An Interview with Michele Weldon

What prompted the idea for a book on American newspaper front pages?
MW: It was my instinct that I was reading an increasing number of feature stories on the front page in newspapers and not a lot of hard news. Knowing that I wanted to explore an aspect of journalism in depth for a long book project, I started to do some simple content analysis. I was right in my hypothesis, but I was frankly stunned by the huge increases in features and feature approaches to news in some newspapers—more than 100 percent. I also wanted to examine the cultural reasons why this is happening now and open up a discussion on who we are as a culture that we demand journalism to reflect our world in this way.

Why is it significant that the approach of front page news has changed?
MW: Journalism is not just the rough draft of history, it articulates how we expect and demand delivery of information and what kind of information we seek. As a culture, we revere personal story over official commentary, which can represent a democratization of news and a mistrust of official sources. That we want the news in the newspapers to be slower and more gentle than the other media says a lot about how we allow ourselves to be informed citizens.

What is everyman news? Is this what you mean by “you news?”
MW: More news today than ever before revolves around the individual and his or her personal take on events. A news story on a presidential speech will likely begin with reaction from someone in the audience. With citizen journalism and a higher degree of participation in mainstream journalism from a previously passive audience, the profession has evolved to tell more in detail the stories of the common man and woman, the person on the street, the average Joe and Jane. When you read a story about a city council meeting, it will likely begin with an anecdote of a resident who can’t get her garbage picked up on time. Just as youtube.com changed the face of video, you news is a concept that is changing the tone and content of print journalism. You news grants a higher significance to stories of regular folks.

How can a study of only 20 newspapers serve as the basis of your conclusions?
MW: I chose 20 newspapers across the country of various sizes. I knew in large urban areas, the top newspapers would be leaning toward narrative as the top journalists skilled in narrative tend to work there. But by looking at small, medium and large papers with different owners and a different readership base, a real trend would emerge and just not one newspaper company’s editorial policy. I feel confident that the range of size and locations of editorial staffs is broad enough to constitute a healthy selection of front page possibilities.

You’re not a newspaper executive, what makes you an expert on newspapers?
MW: True. I expect this criticism. I have been writing for newspapers professionally since I was 13 years old, and that is not counting my three years as editor and publisher of my own newspaper, The Juvenile Journal, a publishing empire of 50 subscribers I ran out of my bedroom. As a staff writer and contributor to newspapers for more than 25 years, I feel qualified to comment on the shift in tone, content and sourcing in a medium I revere. As an instructor in journalism for 11 years, I have been studying and teaching different reporting and writing styles. I also solicited the input of more than 50 people who are experts on newspapers and synthesized their comments with my own observations and extensive research of hundreds of articles and books on the newspaper profession.

Why are so many stories about real people on today’s front pages?
MW: It is a fascinating exercise to attempt to answer that question. I think there are many cultural, economic and behavioral reasons why newspaper front pages are leaning toward everyman news. You look at the myriad of information options available to a consumer at any moment and you see that a newspaper must define itself as a different product. What news you get on the Internet must be differentiated from what you get on your front doorstep in the morning. Simply put, from many readership studies, the conclusion is people want to read stories about other people. Perhaps it is the fragmentation of our society and the breakdown of genuine in-person communication that creates a craving for storytelling about individuals. If we can’t talk to real people, at least we can read the stories of real people.

What do you mean when you call newspapers “story papers?”
MW: The days of waiting for the newspaper to arrive to see who won yesterday’s football game are long gone. Everyone already knows the news before it appears in the newspaper the next day. Unless it is an enterprise story—and that is usually a feature—or an exclusive, the odds of the news in the paper being first-time news to readers is slim. The audience already knows what happened because they got it online, from radio or TV. So people need a different approach to the same event. They need stories. Deliver the audience a friendlier product that goes into more depth, answers why and emphasizes who. The what, when and where they already know.

How does blogging influence the style and content of newspaper stories?
MW: The casual tone and approach of blogs has made newspaper style less stiff and formulaic because readers have become accustomed to a less formal top-down approach to their news. This can be a good thing. While some blogs are merely outlets for rants and personal attacks, or what I call “blog-bys,” the conversational approach embraced on blogs has forced newspapers to make the writing style more casual and less focused on “the spokesman said Thursday” kind of news. Blogs are based on opinion and the individual stories of everyday citizens. Bloggers demand their voices be heard and newspapers want to be more inclusive of these unofficial voices.

Why do you think our culture reveres the individual stories of ordinary people?
MW: The signs of this reverence are everywhere. From reality TV shows to product websites soliciting posts of comments from users about their own stories, real stories of real people saturate the media landscape. It can be a confluence of events that contribute to this sanctifying of personal stories—the paranoia that official sources spin or lie; the need to connect with individuals and feel empathy and compassion for their stories; the belief that reading about others’ lives will bring a deeper humanistic understanding or some brand of redemption; and as a result of globalization, a realization that stories of real people offer connection and meaning to our own lives.

How do some marketing campaigns reflect a shift in newspaper content?
MW: Non-editorial content selling everything from Hanes underwear to White Castle hamburgers features consumers sharing their stories. We’re not seeing celebrity spokesmen so much anymore; we are seeing real people tell their stories of car insurance, home sales, wedding rings, Volvos and jeans. This is selling by anecdote and personal testimony, a move parallel to telling news stories by anecdote and unofficial commentary.

