How to keep our newspapers relevant

This month, the Times issued another check up, this time called the 2020 report. Unlike its 2014 cousin, this report is a mere 37 pages long, and better still, it’s not nearly so negative. Instead of describing a struggling paper, the 2020 report shows readers how the Times has begun to refute its own self criticisms and close gaps between itself and other papers. It’s a much more hopeful prognosis this time around.

Getting to this point and closing these gaps was not an easy process. The 2020 report illustrates that the Times still has work to do. Among its new goals are the dedication of $5 million to the coverage of the Trump administration’s effect on the world; the addition of a dozen new visual journalists to the team; a restructuring of major story coverage so big news will be tackled by thematic teams; and a more complete separation of print and digital storytelling.

These steps are designed to help shape the Times so it is well-suited to the shifting dynamics of news coverage, politics, the digital age and more. The 2020 report shows Times readers that the newspaper is always changing. Transformation is a constant, not just a timely necessity.

I understand and appreciate the power of transformation on newspapers — The News-Letter gives me a unique lens through which to browse the 2020 report. I started my love affair with this paper the first week of freshman year and have since moved up to staff writer, News & Features Editor and now Managing Editor.

As I’ve grown into my roles, the paper has grown: As a team we’ve mended relationships, overhauled layouts and websites, turned over staffs and covered some of the most transformative events in recent Hopkins history. Week to week, with each issue we produce, we are changing. We are progressing. We are searching for ways to grow into a more accurate, complete and dedicated historical record of our time here.

Reading the 2020 report struck a chord. It couldn’t have been easy for the world’s premier paper to admit to major flaws. It couldn’t have been easy to recognize competition. And it definitely couldn’t have been easy to devise a plan to fix things. But the Times’ commitment to self evaluation is both inspiring and important, and made me think about The News-Letter’ssimilar commitment to recognizing how we can perform better.

We are a fantastic paper (I’m not at all biased), but we do have faults, and they are often difficult to come to terms with. Newspaper staff face ethical and moral challenges from management down to the writers every day, not the least of which is pinpointing issues and deciding how to improve. But, like the initiative shown by the Times, transformation needs to be a constant for The News-Letter.

I’ll be responding to events in the media from a student journalist perspective all semester. It’s fantastic to get myself back into the routine of writing for The News-Letter — it’s something I miss deeply in my switch from News & Features to Managing. My managerial role is challenging and unique, but I got into journalism for the thrill and pull of the story.

I want to get back into that part of it again. Acknowledging our paper’s need for positive growth and change and reflecting on some of our biggest challenges and accomplishments seems like a promising place to start.