Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune Left Off Top 10 Newspaper Sites

Picked up on Romenesko, Washington, D.C.-based Bivings Group unveiled their Top 10 newspaper websites yesterday...and the results are both unsurprising and a bit of an omen.

The group's report judged newspaper sites on their web features, design, aesthetics and general usability. Topping the list? The New York Times website, followed by that of the Washington Post and USA Today.

Surprised? I'm not -- I've applauded The Times' website before and the others follow as the major, important American papers they continually aspire to be. But what's missing from this list, which includes the Houston Chronicle, Denver Post, Knoxville News Sentinel, Fresno Bee, Austin American-Statesman, Tennessean and San Jose Mercury News?

The other major, national newspapers: The Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune and regional fortresses (some of which used to be considered national in scope) such as the Dallas Morning News, Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe and San Francisco Chronicle.

Hmm. Is it possible that, in the next phase of "the media," the WSJ, LAT and Trib will be left behind? Let's see why the NYT made the cut and these did not, according to Bivings:

We love the general feeling of the NYT site, which is pleasing to the eye and easy to navigate. The site is loaded with great features, and, as of August 7, the website dropped its paid-for content, TimesSelect, which is definitely worth bonus points.

Okay. So pleasing to the eye (looks like a newspaper?) and layout are important, online-only features help make it distinct from the paper and paid-for content detracts from the experience.

Let's see how the others compare:

• The Wall Street Journal: Original typefaces are there, the design hints at the paper's layout but there's a lot of wasted space that makes it hard to get to the content. The site certainly has online-only content, but readers have to pay up.
  
  
• Los Angeles Times: Bland, but the content's easier to get to than the WSJ. Needs more images; too text-based.
  
  
• Chicago Tribune: Also bland, but the layout is more dynamic than the LAT. In low resolution, links to News and other major sections aren't even "above the fold," losing digital real estate to the classifieds, shopping, and a postage stamp-sized weather map. C'mon, guys.

Of course, the Bivings Top 10 list isn't complete or authoritative (and neither is my criticism above), but it makes me wonder how the "major" papers can compete when other smaller papers' websites like knoxnews.com and tennessean.com are mentioned before the other biggies.

It's a digital world now, baby, and the biggest newspapers are bookending the challenge, either as the best or the worst. It's becoming clear what kind of decisions are being made from the top.

The bottom line? If the website is the front door -- the front page -- why haven't the bigger papers put in the elbow grease?

A Realist's Guide To Internships: 7 Ways to Succeed

USA Today's Craig Wilson says it's intern season in offices across America, and seeing them in the newsroom bright n' early at 9:30 a.m. only perpetuated his disdain for them.

"I hate them all," he writes. "With their white glimmering teeth and black shiny hair, they exude a certain confidence that can come only with youth."

His short piece goes on from there, lamenting his age, experience and ability to drink alcohol as he learns from these new presences in his newsroom that any one of them "was born, got potty-trained, played with Barbie, experienced her first kiss, went to the prom, graduated from high school, then went off to college all in the time I sat at a desk typing."

Wilson's frustrated. Whether it be because he can't remember his college newspaper experience or because his colleagues are repulsed by the interns' "baseless" confidence in their presence, Wilson's animosity toward the young whippersnappers is hardly welcoming.

Welcome to the internship world, young journalists.

In honor of Wilson's diatribe against his fresh-faced interns -- many of whom probably read his piece online before Wilson woke up the next day -- here are some tips for interns on their first day:

1. Make Friends With the Receptionist

Many people often suggest being friendly with the receptionist or the janitorial staff because they hear everything that happens between the walls of the office. Problem is, there's almost no chance of them ever sharing that with you. The real reason to make friends with the secretary -- and why I've chosen to make this my first point -- is because he or she is often the first person you'll say 'hello' to in the morning. This cheer-up moment might just be the saving grace in a no-good, very bad day.

