In his blog The Exploding Newsroom, John Hassell poses the fascinating question — just how do newspapers build relationships with local bloggers? I’ll admit that I started thinking about writing this piece after just reading the beginning of his post. While he offers “one simple way to start: Make the local blogosphere a beat,” I wondered what other approaches could newspapers use? What if it is not as simple as building relationships with existing bloggers? What if there are no bloggers?

In newsrooms throughout the country I have heard reporters and editors claim that they have no local bloggers, or if there are any, they can’t find them or don’t interact with them. I have heard them talk about the lack of a local blogging community as a justification for not expanding their own blogs. Their community, they claim, just doesn’t “get” blogs.

But whether your coverage area has local bloggers or not, I think you have a great opportunity to develop new bloggers, strengthen your existing blogging community and, as a result, build better relationships between your newspaper and the blogosphere.

So you’re intrigued, but wonder just how to do this. Well, think about leveraging your internal expertise. You can:

• Hold workshops hosted by your staff for local bloggers on topics ranging from SEO to writing better headlines.
• Have an open house where people interested in blogging can come and get help setting up a blog either on your own system or on one of the free blogging platforms that you choose.
• Sponsor a MeetUp where local bloggers can get together and meet each other and members of your staff.
• Create a directory of local blogs (for example I’m listed on njweblogs) and host it on your site.

While those should get you started, I wouldn’t even stop there. What ever you decide to do, remember to advertise the events both in print and online, you might even want do something as low-tech as distributing flyers around your coverage areas. I would also recommend that you ask attendees to RSVP, so you can be prepared especially if, for example, you’re hosting an open house.

No matter what you decide to do, I think you’ll find this effort enjoyable and rewarding. As John wrote, you’ll learn more about the community you cover, create new avenues for collecting information and distributing your reporter’s works and you’ll build trust “with people who are passionately interested in local issues.”

Give it a shot, and make sure to let me know how it goes.

While last week, I focused on tips and suggestions for reporters, this week my emphasis has been on assistant editors. And I hope that you’ve found my suggestions — personal chat rooms, online tools, postmortems, Google Groups and Ning — relevant and useful.

I’ve been fortunate to work with some great assistant editors; they’ve been writers and poets, comedians and musicians, environmentalists and artists. And while I don’t think any of them dreamt of one day being an assistant editor, they gave the position their best and in most cases, had a lasting impact if not on the reporters they worked with then, on me.

As I previously wrote, I believe that assistant editors are the unsung heroes of the newsroom and that starts with how they got the job. In many cases, they were hardworking reporters who one day were told “you’re an editor now,” and without any fanfare and even less training, they’re thrust into this new position. Suddenly, they find themselves managing their former peers, working an ungodly schedule and following instructions that would leave anyone shaking their heads.

See, I believe that most assistant editors are smarter then they get credit for. Actually, I believe that most are even smarter then the executive editors they work for. But that typically isn’t taken into consideration in an environment where the assistant editor is seen as the “grunt” of their desk, expected to silently do as they’re told.

The truth is that assistant editors typically have their finger on the pulse of the newsroom. They know when the reporting staff is aggravated or depressed. They know when a project is going off the rails long before the metro or features editor gets around to paying attention. And they know how readers are going to react (or not react) to changes in say, the TV book.

If it was up to me, assistant editors would be rewarded appropriately and given the training and tools worthy of their roles and positions. But, we know where you can find that storyline. So, I believe, that these editors need take control of their own careers. Here’s what you can do if you find yourself in this position:

• Go online and seek out your own low-cost or free training.
• Advocate to be sent to programs like Poynter’s Leadership Academy by highlighting the ROI for your newspaper.
• Discover, use and share new tools and techniques.
• Reach out and connect with colleagues at other papers; even if you compete, you’re all in the same boat.
• When the fun stops, take stock and figure out why and what you can do.

Those are a few ideas, I’m sure as the life of this blog progresses I’ll have more, so check back. But the most important thing that I think I can say to you, that maybe you don’t hear often enough is — thank you — thanks for all that you do, thanks for keep our newspapers going.

