where are they going to get the editors to make sure that doesn't happen?
Your conjecture about that flies in the face of your own reporting about the cuts in our daily newspapers.
By the way, your piece is under the headline "I Want My StribTV."
I'm old enough to know that references a VERY old Mark Knopfler tune. Think anyone under 40 even knows what that means? Think anyone under 40 even reads this blogsite? If not...we're all just talking to ourselves.
LAMBERT: Your concern about the time available to do this properly plays to my argument. Where the Strib wants a produced "Twin Cities Live" like quality that requires the usual set-up and prep, my guerrilla idea is far less encumbered. Just do journalism in your own newsroom. Ask a couple extra questions. Create some bits. And no, there isn't going to be a lot of extra editing time. But mainly I just disagree that this is some kind of libel time bomb. In fact I might argue that providing MORE context to stories it becomes nearly impossible to assert malice.
As for the age thing ... I suppose you're right. I gotta start quoting Kanye West.
Posted by: Paul Gustafson on June 13, 2008 at 5:29 PM
I, too, have adored Connie "Coco" Nelson since we actually had to SHARE a computer back at The Twin Cities Reader.
I think I remember seeing Lambert around the office every so often between junkets. And all us adoring male colleagues (the writers anyway) called her Coco.
And while she may have dropped Coco since donning the august robes of an MSM editor, I never had the impression that she minded us affectionately calling her by that moniker. I'd like to think she'd still be okay if we greeted her by it accompanied by a hug and a sloppy wet kiss on the cheek.
I'm guessing she may have had more fun with us at the TCR.
LAMBERT: I guess it's safe now for all of us to confess our crushes on Coco. But to return to her defender. I probably shouldn't have used the word "prattle" to descriobe what it appears the Strib is going put on its new, enhanced website. Connie's gardening stuff, Lileks' quirk stuff, Justin's TV bit ... fine. I don't doubt there's an audience for it, and I need gardening tips. So why not? But come on! I want to know more about who us zooming who around town, where the next story is likely to break, etc. from the cranky bastards sneering at the latest gimmick. But if they diss Coco, I'm coming over there.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on June 13, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Your so-called "guerrilla idea" of doing a newspaper TV thing that is "far less encumbered" sounds an awful lot like what Dean Singleton would say to his troops:
"Ask a couple extra questions..."
"Create some bits..."
"No, there isn't going to be a lot of extra editing time..."
Hey, keep that rhetoric up, and you might asked to join the Strib's current "Managing Entity"...
Anyone who has had to cover hard news on a regular basis - like disasters, murders, serious trials etc. - knows it ain't as simple as "asking a couple extra questions...", and then going to do a video take. And neither is the editing of those stories.
And you said I spoke like a corporate manager?
Listen to yourself.
LAMBERT: Oh, OK, I'm sorry. Sheesh. A guy makes a little joke ... Who knew calling someone a "corporate manager" was the next thing to accusing them of selling crack to toddlers? You are of course right -- and there is a split among Stribbers with whom I've spoke -- over that funky "incentive" business related to doing another "bit" on top of the reporting they've already done. (No corporate manager -- certainly not at Avista -- is ever going to offer, gasp!, financial incentives to their newsroom employees.) But in the current environment management has the perfect leverage in that "extra" bargaining ... i.e. do it for free or we'll declare bankruptcy and you'll all be out of here. But to be clear, MY "guerrilla" idea is a hell of a lot less time consuming for people who presumably have already done their 40 hours for the big company.
Would you be less offended if I called you a "yellow, running dog capitalist lackey"?
Posted by: Paul Gustafson on June 13, 2008 at 11:20 PM