Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

(RNS) We're toying around with the Roundup format -- we wanna keep it interesting for y'all -- so let us know what you think.

17 Comments

  1. Like the general format. However, the paragraph encapsulations are missing the tongue-in-cheek witticism that I greatly appreciate in the news Round-Up. In the end, whatever the format, I prefer the irony.

  2. I do not like the new format. There are other news sources that give a bullet list of the days headlines as relates to religion: Sojourners does that. CNN’s belief blog can function that way as you scroll through the blog.

    What I think keeps me reading your news brief every day is the wit, snark, and selectivity of how the stories are linked together in a narrative of that day’s events. There’s something human and conversational. Interesting. And then the element of surprise when you click on a link embedded in a witty sentence, and you don’t know exactly what story you will find on the other side of the link. All these things I enjoy about RNS in particular.

    If you go to a more traditional format, I’m not sure I will be interested day after day. Not that I would stop reading. But it might not be my “first click of the day”.

  3. The old format, with its threads, cross-references, and meanderings, was what made this blog unique. The new format lacks the innuendo and subtlety which were the wellheads of the above-cited “snark and wit”. Might as well just be a news wire.

  4. Kevin Eckstrom

    Article author

    Thanks, everyone, for your comments and suggestions. Please keep ‘em coming. We’re just starting to reevaluate how the Roundup is done, so we’ll keep listening as long as you keep reading!

  5. I totally agree that the old format was more fun to read. But as a journalist scouring through resources every day, this format is quicker and allows me to scan for the things that really interest me and help me do my job. And I imagine this is a lot faster for you guys to put together too. I’m OK with either way, but from a utilitarian perspective, this format works best for me. In any event, thanks for trying something new. And thanks for all you do! You’re great!

  6. I honestly hardly ever read the daily roundup, although I am sure there is very good information in each one, because to me the email summary doesn’t tell me why I should open it. While I appreciate the humor in the subject lines, I need more info about the roundup’s contents to get me to actually click through to your site. The only reason I clicked on this message was the “Let us know what you think” invitation.

  7. The trouble with writers who editorialize with snarky sarcasm is that it’s funny to some and tiresome, or even offensive, to others. I read the roundup every day for the news so I’m happy it looks like a more professional news site today! Thank you for this!

  8. Definitely keep the snark and wit. You as a reporter/editor provide readers with a perspective on religion issues that we lack. Your voice is unique and gives us a “tease” to look further into the story. If you merely replicate what other outlets are doing, why should we read your news? I understand you want to be perceived as fair in your news reporting and maybe some are offended with your wit. But the roundup is your editorial voice and not a typical news story. Even if you keep the brief summary, call these issues as you see them and don’t lose the irony.

  9. Other than numbers, don’t really notice much difference :-). To be honest, I’d like to have this page shared as an email so that I can have it in my inbox and then go to the web — it would be easier for me to search/ find stories from a day or two earlier than if I had to click on each days “home” page.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.