Critiques

Here's an inquiry that's related to training, but really an issue of management that I'd like to ask the list about: I'm investigating the notion of daily newspaper critiques, or perhaps nearly daily critiques. Would anybody out there care to offer any opinions on whether they're effective, or any advice on how to ensure they're effective? In specific terms, I'm wondering whether the news coaches of the world think critiques can or should "go negative." And if they should, are there some basic rules of engagement a critique's author should keep in mind?
John Voskuhl - Lexington Herald-Leader

Others may disagree, but I think critiques lose impact when they get to be a daily routine. Through trial and error, we found that more people came and paid more attention when critiques were scheduled weekly and organized by topic rather than a generic "What did you think about today's paper?" That's not to say that you can't praise or pan on a daily basis, but a formal critique should have a point and takes time to prepare.

Here are my suggestions:

1. Vary the themes and presenters. Have a copy editor analyze headlines one week, a photographer discuss play and captions the next, a writer dissect leads the next, etc. This doesn't rule out off-topic discussion or last-minute inspiration, but it tends to keep critiques fresher and shorter while spreading the pain of preparation. An alternative is to set up a rotation of presenters and let them suggest their own topics. We've also had guest reviewers -- working women, teens, minority readers -- offering valuable insights into our story selection and photo play.
2. Schedule them at a time when the maximum number of folks can attend -- not just at the morning editors' meeting. It is especially important to offer the people being critiqued a chance to defend themselves.
3. Have the presenter prepare a summary and post it on the bulletin board, e-mail or Web page for posterity. Then invite discussion. You'd be surprised at the buzz it generates.
4. Critiques should be even-handed. Hollow praise or a steady stream of negativity are equally self-defeating.

John Witt - Richmond Times-Dispatch

I like many of John's suggestions, as they are more instructional than gotcha. I would add that articulating some standards or goals to measure against can be helpful. What is a good headline at your newspaper? A good cutline? A good lead? A good story idea? A good photograph? It can be a very interesting training exercise to have various staff groups in the newsroom put standards into words. The copy desk could do headlines and cutlines. Content editors and reporters could do leads. These are openly discussed, blessed by the editor and made available to everyone. Then everyone has some common measures to critique against. And they can be used later as the foundation for related skill training and orientation of new employees.

I believe the New York Times does a weekly critique, called "blue pages" or something like that. Maybe Nancy Sharkey -- if she hasn't left the list -- could share. And Ed Miller talked about critiques at one of our dinners in Washington. Maybe Ed could repeat his views. I believe it was an approach where a standard or theme was selected each week, pages were posted on a bulletin board each day, and all staff members were invited to post notes of recognition. A bottom-up critique, if I remember.
Michael Roberts - Cincinnati Enquirer

I find two kinds of critiques valuable:

1. Marked-up tearsheets limited to special circumstances -- for example a glaring error that you hope never to see in your paper again or a sweetheart of a headline that begs to be recognized.
2. Periodic group critiques that include the entire staff. I use examples from several weeks' worth of papers, pointing out great photos, strong captions and brilliant ledes, as well as those that almost made the mark. These sessions are most helpful if I can show how to make each weak example stronger.

I'm in full accord with Mike on gotcha's. They breed resentment and lower morale.
Rosalie Stemer - Stamford Advocate

Seems to be a good system in Tallahassee where an editor does a daily critique with a brief spiel at the newsroom and a posting in the newsroom for late-comers. It's short and emphasizes positive reinforcement with names and negative points gentler and less public. I hear that everyone strives to "get a star". Sounds like there's not too much cringing.
Joe Grimm - Detroit Free Press

In a recent assessment of our newsroom's needs, a committee decided we didn't have a clear enough picture of what kind of a paper our executive editor wanted us to be and how we were measuring up to his standards. The committee asked him to start a daily critique, which he has been doing for a few months now.

The critique has been helpful in achieving the purpose. We all understand clearly several important priorities of the editor and we understand clearly how well we are or aren't doing in those areas.

The critique is candid and has bruised some feelings. But the committee met recently and decided it has been largely successful. The editor chooses a different theme for each day's critique. For instance, he might examine how well we succeeded in tailoring that day's editions to each distinct geographic area they serve. Or he might examine our use of visual elements or jumps. Praise is specific and personal. Criticism is solution oriented and often does not name the name. Often praise and criticism is mixed, saying specifically why a story (or whatever) was good and specifically how it could have been better. The themes help make criticism feel less personal. For instance, one day he cited several stories that should have had stronger visual elements. In every case he was right, and by the time you were finished reading, you could see that he had identified a collective failing that we needed to address.

I'm not sure how long he should continue the daily critiques. We might and probably will reach a point where they become tiresome and need to be changed or dropped. For now, though, they have stimulated important daily discussion in our newsroom about what we do and how we can and must do it better.
Steve Buttry - Omaha World-Herald

One of the things we did at The Morning Call a couple years ago was create a public [computer] file where reporters and editors could comment on stories, headlines, photos, etc. The only ground rule was that it had to be positive -- to avoid ego bruising and bad feelings. It worked great for a couple years and created a "Can You Top This" atmosphere in the newsroom. Writers liked the notice from their peers as well as the occasional editor's weigh-in. Staffers were also encouraged to pin stand-outs to the newsroom bulletin board with a note on what they liked and why. Among the pros: It was a group effort and anyone could participate, so it was an inclusive thing. The cons? Like anything, it lost momentum after a couple years and died off.
Joe McDermott - The Morning Call

I agree that any daily routine loses impact, not to mention steam, over time. At first it's a curiosity, then it becomes a chore, then a bore. It is also an attempt at a quick fix for a failure of sound organization and leadership. What works best is good old-fashioned face-to-face communication, wherein the editor meets with her lieutenants daily, discusses good and bad points; those people convey the word in informal discussions with their assistants/department heads, who in turn talk to the editors and reporters concerned. No better way to get the work out, and without the public display. But what about the entire staff? yes, it's slower, but it's surer and with fewer negatives.
Jeff Price - Philadelphia Inquirer

On Critiques, I agree with Jeff. They are virtually ignored after the initial shock of them.
I would rather invite staff into morning meeting to discuss the paper's pros and cons. But nothing works better than clear communication between editors and staff as they are preparing the paper.

I do favor "How I Did the Story, Headline, Layout, Photo" narrative every so often in a newsletter out to all that clearly has the stamp of "excellent" from the editor and more important from reader reaction. Do brown bag lunches around these events to talk about the best aspects of doing journalism and what leads to those kinds of experiences.

We need to get newsrooms talking in positive fashion about good work. Critiques tend to get staff absorbed in the negative or on the folks who are missing from the critiques. I have rarely seen them lead to improvements.
Arlene Morgan - Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism

I think critiques are valuable as often as you can do them. The biggest problem in my experience, though, isn't the fairly small number of people who couldn't wait for this chance to publicly express in red ink all the little pet peeves they've been holding inside for years. It's the simple challenge of keeping the critique process consistent and manageable. I've seen hundreds of critiques over the years, almost all of them constructive in their criticism. But I've also seen many efforts to build a critique routine end in disappointment when they couldn't be sustained.

My advice? Do critiques. Have them done by the most respected managers and supervisors at the paper. Ensure that people doing critiques know that they should be pointing out things that went well as well as things that didn't and remind them that basic rules of constructive courtesy ought to apply to the tone of their remarks. Then, create a process for doing critiques that will enable you to provide the feedback consistently. If you can do it daily, amen to you. If you do it less frequently, you may find the critiquing just as valuable and considerably less burdensome.
Jim Slusher - The Daily Herald