2. Control Your Confidence

That's not to say you should reel it in, nor is it to say that you should be cocky. What this piece of advice means is that no matter how much experience you have proving otherwise, your higher-ups will not use you efficiently. Chances are, you have the exact same skill-set that many of the editors claim to have, only they have the knowledge of how those skills apply at their publication. Know this. This nuance is what gives them their superiority (well, that and the stack of business cards strewn about their desk). To use your own skills wisely -- since many of your higher-ups won't bother teaching you anything that could help the publication at large, but merely what would be most helpful to them -- see No. 3 below.

3. Use Your Time Wisely

If you find yourself with the urge to break out a hardcore game of solitaire, resist. Even though most of the publication might be running around with their heads cut off, they're unlikely to involve you in any sort of way short of as an outlet for the frustration they're accumulating doing other tasks. To avoid this, keep yourself busy and rewrite some unpublished stories you may have lying around. Pitch them out, even to the smallest of publications. After all, they're doing nothing for you in the depths of your hard drive. And if nothing else, you're getting the clips you need, instead of waiting for your internship to dole them out to you.

4. Make It A Learning Experience

The point of an internship is to learn, right? What you're really learning is that offices are extremely inefficient: Copy flows are less like rivers and more like lazy rivers (until just before deadline, that is), and interns are nickel-and-dimed even though they might make less than one-third the income of their supervisor (who themselves were an intern two years prior), assuming the intern has an outside job other than the internship -- after all, most interns don't get paid! Note how even the nicest of people become short with you when the deadline's on. Note how many people don't dress to code, install illegal software, play solitaire themselves and take extended lunches. Be amused, stay out of their way and keep on repeating No. 3 above.

5. Don't Wait Up

As seen in Craig Wilson's reaction to his interns, don't bother assuming anyone really cares about you. Don't expect to be taken to lunch -- hell, don't expect anyone to go with you, either. Financially, you're in the position of using a legal loophole to offer free labor, but socially, you're a liability. Don't try to make comparisons you can't handle: For example, don't talk about your age. It's a constant reminder that you're out of place. Chances are you're only building walls, not bridges, and if you're gonna connect with someone at the office, it's gonna be over a TV show, a sports team, a hobby, or a hometown. It's clear you're younger than everyone in the office -- you're the intern.

6. Know Your Worth

As an intern, you're eager to make a positive impression, and even more eager to do any task, no matter how menial, at the drop of a hat. Instead of reflecting positively on your person, this actually reduces your perceived worth. I'm not saying to not do these things -- please, if someone asks you to do something, do it with a smile -- but anyone can take commands. You're not proving anything substantial. This is a journalism internship, right? No one's gonna be impressed by how thoroughly you mastered the sort-staple mode on the Xerox machine in the back, even if what you give them looks like the work of a professional printer.

7. Network -- But Not In A Schmoozy Way

Everyone always tells interns to 'Network, network, network!' I'm here to tell you that's a misconception. Sure, it's great to make friends and go out for a drink, but that says nothing of your professional abilities. Your continued published writing is what's most impressive -- it shows your professionality to make business deals and your maturity to follow through. So as you're busy doing No. 3 above, keep great contact with whoever you write for and whoever you write about. Those people won't perceive you as an intern -- they'll perceive you as a real journalist. Which is fine. Because you are one. Because if you don't get the kind of chances or respect you expected at your highfalutin internship -- you know, the one you spent more time perfecting your application for than for college itself -- you can at least make mature connections with others. When you pitch, your work speaks for itself. If your internship superiors aren't willing to listen, someone else probably is -- and that's real networking.

Now these guidelines aren't for everyone, nor are they complete. There are certainly rewarding internships that integrate you into the team and treat you like an employee -- and those are great. But these guidelines are for those that aren't: The ones that treat you as inferior on all levels, or don't treat you as anything at all (i.e. just ignore you and bide time until your stint is up). In this case, even the modest, kind and cordial intern is in a poor position to reap a positive experience.

