Back to archive

Feb. 3, 2004

Dear AP Sounding Board:

Ten newspapers responded to questions about News Digests — times, topics, phrasing, sidebar listings, etc.

Almost unanimously, editors said they prefer detailed digest lines over "bare facts" listings. They say the longer lines give them a better sense of each story's approach.

Similarly, editors like the current practice of listing an array of "with" items on News Digests, rather than cutting back to one or two sidebar citations.

Listing top-caliber sports stories on the News Digest was favored almost across the board.

Opinions differed somewhat on the filing times of News Digests, and whether every digest has to be a complete version with full lines. Several editors suggested adjustments, particularly early morning, evenings or around times of their front-page meetings.

Views also diverged on whether the News Digests could be split into two versions — one for hard news, the other for features/entertainment. Some favor all-in-one digests, others see merit in a separation.

The responses below include interesting comments on how News Digests are used in your decision making. Read on ...

— M.L. Schultze, Canton Repository:

1. For our purposes, the 1 a.m. and 9 p.m. updates could be a shorter advisory of developing material.

2. We like the detail in longer digest lines.

3. Separate digests that provide more detail on some of the more complex topics would be good.

4. The complete list of sidebars is crucial to help us plan a full package, including our own sidebars.

5. We'd like the sports items to run daily.

— Ozzie Kleinas, Dayton Daily News, via Steve Sidlo:

1. For purely parochial reasons, I would prefer a 3:15 p.m. update rather than 3:30 p.m., but that's only because I'm frantically preparing a wire budget for my 4 p.m. budget meeting and the 3:30 p.m. version arrives just a bit too late for me to incorporate into my larger document. As I said, though, this is a purely individual issue and not one that should prompt the AP to modify its plans. My preference is for a full-length version of the digest each time it's updated.

2. For my purposes, I strongly prefer a detailed story description, since I normally don't have an opportunity to read the actual stories until sometime after my 4 p.m. budget meeting.

3. One of the few shortcomings on this front that I can recall involves the People's Choice Awards a couple of weeks ago. No mention of the awards appeared on the version of the digest that moved Sunday afternoon. Thankfully, we remembered that the program was scheduled Sunday night, but I do rely on the good folks at the Ap to provide those kinds of reminders (and I'm very rarely disappointed). It might be incrementally helpful to have feature- or entertainment-related material separated from the newsier items, but that's not a big issue with me.

4. I prefer the current approach, which lists one or two most compelling sidebars with the main story and supplies a separate listing of more sidebars, graphics and other material elsewhere on the digest.

5. Again, the present practice appeals to me. I like to be reminded of major sports developments that have Page One or A-section potential and to know that our friends at the AP are contemplating an abbreviated, Page One version of momentous sports stories.

— Bob Dearing/Jim Staas, The Buffalo News, via Steve Bell:

1. Leep the 8:15 a.m. update. Move the 1:30 p.m. update to 1 p.m. The 5:30 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. updates should be full length. 8:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. can be short.

2. Digest lines are fine as is.

3. I don't think that's necessary. When an entertainment story clearly bleeds into news realm, it usually finds its way onto the digest. I think the current system is fine.

4. Again, current method is fine. Including as much info on the digest as possible is a help, not a problem. However, a separate feature digest as hinted in previous question just not necessary or wanted!

5. A quick list of highlights is fine. We're running the Kobe Bryant story as a book story, so a reference to that somewhere in the digest is welcome. Some papers may just be running it as a sports item, so including that and other big sports stories each day is a help.

— Louise Seals, Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Everyone likes the times, along with full detail and the complete list of "with" items, which helps us track sidebar/glance box possibilities.

The features desk and news desk split on the second question, with the features folks saying shorter summaries would be OK but the wire desk preferring full versions (even if they largely repeat earlier filings).

We would also prefer to see sports stories everyday regardless of where they might play. As we all try to attract 18-24-year-olds and 25-34-year-olds, we aim to provide cross-references between different types of content, such as figure skating and pop music, for example.

— Jake Sherlock, Wyoming Eagle-Tribune, via Reed Eckhardt:

1. News Digests work just fine for me as is. I like as much detail as possible (photos, graphics, a good lead to let me know what the story is about, etc.), so the current system is working fine for us.

