This came up in the design critique last week — we keep using “commentary” as a way to tag first-person stories from the football game (the story where we hung out with the cannon crew, for example). We did it again twice this week.
I realize we need to tag these stories in some way as non-traditional news content, but I’m not sure that “commentary” is the best descriptor for them. That implies criticism, and is also what we’ve been using for opinion content for quite a while. I think we’ve trained readers that commentary = opinion content.
That said, though, I’m committing the cardinal sin of being critical of something without really having a suggestion for how to fix it. Would “first person” be too literal? Is there a more fun way to do that? “Tiger Tracker” or something like that?
Thoughts?
I agree that “Commentary” isn’t quite right. Although “First Person” is pretty literal, it does seem to fit the story subjects better.
Thanks for the quick response, Karen. I don’t think literal is bad on the Web.
What about “In Person?”
What about the reporter’s name? That implies a first person, or at least personal, view, but doesn’t necessarily tag it as “criticism.”
That’s a good point, not all of the reporters are on first-name bases. At the same time, readers would at least as unfamiliar with a new tagline like “First person.” But the latter method would stay consistent throughout staff turnover.
I like the idea of taking advantage of the deck, no matter what changes are or aren’t made to the tagline. (Similarly, I used “I” in the excerpt of one of the commentaries I edited a few weeks ago, to no apparent concern — although I mistakenly used “Comment,” I now see.)
I am unfamiliar with how exactly this happens in the backend, but could and should we create a similar setup to what Global Journalist has, where the photo of whoever has the byline appears in the sidebar along with a description the series? That wouldn’t solve the headline problem, but would provide another space for explaining the stories and what they’re supposed to be.
This is a very good solution. It embraces a concept we’ve discussed quite a bit in 4406/7406: the need for display to embrace the same tone as the story it tops.