So I’m guessing that your newsroom, like many, is populated with reporters who are comfortable working, eating and even sleeping at their desks. So it’s no surprise that, when you try to hold a brown bag lunch meeting or a brain-storming session, only the usual suspects attend. Increasing participation is a challenge we have all struggled with.

Now might be a moment to drag out that maxim “if the mountain will not come to Mohammed, Mohammed will go to the mountain.”

My suggestion is that you still host those discussions, those meetings and many more gatherings and sessions, but do it in a venue that takes advantage of the habits or your reporters. How can you do this, you ask? Two words — Chat Rooms.

Just six-months-old, ChatMaker.Net allows you to create “very own exclusive, invitation-only chat room.” Simply select a name for your room and the site generates a web address that you can share with only those you want to invite. Once inside, participants can click on the generic name that site assigns them and enter their own name. From there, you’ve got your own online discussion.

While ChatMaker does not allow you to share files or pictures, it does recognize links, which I think justs ads to it’s strengths. And unlike many Instant Messaging applications that allow for group chats, you don’t need to be a member of any particular service or sign-up for anything; and, it is completely free.

I believe that this approach can work in your newsroom because, as I previously said, it plays to the habits of your staff. Think about it, they are already IMing with their friends and/or colleagues. They’re sending their own emails on, say Gmail, at the same time that they’re working on their stories. This is the multitasking generation; don’t ask them to do something different, just have them add another task.

Part of the motivation behind my previous post was that I find, in many newsrooms, training has taken a real hit in recent years and when money is made available, more often then not, it’s used on the reporting, photo or design staffs. Assistant editors, all too often, are expected to just get it and/or figure it out for themselves.

I think the concept of using technology to strengthen the team approach can have real value, but today I want to focus on something that can have just as much, if not more, impact without any tech. In the run and gun life of a newsroom, time for reflection is a rapidly disappearing commodity, even finding time to read one’s own newspaper can be challenging. So it’s really no surprise that postmortems are left for either the morning meeting or the front-page meeting (if at all).

Now it could be that editors are distracted by the word’s etymology (Latin, post mortem, after death), but more then likely it’s that in the crush of ever-increasing added responsibilities, postmortems have become another one of those things editors (at all levels) would like to do, “if they could only find the time”. But I would suggest, I would urge, I would even go as far as to implore you, to find the time.

So what am I really talking about? What do I think a postmortem entails? Who should be included? And, given that time is truly limited, does every story deserve a postmortem?

Well starting in reverse, I agree that this can’t be done with every story, but it should be done with at least all 1A stories and from there, all section front stories. These are your heavy hitters, these are the stories that day in and day out represent your newspaper both online and in-print. And, at many newspapers, these stories are frequently written by the same reporters. As a result, you have a real opportunity to make a lasting impact in how these stories are reported, written and presented.

The idea is not to get a group in a room and select a scapegoat to blame for story or package’s weaknesses; this is supposed to be a learning experience. My suggestion is to limit it to the key players, yourself, the reporter(s), the photographer(s) and, if necessary, the photo editor. I’ve left out designers and copy editors because, in many cases, they come in later in the process. I would not open it up to the newsroom in general and I would not encourage attendance from anyone higher up (although I recognized that at times, that is beyond any of our control). Make sure those who will be attending know about it the day before; I’m not a big fan of rude surprises.

OK, so we’ve identified which stories deserve this treatment and who should be in attendance, now what?

First off, I would suggest that you have the reporter take notes. The reason for this is that a single-page write-up should come out of this experience and it make sense for it to be from the story’s author. This will become a reference document for future stories as well as something to reference during evaluation season.

Secondly, I would start the discussion with what the initial vision was for the story. With that context, talk about what worked, what we would do again in the future and any lessons we can draw (call it the “Supernanny” approach. Show fans, you know what I’m talking about). From there I would move on to those aspects we would want to do differently. What didn’t work and how could we approach those aspects differently.

Before wrapping up the meeting, get the reporter (or if relevant, the photographer) to review what’s worth repeating and what’s worth changing. Thank everyone for coming and giving of their time and remind the reporter to type of the notes distribute them to the participants.

I make it sounds simple, don’t I? Well it’s not, but it is a straightforward approach and, believe it or not, you can do it within 20 minutes. Actually, set a clock and stick to it. You will find the tighter the review, the more focused it will be, the more people will enjoy it and the more they will get out of it.

