Covering readers wants vs. needs

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

As a community newspaper, we make it our goal to cover news that we feel the community will want to read, and also "needs" to read. We know from our web site where we can track the viewership of various stories, that crime stories typically have a high, very high viewership. Some government stories do not, but they are nonetheless important and may be the stories we think our readers "need" like their broccoli.
In these competitive times for newspapers, some have suggested that we go to fewer government meetings, cover government less. "Nobody cares" is a phrase often heard. Thoughts on the need to cover government or how it should be covered? Are people really disinterested?

[Bob Jentges]

As a community newspaper, we make it our goal to cover news that we feel the community will want to read, and also "needs" to read. We know from our web site where we can track the viewership of various stories, that crime stories typically have a high, very high viewership. Some government stories do not, but they are nonetheless important and may be the stories we think our readers "need" like their broccoli.
In these competitive times for newspapers, some have suggested that we go to fewer government meetings, cover government less. "Nobody cares" is a phrase often heard. Thoughts on the need to cover government or how it should be covered? Are people really disinterested?

The "Nobody cares" phrase is not a good sign for our contemporary society!

The newspaper web site may track viewership of on-line stories, but I think who reads the paper on-line needs to be considered in the equation. It might be mostly the under 30 demographic (just a guess) while those older rely more on the hard copy of the newspaper.

Because sensationalism sells I understand the competitive aspect in selling newspapers creates a real problem for community newspapers. But the big question as I see it is what, if any, civic duty does a community newspaper have to the community at large? Learning what our government is doing is much more important to the general welfare than sensational stories. Serious people need to keep appraised of serious issues. Hopefully the immature that read only the sensational stories will learn that before it's too late.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Our challenge is always to make government news relevant and "interesting" We're constantly asking our reporters to write "what people care about" taxes going up ...etc....to that end, we should be trying to tell people why the wire story we run out of St. Paul is relevant as well....one idea is for example, including a "local relevance" box with these stories. For example, if there are planned cuts in MinnesotaCare, we could list the number of recipients by county in our region. (would that be useful or just meaningless statistics?)

[Dan Conner]

I think it is imperative the paper/website covers government. I view the press as the only significant countervailing force to that of government. I think that is the purpose of the 1st amendment - to serve as a check and balance to government. I don't think we would want to abdicate 1st amendment rights to be replaced by government propaganda. Which brings me to another issue. Let's not replace government propaganda with media propaganda.

Limited readership of needed media coverage should not be a reason to reduce coverage. Then, the problem is not the paper, but rather an apathetic public. People have to become involved with their government, lest we get the government we deserve. Also, the reduced number of people you do stay in touch with what our government is doing are influencing and informing others. I would suggest that more of the stories about government be relevant to the "man on the street." In other words, when reporting a story of government or legislation, a part of the story should explain the affect on the public....good and bad. In many cases, the "wanted" media coverage of events is pure voyeurism, not worthwhile public information. That's great for National Inquirer, but shouldn't be for The Free Press.

[Dan Conner]

Our challenge is always to make government news relevant and "interesting" We're constantly asking our reporters to write "what people care about" taxes going up ...etc....to that end, we should be trying to tell people why the wire story we run out of St. Paul is relevant as well....one idea is for example, including a "local relevance" box with these stories. For example, if there are planned cuts in MinnesotaCare, we could list the number of recipients by county in our region. (would that be useful or just meaningless statistics?)

Good idea Joe. In addition to giving the number of people in the area, how about sending out a reporter to find out about how much local clinic/hospital business is affected. What kind of ailments might go untreated and what are the general health affects on the community? Of course, with a loss of MinnesotaCare business will be a loss of income into the community. What are those effects? I think, many of the changes in government changes raise a whole new human/community interest article. I think this will cause more interest in The Free Press as not only a community point of information, but also as a community leader.

[Bob Jentges]

I think it is imperative the paper/website covers government. I view the press as the only significant countervailing force to that of government. I think that is the purpose of the 1st amendment - to serve as a check and balance to government. I don't think we would want to abdicate 1st amendment rights to be replaced by government propaganda. Which brings me to another issue. Let's not replace government propaganda with media propaganda.

Limited readership of needed media coverage should not be a reason to reduce coverage. Then, the problem is not the paper, but rather an apathetic public. People have to become involved with their government, lest we get the government we deserve. Also, the reduced number of people you do stay in touch with what our government is doing are influencing and informing others. I would suggest that more of the stories about government be relevant to the "man on the street." In other words, when reporting a story of government or legislation, a part of the story should explain the affect on the public....good and bad. In many cases, the "wanted" media coverage of events is pure voyeurism, not worthwhile public information. That's great for National Inquirer, but shouldn't be for The Free Press.

Dan, I think you might have agreed with my last post in this thread this morning, at least in principle, and I reciprocate by agreeing with your post above.

[Bob Jentges]

Good idea Joe. In addition to giving the number of people in the area, how about sending out a reporter to find out about how much local clinic/hospital business is affected. What kind of ailments might go untreated and what are the general health affects on the community? Of course, with a loss of MinnesotaCare business will be a loss of income into the community. What are those effects? I think, many of the changes in government changes raise a whole new human/community interest article. I think this will cause more interest in The Free Press as not only a community point of information, but also as a community leader.

Dan, again I agree with you and also agree with what Joe said in his post that you responded to. post that

[Dan Conner]

Dan, again I agree with you and also agree with what Joe said in his post that you responded to. post that Well, thanks Bob. I think we are finding there are some areas of agreement. Maybe we are trying to get to the same result, but sometimes by a different path.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, thanks Bob. I think we are finding there are some areas of agreement. Maybe we are trying to get to the same result, but sometimes by a different path.

I hope so, Dan. I have always thought the result was more important than the process.

[Dan Conner]

I hope so, Dan. I have always thought the result was more important than the process.

Right on!!!