So when you walk into the offices at USA Today on your first day, and Craig Wilson makes a crack about how old he is, bite your tongue, wait until his shtick is over, and don't dare say anything complementary. He probably doesn't care, even if it's true. He's just a normal guy looking for someone to have a drink with, to relate to. He's not looking for competition. And that's something you won't learn on the clock at an internship.

Newspapers Undercut Their Own Profits, RIAA-Style

This morning, there's no one I disagree with more than David Lazarus. In a recent column for the San Francisco Chronicle, Lazarus states that newspapers are "giving away the store" and needs to "start charging for - or at the very least controlling - the use of our products online." He cites a growing fiscal discrepancy as the reason for such action, and indicates that the New York Times TimesSelect method isn't quite up to par.

David, the newspaper industry (and journalism as a whole) can not - and must not - become the RIAA.

If newspapers begin to charge for all of their news, the "common good" of news will be lost and will no longer function to serve the masses. That is the point of the news, isn't it?

But show me the money! you say. Alright - let's talk business.

In my very first journalism class, I was told that the price of a newspaper was so low because it functions as a relative value indicator - you have to pay for it, so it's got worth, but not much, because you're almost entitled to it (hip hip for common knowledge!). The New York Times costs more than, say, the New York Post because it's presumed that there is more valuable, expensive content inside. And generally, that is a true statement.

So the consumer's price for a newspaper is not intended to charge them - really, it functions only to arrange the value of newspapers relative to themselves. It is not set up to provide a barrier for consumers.

Newspapers, therefore, have always given away the store. So why change now? Because newspapers don't understand the online business model (which, hint hint, doesn't have the same rules as the paper game).

This sounds like the typical protective musings of someone on the editorial side. And in this rare instance, I must disagree.

If newspapers begin charging for their articles - even those most basic news articles - no one will read them. Why should I pay for it when I can just go to a newsstand, read it quickly, and walk off without paying? In an era where newspapers can't seem to cover anything but the top stories, a reader won't care if it's original reporting or not. It essentially says the same thing. Who cares who spoke to who to get the story? (Here's a hint: only another journalist)

What's worse, if newspapers begin controlling their content - get yourself ready for some 1984-style, DRM-infused "content" (my, what a buzzword in journalism!) - expect readers to abandon ship en masse to another paper, or worse, a blog. If the Chronicle or its parent company Hearst begins to charge for its content, don't expect the newspaper to tread water for much longer.

Is that what you want to happen, Lazarus? The general public will soon get their news from unsourced blogs and AP wire snippets? Or worse, Wikimedia will begin WikiNews! How's that for original content? Talk about education for the masses!

Journalists and academics everywhere should be smacking their foreheads in disgust at this proposal.

So what's the solution? Ads. Charge more for ads. You newspaper people jumped into the online game and thought you couldn't get any money for advertisements online. Well, you were surprised, because you did - although it seems that you're not getting enough money for them.

Why is that?

Because newspapers are undercutting their own profits by refusing to cease printing paper copies. Paper nostalgia aside, think of the business dynamic - why should an advertiser pay the same $60,000 for one-third of a page in USA Today as it could for online? The advertiser knows it reaches more readers with paper copies. What's the incentive, unless it's a tech- or youth-oriented advertiser?

By continuing to produce a version of its "content" that competes with its newer, digital incarnation, newspapers are undercutting their own profits. The reality is newspapers are offering too many options from their portfolio. And that, my friends, is why online advertising hasn't become the savior that everyone wants it to be.

But nay, you say! Won't the advertisers just leave altogether?

Well, if the majority of newspapers switched over to digital content, they won't really have a choice, will they? Advertisers have money to offer. Newspapers have distribution and consumer reach to offer. From a business standpoint, closing the digital-print rift mends the split nature of advertising funds. These businesses are set up to need each other. But right now, there's an imbalance, and newspapers need advertisers more than vice-versa.

So David? No, I don't think newspapers should control their content - or charge more for it - any more than they already do.

Because at the end of the day, you can't publish a paper that no one reads.