Print = Online? No.
Report a violation
- Submitted by kbui on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 9:52pm.
- Terms: blogging | online media
No, this has nothing to do with this site. But it does have to do with newspapers and how they relate online.
I was reading this fantastic post by online guru Howard Owens (to put in succinctly, he is one of the leaders of online change for newspapers).
I just have to point out some of his statements.
Learning to blog really takes turning one simple switch in your head: This isn’t print journalism.
It isn’t the journalism of your cranky old city editor or your sainted j-school prof. Neither of those old farts would approve of blogging in any form, even though blogging is now part of the legitimate media mix.
When I started in journalism, I had an editor who would scoff at blogs. They were just a fad, he said.
They aren't. They're here and they kicking butt, and sometimes that butt is traditional media. The web site is not the print product. The web site is fast, and it's readers are savvy.
A co-worker and I were talking the other day about 9/11. She said one of the first reports she heard was a single line. "A Plane has hit the Twin Towers." How powerful is that statement? A sentence is good enough, as long as you keep updating, keep growing that story. Online is the process. Print is the final version.
Too many publishers, or more to the point, the editors and reporters they employ, still see online as just another place to shovel the same journalism they’re doing in print or in broadcast.
Online is different, and blogging is the key that unlocks the kingdom of how online is different. If you can get blogging, you can get online.
Amen.
So here is my question: In the Tribune's constant effort to grow and change online, what would you have us do? Do we "get" online? Why or why not?