Final Reading--The State of Online News Rooms

(NOTE: Comments for this reading are due by the start of class on Wednesday)

Mar. 8, 2009
Poynter Institute

Jim Brady to News Sites: Experiment More, Now

By Steve Meyers

After a little more than four years at the helm, Jim Brady left his job as executive editor of washingtonpost.com. Under his watch, the site was one of the top online news destinations and was recognized for innovative storytelling such as Being a Black Man, onBeing and Fixing D.C. Schools.

Brady has been involved in online news in some way for almost 14 years -- two stints at washingtonpost.com, interrupted by about four years at America Online. It won't be long, I figure, before he signs on with another outfit. I asked Brady to fill some of his newfound (and perhaps short-lived) free time by sharing his thoughts on where online news is now and what needs to happen next. Here's our edited e-mail exchange.

Steve Myers: What's the state of online news?

Jim Brady
Jim Brady
Jim Brady: Mixed. I think there are lots of sites doing interesting things journalistically, and I think there are certain changes to the media culture that I hope are with us forever -- multimedia storytelling, treating our readers as partners, pushing content out versus waiting for people to come to our sites, as a few examples.

But I think we could still be more adventurous editorially. Digital journalism is still the Wild West; the rules are still being made. So this is a great time to ratchet up the level of experimentation, since the audience is more forgiving now than they'll be in a few years. And, obviously, the business model is hurting badly. But I don't think there's much of a doubt that digital is the sandbox that future readers will be playing in, so pulling back now would seem shortsighted. We have to figure digital out from a business perspective if we're going to survive, much less thrive.

One of the ways people describe successful online ventures is saying that they're "of the Web," not merely "on the Web." Those sites use the unique advantages of the Web to present information and connect with users, rather than transferring traditional approaches online. Are major news sites these days "of the Web"?

Brady: I think more and more sites fit that description every day. But it's a big shift, and I'd be lying if I said I felt like everyone had made that leap. To me, it comes down to this question: Do you view the Web as a platform or a medium? If you work at a paper or TV station that merely views the Web as a way to distribute content from your legacy product, then I think you're doomed on the Web. If you view it as a platform, as a way to tell legacy stories differently, to share the floor with your audience, to consciously inject your content into the broader ecosystem of the Web, then I think you'll be fine. The business model is clearly trailing, of course, but the business model on the print side is in free fall, and I don't see it coming back. So digital has to pick up the slack, and it's on us to figure out how to make that happen.

What is your assessment of how The Washington Post has made the transition to being a multi-platform news provider? Where did the Post do well, and where did it fall short?

Brady: I think the Post did a terrific job -- supported at the highest levels -- transforming itself from a site that was "on the Web" to one that was "of the Web." We were pretty aggressive on opening the site to readers, experimenting with new storytelling forms, embracing database journalism and trying to experiment with new sites and platforms that emerged over the years. I'm proud of that, and of the staff that's doing great work. I think we fell short in some areas too. We haven't done as good a job as The New York Times at building core technology in-house. They've really committed to staffing up on the technical front, and it shows in how quickly they're innovating. I don't think news sites need to build everything in-house, but they need to decide what's core technology and/or functionality, and own it. The Post is on a path to do that with some recent hires, and I'm confident they'll make up ground. Overall, though, I think we did a pretty good job.

How about legacy media in general?

Brady: I think the level of experimentation has increased a lot in recent years, though I'm always one who feels like there's not enough risk-taking in media. We've done things a certain way for so long that change comes at too slow a pace. But you see great work coming out of big shops, small shops and startups, and that's encouraging. But I do firmly believe that the pace of experimentation has to increase. Launching blogs in 2009 isn't innovative anymore. Launching comments on articles in 2009 isn't innovative. But a lot of sites are just getting to that point now.

Among all the discussion lately about revenue models, some argue that the news industry should reverse course and start charging for content online. Was it wise for news sites to embrace a free content, ad-supported model?

