news-record.com

BLOGS

The Editor's Log

Exclusives are dead

On Friday, one of my broadcast friends on twitter shot out a message about an "exclusive" interview her station had with Rep. Cary Allred that would air later that night. I smiled because we and other media had interviewed Rep. Allred about his retirement, too, and our story had been posted online for a while. Exclusive? Maybe to the people who only watch that one channel.

You hear "exclusive" thrown around a lot these days as media try to distinguish themselves.

But with the explosion of publishing/broadcast methods, exclusives are harder than ever to get and often last less than it takes to do the weather. For instance, we had an exclusive when we reported that Dr. Harold Martin was going to be named the new A&T chancellor two days before it was publicly announced. Soon after, the A&T student newspaper matched our story and posted it online. How long did our exclusive last? I don't know but it wasn't long.

Likewise, we thought we had an exclusive Friday when we got the latest documents from the school system about the Northern High School athletic department investigation. As we were reporting the story -- and before we'd written a word -- WFMY posted its version from the same documents online. Not only did we not have an exclusive, we didn't even get it online first. On the other hand, WFMY's exclusive wasn't that for long.

Some years ago, we labeled stories in the paper as exclusives. We stopped because it was nearly impossible to determine if our story actually was an exclusive without constantly monitoring every newspaper, television station, Web site and blog. (We didn't want to claim it as an exclusive when it wasn't.) I wasn't convinced that labeling something exclusive meant anything to the reader, particularly when exclusives really just meant "scoops" -- a story that you report first, but which is also easily matched by other reporting outfits.

Instead, what we are truly interested is giving readers enterprise reporting -- stories that have taken time, sources and research to tell you something important that you didn't know and move ongoing stories forward. Stories like this one, this one, this one and this one from today's paper.

But you tell me: You hear and read about exclusives and pronouncements that a story will be "only on" a particular station. Do those terms mean anything to you?

Monday update: Who says exclusives are dead???!!!! Best I can tell, we had about a 15-minute exclusive on the story of the departure of the United Guaranty CEO.

Permalink
Tags: News judgment, Scoops

Posted by John Robinson on Sunday, May 31, 2009 at 10:33 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

DonMoore

May 31, 2009 - 12:27 pm EDT

If everyone was NOT a Media Hound (there's a better word), then you really could have exclusives. Now, everybody's got reporters on their speed dials and can't wait to get some column space or air time and hopefully BOTH.

Eventuality, more people will have their own News Channel, like the President. Good news is easy.

It's the tough stories that require research and background knowledge that are the hard ones. Eventually, reporting will survive and "rip and read" news organizations will fade away.

John Robinson

May 31, 2009 - 3:11 pm EDT

You're right, Don. In fact, the work by Taft on the Northern Loop hasn't been duplicated yet, I don't think. It's easier to use our reporting or to ignore it altogether, which is probably what the politicians hope will happen.

writermike

June 1, 2009 - 8:29 am EDT

It's just a matter of terminology. "Exclusive," at least to broadcast outlets, means that it's unique, that no one else has the same.
If there's a press conference, everyone there gets the same info' at the same time. An exclusive interview means that no one else has access to the SAME answers your reporter gets. One would hope that the result would be a one-of-a-kind report.
With that definition, the person being interviewed can give successive, private, "exclusive" interviews for as long as s/he wants.

John Robinson

June 1, 2009 - 9:31 am EDT

I suppose you're right, but I don't think the viewer/reader interprets the meaning that way. I think they think that this is the only place they are going to read/hear what the person said.

To your point, the movie stars doing the promotional tour of their movies can sit all day and talk to 25 reporters at 15 minutes a clip. Those 25 reporters each claim an exclusive, even as the star said the same thing to each? I don't think so.

writermike

June 1, 2009 - 10:28 am EDT

Yes, John, that's a great example of what I mean. The stars do tend to give the same answers, but the stations claim it as exclusive because it's THEIR answer, the answer to their reporter's question. I'm not saying it's right, but they claim that no one else has exactly their interview -- the sequence of questions, the facial expressions. You're caught up in, whaddya call it, journalism ... where "exclusive" deals with content. Broadcast is less content oriented; it's visual and aural.

chris8video

June 1, 2009 - 10:48 am EDT

The more you use terms like "Exclusive" and "Breaking News" for stories that might might fit a stretched definition but aren't really, the more you numb the viewer/reader to real "Exclusive" and "Breaking" stories.

Judicial and sparingly using certain phrases in promotion of the product isn't just good for news organizations but also for the viewers/readers and the industry as a whole.

Ferguson8

June 1, 2009 - 1:23 pm EDT

Before we talk exclusivity, let's talk accuracy. The "tweet" you're referring to in your first paragraph had nothing to do with talking to Allred--it had everything to do with having a one-on-one with his page and her father(the tweet: "Just wrapped 10:00 Triad exclusive with the page in the center of Rep. Allred's resignation. Check it out on myfox8.com....). And yes, I tweeted that. If it's inaccurate--someone point me in the right direction. I'd been looking for an interview with them from a Triad news source for weeks.

Second, I don't think exclusivity is in question. There will always be "exclusive" interviews/material. It's a matter of how long it remains exclusive, and in this day and age of facebook, twitter, youtube and myspace, that bragging right tends to be short-lived.

In the end it's all about getting the info out....and getting it right.

John Robinson

June 1, 2009 - 3:30 pm EDT

Yes, Nicole, you're right. I misread your tweet. Sorry about that. I'm glad I didn't refer to you specifically.

I think my point about exclusivity remains, however. It's difficult to ensure and transient. Your interview with the page, for instance, was exclusive to a narrow extent. As you told me on twitter, It wasn't the only interview the page gave, just the only one to a Triad-based station.

Ferguson8

June 1, 2009 - 3:45 pm EDT

You're right. I mean, it's hard to claim "exclusive," especially working on our deadlines. For example, you all could have talked to the family and posted a portion of the interview online at 9:45pm, and then my exclusive would be dead for 10:00. It's a gamble claiming it nowadays, especially if you're not constantly monitoring sites as you work to meet deadline.

As far as the extent of exclusivity.....my thinking Friday was if viewers or readers in the Triad hadn't read or seen the interview in the Triad, then it was exclusive to the Triad. Maybe that's not the right way of thinking, though. If we're being "inclusive" about exclusivity, I think it's very hard to maintain the fact that only your outlet made certain info accessible. It's hard to prove unless your source is saying "I haven't talked to anyone else, and I refuse to talk to anyone else."