An open letter to Lee Abrams

Dear Mr. Lee Abrams,

You heretic.

“THE NPR FEEL? Newspapers strike me as being a little TOO NPR. I like NPR, and their shows like Morning Edition do well. But NPR can also be a bit elitist. Morning News Radio has a lot of similarities to papers: Similar target audience; Old Media; Time restraints. It’s probably a good thing to study the feel of a well honed All News Radio station.”

I love NPR. If that makes me an elitist old-media type (despite being 20), I will accept that. Their news is well-reported and listener-supported, so they don’t have to go to the 50-50 ad/content format that your employer, Tribune Co., is hawking. If we’re going to ditch the excellent reporting of NPR in exchange for the sound-bytes of all-news radio — sure, that would save us money, but no one would read the newspaper if it were made up entirely of short, similar stories. Readers, in my opinion, want originality more than they despise elitism. How very Marxist of you — I’m sorry, was the Marx reference offensive to your anti-elite sensibilities?

Speaking of original writing, that brings me to my next point:

“Before I joined Tribune, I had NO idea that reporters were around the globe reporting the news…Because the paper “assumed” I knew. Then I saw an article on Broadway shows. Again a small byline with no mention of “Reporting from New York”. These are assumptions that are shooting ourselves in the foot. People DON’T know that you have REAL people exclusively reporting, because we ASSUME they do.”

Mr. Abrams: It is called a Dateline. That is what the “NEW YORK –” at the very beginning of the Broadway reviews means. The byline with a real person’s name might tip readers off to the fact that a real person is doing that reporting, as well.

Also, sir, you might like to take note that CAPITALIZING words for EMPHASIS is only appropriate for instant-message conversations (and not always then; be wary when using this strategy during IM fights). People might take your IDEAS that are actually GOOD more seriously if you communicate CLEARLY. That goes for newspapers, as well.

So, Mr. Abrams, do us all a favor: next time, leave the newspaper innovation ideas to people who know anything about newspapers.

Sincerely,

Hilary Lehman

P.S. If this letter means nothing to you, I suggest you check out more memos in your honor at Poynter Online. Maybe you could get some ideas for your next “15 POINTS THAT’LL GROW NEWSPAPERS” installment. I’m a big proponent of the Harry-Potteresque moving pictures idea, myself.

While I waste my time on Facebook instead of making memories …

I was listening to NPR Talk of the Nation yesterday, and there was a segment on the demise of college yearbooks.

I thought it was remarkably one-sided. All the interviewees were editors of college yearbooks who bemoaned the loss of subscribers to Facebook and MySpace.

First of all, I would like to see data that conclusively links decline in yearbook sales to rise of Facebook and MySpace usage. To me, that seems like speculation and a new front in the divisive print vs. online wars. The yearbook editors kept saying things along the lines of “a yearbook is something you can have forever, unlike Facebook” without giving people any other good reason to purchase one.

Maybe my view is skewed by UF’s recent yearbook debacle, when the student government president withdrew funding on the basis of low yearbook sales. For me, the fact that I barely knew the UF yearbook existed had nothing to do with MySpace of Facebook, but more because on a campus of 50,000, I don’t think the yearbook can accurately reflect my college experience.

Must’ve been a slow news day. And I’m still confused about how yearbook sales declining equates to a story about “Facebook vs. Yearbook.”

It seems like a typical “Young People are Making Decisions We Don’t Understand, so We’ll Blame it on Technology” story, which isn’t only insulting — it’s bad journalism.

Traitor to the cause

I am unabashedly an NPR junkie.

It’s disappointing that the public radio station in Gainesville spends most of its airtime playing classical music, but fortunately, I can still listen to the programs I’m missing.

I subscribe and listen to 10 NPR podcasts, my favorite of which is “This American Life.” What can I say, I need my weekly Ira Glass fix. I love podcasts — they’re like Tivo for radio.

I also subscribe to the “Talk of the Nation” podcast. I like most of their segments: Ask Amy, Political Junkie (the Dean Scream intro = fantastic) and the general news interviews.

But I’m not into Science Friday.

I’ve tried. Really, I have. As a wannabe science journalist and NPR lover, I feel awful that I can’t like it.

I have my reasons. Take this week’s episode. In the “Advances in gene therapy treatment for blindness” segment, the woman being interviewed repeatedly used the word “vector.” Plus, you get the really nerdy listeners calling in. These people are nerdy even for the pool of NPR listeners.

Part of the problem is the live radio-interview format. There’s no time to edit, and when you’re interviewing scientists it’s usually dense. I know that from experience.

But even though I know the radio medium makes it difficult, that doesn’t mean I’m going to listen to Science Friday every week.

Sorry, Science Friday; it’s not me. It’s you.