Brady: I was there when this all started, and I can tell you that the second-guessing on not charging misses some key facts: 1) I don't remember this for sure, but I'm relatively positive we didn't have the technology in-house to charge people for content when we launched washingtonpost.com in 1996. 2) Almost no one was willing to enter credit card information in 1996, so adoption rates on charging probably would have been low. 3) If half the papers had charged, the other half probably would have gone free for competitive advantage, so the idea -- as I've heard it posited -- that "we all should have charged" ignores the basic fact that media organizations would never have agreed to act unilaterally. And as long as any good sites were free, the pressure would have been on all of us to pull down the pay walls.

What are the most constructive ways to engage people from the revenue side of a traditional news organization (ad sales, for instance) in the online operations? What obstacles occur in those interactions?

"The idea ... that 'we all should have charged' ignores the basic fact that media organizations would never have agreed to act unilaterally."Brady: Directly. One of the things I like about working online is getting a broader view of all the pieces that make the operation run: sales, technology, marketing, etc. I'm on record as saying that the Chinese wall between the editorial side and the business side has not served us well. I don't see the harm in my knowing what sales is hearing out in the field in terms of what subject areas are drawing interest, and what the broader ad trends are. I know exactly where the church-state line is, and I'll never cross it. But why wouldn't I want to know what challenges sales is facing? It works in reverse as well. My relationship with our sales VP at washingtonpost.com was terrific, and as a result of us talking, he knew where I drew the line and helped hold that line with his folks.

The obstacles that come up are the obvious ones: when an advertiser is offering to pay a lot of money for an implementation that I felt violated our editorial standards. But that's precisely why it's important to have the right foundational relationship with sales; it makes those issues easier to resolve. If you're only talking to sales in those conflict situations, then I think you have a problem.

What role do programmers -- the self-described "geeks" -- have in a modern online news operation?

Brady: Huge. I feel like I'm pretty up to speed on the tools that are at our disposal as journalists, but I sat in a session at Poynter this weekend and walked out of the room with six new sites to check out. There are so many ways to tell stories on the Web, and while most established media companies accept that video and photo galleries are cool Web tools, I still think database journalism is underappreciated.

We did a D.C. schools series last year that used a database as a wonderful storytelling tool. The paper did a terrific series that discussed the plight of D.C. schools at the 30,000-foot level, and we worked with them to compile a database of crime reports, maintenance requests, test scores, etc., that helped tell the story on the ground level. If you had a kid in a D.C. school, this project spoke to you in a more personal way because we could shine a light into the exact school your child was attending. So we have to keep looking for ways to use technology, databases, and tools like those found on sites like Many Eyes or Swivel (those are the ones I just learned about) to speak more relevantly to our audience.

If it were up to you to create a news organization from scratch, what kinds of roles would people have? How would it be different if you didn't have to work within the structure of an established, traditional news organization? What would you lose or gain?

Brady: I think all Web newsrooms need people devoted to technology/databases, video and photo storytelling, interactivity, distribution to other Web sites and mobile, and some resources dedicated to forward-looking experimentation. It's not realistic for every newsroom to have dedicated people on each of those tasks, but I do think isolating a small number of people on specialty areas like this is essential. If all your resources are focused on putting out today's site, tomorrow is going to sneak up quickly on you.

People working on news sites with vastly fewer resources than washingtonpost.com may think there isn't anything they could learn from how your site operated. Can you tell me three successful strategies or methods of running a news site that could be emulated by a site with a limited budget?

Brady: I've heard that a lot over the years. My belief is that the ability to experiment in new areas isn't really a function of staff size, though scale is. We can produce 20 to 30 original video pieces a week; I realize many news sites can't do that. But there's no reason a site can't do four to six a week. So I don't think small staff size is an excuse not to experiment. But building capability in any area that is successful can be a challenge, so I don't mean to underestimate the challenge smaller sites have.

What direction are you headed in, professionally? Do you see yourself running the online component of another traditional news organization or trying something different?

Brady: I'm headed south, literally. My wife and I are leaving on a six-to-eight-week road trip around the U.S., and we're focusing on the South and Southwest. One of the goals of the trip is to really figure out what I want to do, and long stretches of desolate highway are great places for me to think that through. So I can't really answer that question yet. Call me in a month, and maybe it will all have come to me somewhere in West Texas...