Does the news article tell us too much? Or not enough?

Neiman Lab says one of this week’s can’t-miss pieces on the future of news is Jonathan Glick’s “The News Article Is Breaking Up.” In it, Glick says news stories are becoming antiquated as readers get more and more used to consuming news as “nuggets” or tidbits like tweets, status updates, photos, and more:

On smartphones, through which the vast majority of the world’s population will get their news, people love succinct and scannable information. We are gravitating to formats that do not require us to click through and consume paragraphs of prose.

There is no question that these more sleek information formats are useful and well-received. But to suggest that these will replace the standard article is far too aggressive, if for no other reason than that these nuggets rarely contain enough context to be useful on their own, and rarely do they answer more questions than they ask.

Consider a late-night tweet from last April telling you that a government shutdown had been averted. Sure, this news nugget has value: I now know that the government will stay open. But I don’t know why it didn’t shut down, what deals were made, who cut them, what the important political actors have to say, or really anything else. That tweet doesn’t satisfy your information craving. It just whets your appetite and sends you in search of a more information.

It’s no mistake that the news article format has evolved the way it has. First we tell people what’s most important. Then we tell them what is secondarily salient and what else is relevant. We also tell them why it matters.

Of course, this is why tweets contain links and why we have bookmarking tools to highlight pieces we want to read later. But others can lay out how Glick’s idea is misguided. Let’s look at something else – like how it might not even be misguided. Instead, it might just off by an order of magnitude.

Here’s how the news nugget idea holds water: For many complicated topics, the full news article is a nugget – a snapshot, really – of an evolving story or process. Glick talks about how long-form writers will be able to capitalize on making sense of the uber-short tidbits he discusses, but it’s really these article-level snapshots that need making sense of. Certainly this context can come from a long analysis of a certain topic – like how actions in the Middle East are shaping American foreign policy. But we need an even simpler way to do this. A way to paint a better picture of how one snapshot fits into the metaphorical photo album that is a news storyline.

Storyline, perhaps, is the keyword here. In the television industry, producers make sure viewers are caught up on the show’s storylines by starting each episode with a “Previously, on [insert show title here]” montage. Each news article should have the same ability to ask and answer: Are you new here? Are you in over your head? Let us show you – step by step, if you like –  how we got to this point.

We can go even further. If you found a six-month old article via a search engine, we could not only tell you what happened prior to this story’s publication, but also what happened after. We could tell you what started it all – and what the final outcome was, if there is one. We could assign a status and description to a storyline. We could organize them by their major players, and say which storylines fit into or are spin-offs of other ones.

There is a ton more to say on the topic of context, and this idea doesn’t address many, many of the problems we haven’t yet solved. But this kind of easy-to-provide background has the chance to help move us in the right direction, in terms of how well readers consume the information we provide.

By the way, this functionality is basically begging to built a WordPress plugin or other open-source offering. If anyone wants to collaborate, you know where to find me.

Social media as a public service

picture-1611It was striking to see how social, local, and national media interacted in the immediate aftermath of D.C.’s tragic Metro crash yesterday. As news first started to break on blogs like DCist, it was quickly followed by activity in the Twittersphere. Local media rushed to get live shots, and CNN had sent a breaking e-mail only about 15 minutes after the first reports came in.

But even as Twitter links to local media’s video and photos came in droves, the more interesting part of the whole situation wasn’t how Twitter directed viewers to other coverage in mainstream media sites. Rather, the most remarkable part for me was the amount of public service tweeting going on. Has that term been coined yet? I’ll take credit for now.

Even the rarest D.C.-based tweeters in my list of followers were spreading the word: Stay away from the Metro. It seems to me that Twitter was being used to ensure that people knew what had happened, not just for their own knowledge, but to keep people out of the Metro system and make sure a bad situation didn’t get worse. I guess I can’t be certain what each person’s intentions were, but that’s what it looked like to me.

Have there been other notable instances of public service tweeting? I’m sure I missed one. Point it out if you know of any.

Social media: How much is too much?

Used under a Creative Commoms license via Gary Hayes

That was the question du jour at the Poynter chat I attended today. I hadn’t participated in one before today, but when I heard about it (via Twitter, of course), it seemed like it’d be a gathering of the top young minds talking about Twitter, Facebook, and the like. It was.

There were plenty of good points made, but guest host Greg Linch had an interesting answer to the one question I asked: With Twitter taking over as the premier social network, how can you still use Facebook to your benefit?

Says Greg:

I think Facebook is still very relevant, but for different reasons. I don’t find it nearly as useful as Twitter on a day-to-day basis, but I think it’s an important long-term tool for keeping in touch with friends and longer-form communication.

A good point indeed. Facebook is the primary way I keep in touch with friends from across the country, and my Twitter habits are much more professionally-based. It does beg the question, though: If Facebook is more of a personal-life app, then what’s the point of a newspaper (or other company) having a fan page? I get my news via Twitter/RSS – an additional redundancy seems a little much.

As for how much is too much, I gotta think it varies person to person. If it distracts you or in any way prevents you from accomplishing your goals in the analog world, then it’s no good. But used as a proper digital tool, it should actually be a boost for professional/personal productivity and advancement. Agreed?