Not convinced? Try it and then let me know what you think.

Last week, I offered tips that reporters could use to keep and advance their careers. They included: publishing your own newsletter, using double-sided business cards, how social networking sites can help you expand your beat, promote your own work online, and the value of forming your own reader feedback panel. My hope was that these would be easy to follow approaches that would be attractive to reporters of all experience levels. If you missed any, I urge you to check them out. And if you tried any, I’d be interested to hear how they’ve gone for you.

I want to spend this week offering tips for the editors who read this blog — not for the senior or executive editors and really not even for City, Metro, Sports, Features or Business editors, but the assistant editors, the newsroom’s oft-under-appreciated middle managers.

In many newsrooms the team approach is still alive and well. This is when an assistant editor is given a group of reporters to guide, mold, monitor, edit and evaluate. I have seen teams with as few as two reporters to as many as seven. But given the workload of the typical assistant editor, what usually winds up happening in many newsrooms is that the focus shifts from coaching and developing to process — filing weekbooks on time, submitting expense forms, and editing daily copy, with the occasional therapy session possibly in the form of a monthly team meeting. While each of those are indeed relevant and have a place in the overall team approach, so much else gets overlooked.

I believe that there is a way to use technology to improve and strengthen the team approach. My thoughts are that it would great to have a structure whereby you could (at least):

• have discussions as a group
• share documents (source lists, tip sheets, etc.)
• highlight online resources
• maintain a group calendar

There are two possibilities that come immediately to mind: Google Groups and Ning.

Google Groups “is a free service which helps groups of people communicate effectively using email and the Web.” It’s a rather flat, low-tech approach to what I’ve described. It allows for easy discussions, sharing of documents, highlighting of resources and keeping a word-based calendar. It does offer an RSS feed, which is a nice feature. A Google Group is relatively easy to set-up and maintain. You answer about half-a-dozen questions and you’re up and running. The group can be restricted to members you approve, so privacy is not an issue.

Ning “is a platform for creating your own social networks.” From the sites own explanation:

You start by choosing a combination of features (videos, blogs, photos, forums, etc.) from an ever-growing list of options. Then customize how it looks, decide if it’s public or private, and add your brand logo if you have one. People who join your network will automatically have a customizable profile page and will be able to message and friend each other.

Definitely the high-tech brother of Google Groups, Ning does handle some thing differently (such as documents), but if you’re comfortable online and are looking for an approach that tech-savvy reporters will find appealing Ning is the way to go.

Neither of these options is a replacement for you and by “you” I mean interacting personally with your reporters. What I think they do bring to the table is a layer of organization and depth that will make the rest of your team structure stronger. Have another approach that works for you, let me know?

A friend of mine and former colleague emailed me Monday. He’s just been appointed city editor at a daily newspaper and is addressing his staff for the first time on Thursday and asked (probably half jokingly) if I had any words of wisdom.

Knowing that this is his first management post, and remembering what it was like for me when I was in his shoes, I sat down to write back to him and then stopped. While I have some ideas of my own, I wondered what advice you all would have for him? What would you suggest a new young editor say to his staff? What issues should he be thinking about? What words of encouragement would you have to offer? Are there warnings or tips that you would pass along?

So come on editor on the verge readers from (in no particular order): England, California, Washington, Georgia, Florida, Texas, New York, Virginia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Nova Scotia, Canada, Ontario, Canada, Kentucky, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Alberta, Canada, South Carolina, Limburg, Netherlands, Wien, Austria, British Columbia, Connecticut, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, Indiana, South Dakota, Minnesota, Bucharest, Romania, District Of Columbia, Antwerpen, Belgium, Wisconsin, Scotland, Louisiana, West Virginia, New Mexico, Oregon, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Iowa, Manitoba, Canada, Alaska, Reykjavik, Iceland, Veneto, Italy, Dhodhekanisos, Greece, Utrecht, Netherlands, Hlavni Mesto Praha, Czech Republic, Tennessee, Kansas, Zurich, Switzerland, Montana, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Vermont, Attiki, Greece, Delhi, India what do you have to say? Help out my friend and share some of that collective wisdom.