Who still cares about the print newspaper?
MW: According to the Newspaper Association of America, in 2006 more than 53.2 million Americans bought the Sunday newspaper. That isn’t an inflated number by counting three readers per issue, that is 53.2 million copies of newspapers sold. Yes, newspaper circulation has been dropping since 1990 when it hit its peak of 62.6 million Sunday papers sold. But 53 million is still a large audience. I believe millions still care about the printed newspaper and I think newspaper owners care deeply about staving off further erosion. Some newspapers have it right. The New York Post and the Daily News showed circulation gains in 2006. The point is newspapers need to deliver a product with different content not tied to a physical mode. If what is in the newspaper now evolves to a brand delivered on a phone or a screen on the back of a train seat, then newspapers will have succeeded in reinventing themselves.

What is an unofficial source and why does it matter who gives the reporter information for a story?
MW: Take a story about a parade. You can report it by talking to everyone standing on the curb waving flags, the spectators and the participants, getting their reaction and focusing on their anecdotes. You will have a decent reaction story. These kinds of sources are necessary in stories because they add color and humanity and depth. So unofficial sources are a good thing. That does not mean official sources are bad. You still need to know how much the parade cost, how many floats were in it, and how many people attended. This is not information you can get from the person on the Snoopy float. You need to get the final, authorative word from the head of the parade or a city official. You need both official and unofficial sources in stories.

What does 9/11 have to do with newspaper content today?
MW: The terror that was born that day altered the approach to daily journalism. It was preferable to tell the stories from the street, using the voices of the people directly affected, mainly because the official sources had little to no information. So most media outlets concentrated on the description, observation and direct reaction to the day’s events, telling the story in a more personal, humanistic way. And because people became accustomed to reading the kinds of personal and emotional stories from the weeks and months following 9/11, they did not want to go back to strict hard news.

How did the coverage of Hurricane Katrina change newspaper content across the country?
MW: Similar to the impact 9/11 had on content, the story from Hurricane Katrina had nothing to do with the official version. What citizens were reporting from their cell phones and on blogs was the real truth. Getting the voices of the citizens left behind to articulate the reality was much more compelling and accurate than trying to get a FEMA spokesperson to say how much relief was going to New Orleans. Citizen journalism, blogs and Internet postings told the whole story of Katrina. The influx of unofficial accounts could no longer be denied.

Is there an evangelism in newsrooms about narrative journalism?
MW: The great writers at newspapers perform solid, narrative journalism. It is a mastery of the craft. The most talented reporters and writers have these assignments and newspapers give the most space and preference to narrative journalism; it wins awards and readers love narrative. So, yes, among reporters it is a kind of evangelism—convert your newsroom to a narrative newsroom. The problem is not everyone is good at it, not every story deserves a narrative approach and not every story should be 50 inches long. As Ken Fuson of the Des Moines Register says in the book, “Sometimes there is no universal truth. Sometimes it is just a parade.”

Do you see a backlash to the shift to feature approaches to all news?
MW: Sometimes you just want the facts straight up and concisely. Sometimes you want to scan the paper for the headlines and the leads and not take four inches of copy to get to the point. There are days when I open the paper, read the front page and think absolutely nothing of import happened in the world yesterday. A front page will have all features, or predominantly features and you need to go inside to see stories of another bombing in Iraq or an election in France. While I wouldn’t say it is dumbing down by pushing features to the front page, it is an assumption that people want all their information in a softer package.

How have the Internet, tv and radio influenced today’s printed front page?
MW: Logistically, the newspaper is the last to cross the finish line on news. If it is breaking news and hot, it has already been in a video online, on TV and radio and blogged about on countless sites. You could say digital media has stolen print’s thunder. It reinforces the news, rather than breaks it. So the product must have a different approach because it meets different needs. You already know there was a fire in a department store from TV. Now you want to read the next day the story of the firefighter who saved the customer.

Is the newspaper just a reflection of what happened in the world the day before?
MW: When I was an editor at the Daily Northwestern in 1977, we had t-shirts that said, “Yesterday’s news tomorrow.” That was about how fast we could react to the world’s events as students and get them into the paper. Because of so many competing outlets of information, the newspaper is no longer a time capsule of the day before, it is a more general account of what is happening now, happened recently, or happened in the distant past with a new twist.

What does narrative therapy have to do with journalism?
MW: My second book was about the power of narrative to heal. Narrative therapy is a field of study in psychology and the physical sciences growing in importance over the last 10 years. I have struggled for years to find the connection between what I do as a journalist and what I teach university students, to what I do as a memoirist and a workshop instructor. I believe there is a link. I believe storytelling is such a powerful tool in our culture that the recounting of individual stories serves as a mechanism for readers’ understanding, compassion and well-being.

What do you think newspapers will be like in the future?
MW: This is the $8.2 billion question, as that is the price Sam Zell paid for Tribune Co. in 2007. I do not feel they will be extinct. I feel they will migrate to a number of different platforms, while maintaining a physical print presence for a shrinking audience. Newspaper websites are no longer just dumping grounds for print stories. The web newspaper has different content, story mixes and approaches and web and print have diverged onto two separate paths. We no longer can think about the importance of journalism in convergence, but need to set our sights on journalism in emergence. Discovering how and why front pages have changed may also help us to see the future more clearly.