Redefining the docket

I like Vanity Fair magazine. I’m not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing to admit as journalist, but nonetheless it is one of the three magazines to which I subscribe. So you can imagine my pleasant surprise and delight when the latest issue of Columbia Journalism Review published “Vanity Fire,” an article by Bree Nordenson about how Graydon Carter, VF’s editor, has changed the content of the magazine to feature more political and in-depth jouralism.

The CJR article focuses on the question of whether Carter will continue publishing political content, but I’m more interested in the fact that he publishes it at all. Vanity Fair has found a unique and successful balance between celebrity coverage and in-depth journalistic articles, and the fact that this balance doesn’t have to be magazine specific. Newspapers could adopt some of the same strategies, publishing a mix of what people want to – and will – read and what we the journalists believe they should read. They’d just have to take a new approach to the newspaper journalist’s agenda setting role.

Agenda setting should not just be about what journalists believe to be important; the agenda should also include what the readers believe is important. The daily newspaper, the daily agenda, should be a compromise between the writer’s and the reader’s interests. This is where Vanity Fair is successful. It covers what people want – and, unlike many other publications, proudly. “There’s practically no magazine or newspaper that does not trade in celebrity coverage,” Jack Shafer said in the CJR article. “Rather than downplaying its celebrity coverage, which you’ll find in the Times Magazine, and you’ll find in The New Yorker, Vanity Fair puts a great big bow on its celebrity coverage and puts it on the cover.”

Altering the agenda to make it, let’s be honest, more interesting for the average reader could have a more significant impact than simply getting people to read and buy the newspaper. By including the not-so-newsy stories that people want to know about, the newspaper would become a more universal and convenient medium. Readers would only have to go to one location for all the information they want to know, rather than picking up another publication, switching to a specific channel or surfing to a different website. It would finally give the daily newspaper a leg-up other news mediums and hopefully safe the paper from extinction.

Granted, changing the content of newspaper likely would be painful for most publishers, editors and reporters. Perhaps journalists would feel they are compromising their integrity as a watchdog or information gatherer. However, Nordenson accurately notes that “readers shouldn’t be bothered by Vanity Fair’s celebrity coverage because they don’t have to read it,” even though many people do. This theory would apply to newspaper coverage, too. Readers already make choices about what pictures to look at, which headlines to skim and which articles they actually will read. Simply adding a new news genre to the daily mix of stories would not diminish the value of other articles.

In exchange for their concession, publishers, editors and reporters may receive from their readers a renewed trust or faith in their product. Printing information that is applicable and interesting to readers is a sign of respect for the audience and its culture. It’s an interpretation of the Golden Rule for the media business.

Graydon Carter is on to something at Vanity Fair, something that newspapers need to tap into in order to save themselves.