Conversations between reporters and editors are a great thing. But at many newspapers, they don’t happen nearly often enough and when it comes to covering breaking news, I’m afraid they happen even less.

We all are familiar with this scenario: The police scanner suddenly crackles with the news of a fire, reports of smoke coming from a house at 123 John Smith Lane. Additional radio chatter includes something about residents possibly trapped. A desk editor looks around the newsroom trying to make eye contact with a reporter to send out to the scene.

“Hey Joe,” the editor finally says. “I’ve got a fire and I need you to go out to it.” Joe raises from his seat, slow enough so as to allow the editor to realize that he has two other stories he’s already working on.

“The address is 123 John Smith Lane, I think that’s off Main Avenue,” the editor says, now shouting a bit and clearly ignoring Joe’s body language. “And grab a photographer on your way out.”

And with that, Joe is gone, hopefully with a photographer in tow. The editor in question turns their attention back to editing copy, the daily budget or any one of another dozen items they could be working on. They won’t likely think about Joe until either he calls in, or the editor needs to update the budget, a senior editor or both.

Now with some changes, and even at newspaper’s with law and order reporters, events like this take place nearly every day.

But the lack of a conversation between the Joe and his editor before he left will have at least two results:

1. Website updates for the fire will likely be far and few, because Joe will be focusing on reporting and staying upwind of the smoke.
2. Joe will return to the office only to have call officials who were at the scene to get answers to questions he didn’t know his editor wanted asked.

A quick conversation before a reporter heads out the door will provide for a better print story and set the stage for better online coverage. And especially when it comes to online coverage, conversations between editors and reporters should continue periodically while the reporter is out of the newsroom.

Here’s what I’m suggesting. Breathe. Take no more then five minutes (an editor can even walk the reporter to their car) and talk about:

• When the reporter’s should check-in.
• What should they first do when they arrive?
• Who else should they try and speak with at the scene?
• Based on early information, where in the printed paper will the story likely be appear?
• If you’re sending more then one reporter, make sure each knows where to focus their efforts (one can do officials and the other the neighborhood or crowd).

If you have your own questions, that’s fine. If not, give those a shot, but most importantly, have the conversation. And if you are, what questions or tips does your conversation include?

Recently Howard Owens, Jeff Jarvis, Pat Thornton, and many, many other journalism/media bloggers have crafted posts about what newspaper journalists are or are not doing, about what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong and about what they should be doing that they’re not.

Owens, Jarvis, Thornton, heck all of these gifted bloggers/industry leaders have valid points and if I was a newsroom journalist who fit into one of their ‘in need of improvement’ like descriptions, I would probably be feeling pretty crappy about my alleged craft. And it’s that impact, whether intended or not, that I have a problem with.

All too often many of us who have worked our way out front-line jobs have, thanks in part to the blogosphere, become adept at noting ways front-line employees could and should be improving. We talk about the need for them to obtain new skills, to take more chances, to embrace audio, video, multimedia, narrative storytelling, etc., as if it was as simple as a reporter reading a For Dummies book and doing it.

Now I’m not saying the current-day news employees don’t bare some responsibility for the state of their craft or even for the status of their newspaper and/or website. But too many times our critiques, observations or suggestions overlook key parts of the equation.

We, and I’ll include myself here to a point, do not demand of senior editors, publishers and corporate headquarters that their staff members are given the time or funds when we call on them to learn new skills or start using new technologies.

We overlook the possibility that corporate mandates or guidelines might be behind recent trends whether in print or online. How many newspaper sites have been given SoundSlides (an audio slide show program) with the message from corporate “use it“?

We ignore the dire straits some newsrooms find themselves in, thanks in part to the budgets provided by publishers or corporate headquarters, when we call for additional training (and all training has a cost, be it time or actual dollars).

I believe that it is important to the future of our industry, and our craft that we maintain our work and keep trying to provide guidance and support. But I think Owens, Jarvis, Thornton, myself, and others need to point our keyboards more often at those who control the direction and the funds. We need to demand their support and highlight why their own reticence (be it their own dislike of e-mail, text messaging, or audio and video) cannot be accepted from them anymore than it can be from their employees. And we need to make the link for those corporate officers who can’t see the connection between funding for training and staff development and the success or even survival of our industry.