Upon reflecting on yesterday’s post, I feel the need to distinguish between engagement and entertainment.
Bobby Calder and Ed Malthouse describe this difference in Kellogg on Advertising and Media as:
“Media engagement is to be distinguished from liking, that is, the experience of the desirable or undesirable features of a particular magazine, program or site. In contrast, engagement is about how the magazine or other media product is experienced motivationally in terms of making something happen (or not happen) in the consumer’s life … It is more about what the content does for the consumer than what the consumer likes about it per se.”
Journalists should strive for engagement, not entertainment, in their stories. News can be entertaining, of course. When this happened I just about made a bowl of popcorn and wrap myself up in a snuggie:
:
However, it is when news organizations go in search of entertainment that things really go off the rails.
Engagement goes beyond online traffic metrics. News outlets should know how many unique visitors and page views they receive on a monthly basis, and how these numbers compare to trends from a year or two ago. But that’s basic. What is the outlet’s social media presence? What is the quality of comments left at the bottom of stories? Over at Romenesko, Amy Gahran says this includes:
The following is a recent clip from “The Daily Show.” I’m posting it because it emphasizes news engagement vs. entertainment. I’m also posting it because I think Jon Stewart and I could have been very happy together in another life.
"To say that comedians have to decide if they’re comedians or social commentators ... comedians do social commentary through comedy. That’s how it’s worked for thousands of years. I have not moved out of the comedian’s box into the news box. The news box is moving towards me."
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Bernie Goldberg Fires Back | ||||
| ||||
Usually when I read or hear comments from newspaper executives on the subject of the Internet, it is through the lens of monetizing content. How do we make money on the Web? Paywalls? Analog dollars for digital pennies? Other buzz words here.
The most exciting aspect of moving content to the Web is the prospective of building not an online audience but a community. Wouldn’t it be great if readers felt a connection to news media again? All of our modern technologies and social media point to the audience’s desire to be engaged with content. The challenge for reporters, editors and managers is to create a platform where that community can grow and flourish.
So, how we gonna do that?
A recent interview with Roger Ebert’s wife, Chaz Ebert, shed light on why engaging in a dialogue with readers and viewers can be so beneficial. Speaking in light of Ebert’s health problems, Chaz Ebert said of her husband’s ability to continue to command an audience:
“Over all these years that Roger has been a film critic, he's built up credibility with the public, who expect him to be open and honest. Credibility is a currency that he was able to use in this situation and that people were rooting for him -- as he's so often rooted for the underdog over the years -- that's one of the ways I can best explain it.”
Credibility and honesty – two things all reporters can take away from her interview. Credibility resides in the individual reporter and within the company she works for. For example, most viewers would say reporter Christiane Amanpour is highly credible based on her knowledge, access to sources and overall body of work. However, the credibility of CNN – Amanpour’s employer for 18 years – has declined. Personally I've stopped watching CNN because 1) Rick Sanchez provokes a truly violent reaction from me and 2) it is intellectually offensive to me to have half a dozen former political consultants sit around and pick apart election results.
The Chicago Tribune’s Phil Rosenthal touched on the issue of community and news this weekend with “MSNBC boss stands ready in ideological battle with Fox News.” (Fox News is not objective, nor is MSNBC. That is not debatable.) Fox News has been incredibly successful because of its partisan story-packaging (I cannot call it reporting). I have reached a point where I actually accept what Fox does because, despite the occasional protests from some anchors that the network is balanced, it is obvious what viewers are getting with Fox. Rosenthal writes: “With so much news coming from so many places, so often in much the same way, a leader distinguishes itself by anticipating what its audience wants and needs beyond the immediate headlines. In doing so, the most successful — and in cable, that's Ailes' FNC — will establish its own identity.”
Fox News has created a community out of its audience. It provided a framework, fanned the flames and then sat back and let people create relationships with one another. Of course in journalism we need to take this another step. Journalism is about objectivity, honesty and ethics. The network does not do these things and therefore is a failure in newsgathering and dissemination. But Phi Griffin, head of MSNBC, is onto something when he identifies that Fox created a formula other media outlets can replicate. “To be successful in this new age, you've got to create a community. You've got to have a place where people come. They're like-minded. They share ideas. They want news, but they also get their headlines all day long on the Web, on their BlackBerrys, on their iPhones, on their iPads. It's a different universe, and nobody uses one outlet as their only source.”
A trustworthy, objective news source that packages content in a way that engages the audience and builds a community: Can it be done?
