By Marc Lourdes
New Straits Times
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Hosted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

The major problems facing journalism in my country are the same ones that are facing the industry in the United States – namely survival.

Many have predicted that the Internet is the final nail in the coffin of the newspaper industry. That the print media is going to be usurped by the panache and pizzazz of New Media.

I would beg to differ. Having been here for a while, I've seen the brilliant minds at work – be they in universities, the Poynter Institute or the St. Louis Post-Dispatch – that are constantly trying to think of new ways to engage the reader, of new ways to grab the audience's attention and of new ways to ensure the survival of newspapers. They are in short, trying to dream up the future.

With dedication like this, I have no doubt that the industry will survive and thrive for a long time to come. It will change, yes. It will probably be unrecognizable if its founding fathers were to see it. But, it will survive simply because big ideas are constantly surfacing. For example, Twitter, such a new technology, is already considered yesterday's news.

It's funny then, that what I choose to share with my newsroom is something that's really considered old hat – the humble blog.

Though blogging has a tremendous following in Malaysia nobody has quite figured out how to make it pay just yet. I may just have an idea to change that.

Malaysia is a small country if compared to the United States. We've only got a population of 27 million people. Our land mass is roughly equal to that of New Mexico. With such a small and dense population, it's inevitable that our newspapers focus mainly on national issues. We do have certain sections devoted to high-density urban areas, but due to a lack of space, large swathes of the land lack close coverage, unlike America, where regional and local papers service even the smallest of communities.

But we do have bureaus scattered throughout the country. What if these bureau reporters were to each set up local blogs and put up reports there? The big stories that have national impact would of course go into the newspaper. But the smaller pieces, the pieces of local interest, but not national, could be blogged about.

What's the big deal about that? After all, aren't there many citizen bloggers out there? And more importantly, how would one make money from this idea? Well, let me answer these questions one-by-one.

1) The main difference between citizen bloggers and journalist bloggers is the ethical and professional gulf between them. Think about it. The reason why bloggers exist is because they address a need. A need that newspapers and journalists haven't addressed. So, why not start addressing the need? I'm convinced that if we can give the people blog content, along with the citizen participation a blog allows, coupled with high journalistic standards and ethics, the readership will follow. Secondly, journalists enjoy something most citizen bloggers don't. They can do this full-time, with the machinery of a big company supporting them. If journalists can't win with the aid of a stacked deck like this, then they really have no business being in the business.

2) So, how does one make money from this? Advertising, of course. How many small businesses out there can afford the high cost of advertising in a newspaper? How many want to advertise on a national platform when all they want is to get their message to the people in their area? With small, concentrated, highly localized blogs, this under-served community can be tapped into and hopefully become a revenue source. Granted, the money made from each individual blog advertiser would be a mere pittance compared to the huge sums paid for full-page newspaper ads. Still, if things go right, there will be tremendous volume, which will more than compensate for it.

So, that's it. That's my great idea. For it to work though, there needs to be a concentrated effort from all those in the newsroom. We cannot afford to wait for people to catch on to it. There needs to be an advertising blitz to inform local readers about it. I'm thinking flyers tucked into copies of each paper at bureau level, informing readers about the blogs. Add to that a daily page in the newspaper dedicated to promoting the highlights of our web-only content, including the Best of the Blogs. We need to get hits, and we need to shamelessly promote ourselves to do so.

A potential pitfall is the willingness of journalists to actually take on the extra work and responsibility this will entail. I admit that this element baffles me a little. How do you motivate reporters? Through the threat of job losses? Through dangling carrots like individualized performance-related bonuses? Through creating lucrative monthly awards for best bureaus, bureau reporters and bureau blog posts? The methods are many, and I think what it calls for is a combination of all these elements. Straight talk. Tell them what awaits them if they don't change and promise to reward the ones that do. That's what would work for me.

I intend to pitch this idea as soon as I get back. And when I say that, I mean I intend to go to work on my first day and request a meeting with the top editors to pitch this idea. That's how enthusiastic I am about it. If they accept it and move with it, I'll be a very happy reporter indeed.

Another idea that I would like to put forward is an ethical issue. In Malaysia, the standard of English is generally not very good. Many people speak broken English. Some don't speak English at all. Over time, this situation has caused journalists to become very liberal in their usage of quotes when writing stories. It's not uncommon for reporters to entirely change what a subject says if he thinks that's what the subject meant.

I've come here and seen how quotes are considered to be sacrosanct. I'd like to go home and try to work this into my reporting and hopefully influence my colleagues to do the same. It's tough when you work in a multilingual country and have to interview people in a multitude of languages.

However, there are several things we can do to try and maintain higher ethical standards. One is to use quotes sparingly. We tend to use them way too much in Malaysia. In fact, there is a convention in newspapers to go to the quote by the third paragraph of a story. I've been chewed out on several occasions before for not doing that. I hope to go back, armed with examples of American writing, and convince my editors to only use the juicier quotes and to only use them for effect, as punctuation marks, so to speak. By paraphrasing more and using our own words more, we also end up with better stories. We tell stories and not just report, transcribe or parrot sound-bites.

Another thing we can do to ensure we don't take liberties with people's quotes is to actually reconfirm what they say. This can be done either on the spot, or with a follow-up phone call later. Either way, it is doable and should be done.

Convincing editors and reporters that they way they've been doing things all this while is wrong is going to take some doing however. I'm afraid that I'm going to end up looking like the guy who came back from his trip with a big-head and bigger ego and who's trying to tell everybody how they should be doing their work.

The way I look at it, is that I have to work with my editors on this. I should just show them “before and after” examples of stories and try to convince them that fewer quotes can mean better stories. Another thing I can do is take the juniors under my wing. That way, I might actually make some headway with the next generation of journalists even if I can't convince my peers and seniors.

If I can influence just a handful, or even one of my colleagues, I'd say that my efforts haven't been a complete waste of time.

Realistically speaking though, I suspect that I can only make a change as drastic as this if and when I actually become an editor myself. After all, there's nothing like power to make people listen to your point of view. ;)