New Yorker: Journalism Reality TV

My first impression when looking at this article was that it had simply been 're-printed' onto the web from the print version. Although I don't read The New Yorker it is obvious from the layout that the lack of features tell me this hasn't been made 'web friendly.' For example it is simple black on white in a Times font, most likely the exact same format as used in the print version.

The use (or lack) of embedded, or indeed, any links suggest that not much effort has actually gone in for this to take advantage of the features available online. There were plenty of chances for this article to link to pictures or previous articles to break up what is rather a long piece online. The text would not even need to be changed, a mere enhancement by using the services available on the Internet would have sufficed.

The text does have a picture half way down then first page which updates each time you refresh (which couldn't be done in print), however this is a cartoon which is irrelevant to the story and must just be an attempt to advertise the magazine. It is clear the focus of the website is to sell more issues of their magazine and there is no real attempt to convert it to anything like Monkey magazine which uses almost every web element you can think of.

So it seems that for whatever reason, this is just another example of a print company not using the full benefits of the web and not showing any plans to do so in the near future. Perhaps they feel safe that print will not be replaced?... But perhaps they should at least begin precautionary measures...

Nora Paul and the 'Reality' of Online News

While Nora Paul raises some interesting points about what, in 1995, was expected of online news, the fact that they have not, perhaps been as expected, may not be such a bad thing. I think it is most likely in the ten years before her article was written, people's expectations of the medium have changed. For example the 'limitless newshole' notion could well be because readers do not want an unlimited amount of text to read. In this case the perceived 'failure' may not be such a bad thing after all.

Having said this however, I agree to a certain extent that online news isn't what we expected ten years ago but I feel the Internet has taken news to a level some mediums can't. As a way of physically 'reading' news, online brings with it the advantage of constant updates as days go on, an advantage it will always have over traditional print methods. This isn't really touched on but is important as people who read news online often do so in order to check the latest goings on.

A couple of commenter's brought up the issue of money and news organisations investing in specialist online reporters/editors. This could be a major factor as to why articles online have the tendency to be like their newspaper counterparts, with often the exact same edits. It could also be part of the reason why Paul claims the expected change in reporting styles hasn't happened. Personally, I think blogs (in which style is much different by the way) are important to online news but must be kept separate from the actual articles. It is essential that journalists keep the formal writing style unless expressing opinion.

All in all this is an informative piece, some points I agree with and others I don't. But generally it is interesting to look back at what people expected ten years ago and now to see what direction online news has actually gone in.