Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Newspapers Should Look More Like This Post
It's often reported that newspapers are dying off and being replaced by cheaper online media. Although cost is one reason for the decline of printed news, another factor is length. As this Atlantic article describes, compared to online reading, newspaper articles are just too long. If fact, I agreed with the story so much I stopped reading it once I got the gist. Of course there is a place for longer in depth reading. The Economist, with it's medium length articles, is a good example. I could say more, but in honor of this post, I'll leave it there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's ironic that the Atlantic wrote a story on this topic, being as they're probably the most long-winded online publication I read.
ReplyDeleteThis is undoubtedly one of the things that worries me about the move from print to online media -- the chance for a loss of in-depth reporting due to the bite-size nature of the internet. I really hope that my favorite news publications won't start sacrificing depth for brevity as the transition continues.
There is a fine line between being succinct and being too brief. I think the trend toward a higher signal to noise ratio is great, and I do not worry much about the loss of in-depth reporting because I think eventually news will be delivered online in a format where you can take quick hits if you'd like, but then you are free to read below the fold or follow the link to find more information. The trend I am most happy to see is more and more information being displayed in highly sophisticated charts and graphs.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do worry about, though, is the loss of demand for investigative reporting. 60 Minutes, however, seems to be doing fine, so I am not losing sleep over it just yet.
You should check out the history of USA Today, if you can make it through the entire wikipedia article... ;)
ReplyDeleteThey changed the biz in the 80's doing smaller, lighter stories and made a lot of $$$ doing it. Newspaper snobs still snob them.
"McPaper." Haha
ReplyDeleteJustin S: I'm not hoping for blogs to replace real reporting. I meant for the title of this post to be taken literally. I want articles to literally look shorter, not necessarily be less in depth. The use of links to extra info and summaries is a great way to inform the public. It doesn't matter how in depth your article is if people don't read the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteJustin W: Well put, more info, less noise. I also appreciate the 60 minutes plug.
Erin: I read the overview. Does that count? I think the money they made is good for them, but also at least suggests that more people were reading and learning?
Erin:
It is possible to tune down noise like the article describes, but at a certain point less words means less depth. It's also possibly to be short and noisy - just watch any program on Fox News. I think our culture is trending toward both, and given the choice between the two, I'd choose less depth destruction than noise destruction.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDelete