Productible

A recent incident at the Chicago Tribune has highlighted the mindset that is driving traditional journalism to the brink of extinction.  

Apparently the Tribune’s marketing department performed some customer surveys in which they showed articles to readers before the articles were done.  They don’t seem to have tried to influence the editorial, and presumably they informed the survey participants that the articles were unfinished and could contain factual errors so as not to jeopardize the reputation of the editorial staff, however, the editors are up in arms.

The editors banded together to write an email in protest, saying,

It is a fundamental principle of journalism that we do not give people outside the newspaper the option of deciding whether or not we should publish a story, whether they be advertisers, politicians or just regular readers. 

While I respect the editors’ desire to maintain their independence and integrity, it’s an outdated concept that they should ignore reader input altogether.  I don’t advocate forcing the editors to change their priorities based on reader feedback, but why wouldn’t they at least want to hear what their readers have to say?  The most successful websites are the ones that pay close attention to their users’ needs and usage patterns, and if traditional journalists want to stay relevant, they need to evolve and adopt some of the same techniques.

Do you think journalists should integrate reader feedback into their editorial calendars, or stick to their own intuition?