2. Please see above answer.

3. I'd like to see more entertainment stories on the budget — I only see one entry on the budget per day on average, and I'd like to see more.

4. I'd like the full list so I know what my options are for packaging. I don't like it when I discover a sidebar on the wire that wasn't on the budget.

5. Yes, this would be helpful for determining front-page teases.

— Andy Kuppers, The Ledger, via Lenore Devore:

1. We generally stop looking at the full digests after the 3:30 update. After that, we rely on news alerts, Page 1 advisories and simply scanning the complete wires.

2. I usually appreciate the full digest lines, especially with features. With spot stories, the longer budget lines do help put the story in perspective before I have a chance to see the whole thing. That helps me decide story play. I'm a little skeptical that the "bare facts" would give me enough to make an informed decision, especially when a story is complex.

3. We tend to seek out stories on science and medicine and issue-oriented features. I don't think putting them on separate budget would make them easier to find, nor would it make the AP News Digest easier to read. In fact, keeping them on the main digest leaves the individual newspapers with the decision on where to play them. And that's where the decision belongs. It's good enough that the science, entertainment and sports lines are separated into different sections on the main digest.

4. I prefer the complete list. It helps me plan the grouping of stories earlier in the day. For instance, will I need a page dedicated to science news today? Without the complete list, I might not know in time, and I wouldn't be able to group stories as well.

5. We rarely even consider sports stories for the main news sections. But I like to see the best sports stories on the main digest, anyway. Occasionally, I feel they deserve a pitch for A1. Without that listing, I wouldn't know.

— Tom Eblen, Lexington Herald-Leader:

1. The digest times are fine. It's good to have each digest be complete, but it's also helpful if each clearly notes at the top what has changed since the last one.

2. More information is always better in digest lines, as that gives us more information to make early play decisions.

3. I asked our wire editors about this, and some preferred one digest and some preferred a news/features break. So no clear preference.

4. It¹s best to list all sidebars, not just a few. That way we easily know everything that¹s available.

5. No preference.

— Rick Everett, The Star-Ledger:

1. We use the AM preview, which moves at about 10:45 a.m. as the quick glance wire advisory for our 11 a.m. new meeting. The 1:30 p.m. comes around just as we are starting to set the lineup for our 3:30 p.m. news meeting. I then check the 6 p.m. p-1 advisory and the 6:30 p.m. digest to see if we want to adjust our lineup. At 3-4 pages, these digests are about as much as we can handle.

2. The detail in the digest lines is helpful.

3. Current format is fine — only want to see top science and med stories.

4. We would want to see all the sidebars, photos, glances, etc., listed with the digest item.

5. Just the sports stories that might have a shot at p-1.

— John Bartosek, The Palm Beach Post:

1. Times are fine and keep the budgets complete ... I do like you to note what's new and changed ...

2. A budget line that gives a sense of story rhythm and approach is very helpful, let's us know whether we have a hard-news or feature lede and we plan accordingly.

3. I like science and med in the main budgets ... leave entertainment and fea budgets separate ...

4. I'd list whatever you're providing so we know the full scope of coverage.

5. I like having the top couple sports stories listed, even if they're not going to make 1A ... that helps me know what's going on ...

— Daryl Kannberg, The Plain Dealer, via Tom O'Hara:

1. The timing of the budgets is fine. Also, after 3:30, the budgets could simply be advisories about key developing and upcoming stories. Though, we realize how that might not be the greatest idea to west-coast papers.

2. We like the longer budget items, the more information the better. Also, we like the format when the top stories are listed in headline form and they then are followed by the full budget items.

3. We like the current format, the all-for-one approach gives us everything at a glance.

4. We like a complete list of sidebars. It helps for planning purposes, and makes your stuff compete better against other wires. It also helps keep items from being left out of the paper.

5. We like the idea of including the "sports" and the "entertainment" stories only if they have A-section potential, except for awards shows that could run in either entertainment or the sports section. Also, it would help if the late-breaking award news was double filed on both the entertainment and a-wires since most of that ends up in the A-section anyway.

Have a question the board should pose to AP? Send it to AP National Desk Editor David Minthorn at dminthorn@ap.org, who is coordinating the Sounding Board.

Back to archive