The New NYT web site.
I wrote a few years ago that the web has deformed newspapers. By deformed I meant specifically that it had taken away the form of the news, particularly the overall form, the mapping of the world that both a daily newspaper front page and a network news show execute. On the web, the hierarchy of stories is muted, the interplay of items on the page is eliminated, and the voice of the newspaper is much harder to hear. Same, but less so, with broadcast news outfits.
For years the Times has had all its matter (except the ads, which I don't read anyway) up on the web, and I read it often enough in that fashion, though I far prefer the paper edition. When I read the web version, I spend about 12 minutes with it; on the paper edition it's three or four times as much time I'll spend and I'll come away feeling like I've engaged in an important informational ritual. I'll feel in the know.
Not with the old web version. From time to time I would try to piece together the shape of the print newspaper, but without much luck. It was like radio to me. Headlines.
With the new version, the first thing I noticed was how much easier it is to draw up the content of the printed version in roughly the same form as in the print paper. It's still headlines, but it's the right ones. The second thing I noticed is how much friendlier the home page is. It begins to give some of the form back to the news. It's still not there, but it's a great leap forward.
The other interesting thing is the flirtation with blogging. I've been saying in lectures here and there that the new tools of the news (blogging's one of them) have not yet been turned into a "journalism." This is not to engage in the argument about whether blogging is journalism. Of course, why not? It's just to say that the rules of blog/journ have not yet been formulated. Now the times is going to do it. I spoke with one of their correspondents who'd been recruited for the blog experiment a few months ago. (He insisted that his thing was a website, not a blog, and of course, why not?) I asked him what kinds of journalistic standards would govern NYT's bloggers. He said they said they were open to discussion. So let's see. The outcome is going to be the invention of a journalism for bloggers; there's no doubt about that. But if it's going to work, it'll have to bless the subjectivity of the blogger, which is the whole point of the genre.
I wrote a few years ago that the web has deformed newspapers. By deformed I meant specifically that it had taken away the form of the news, particularly the overall form, the mapping of the world that both a daily newspaper front page and a network news show execute. On the web, the hierarchy of stories is muted, the interplay of items on the page is eliminated, and the voice of the newspaper is much harder to hear. Same, but less so, with broadcast news outfits.
For years the Times has had all its matter (except the ads, which I don't read anyway) up on the web, and I read it often enough in that fashion, though I far prefer the paper edition. When I read the web version, I spend about 12 minutes with it; on the paper edition it's three or four times as much time I'll spend and I'll come away feeling like I've engaged in an important informational ritual. I'll feel in the know.
Not with the old web version. From time to time I would try to piece together the shape of the print newspaper, but without much luck. It was like radio to me. Headlines.
With the new version, the first thing I noticed was how much easier it is to draw up the content of the printed version in roughly the same form as in the print paper. It's still headlines, but it's the right ones. The second thing I noticed is how much friendlier the home page is. It begins to give some of the form back to the news. It's still not there, but it's a great leap forward.
The other interesting thing is the flirtation with blogging. I've been saying in lectures here and there that the new tools of the news (blogging's one of them) have not yet been turned into a "journalism." This is not to engage in the argument about whether blogging is journalism. Of course, why not? It's just to say that the rules of blog/journ have not yet been formulated. Now the times is going to do it. I spoke with one of their correspondents who'd been recruited for the blog experiment a few months ago. (He insisted that his thing was a website, not a blog, and of course, why not?) I asked him what kinds of journalistic standards would govern NYT's bloggers. He said they said they were open to discussion. So let's see. The outcome is going to be the invention of a journalism for bloggers; there's no doubt about that. But if it's going to work, it'll have to bless the subjectivity of the blogger, which is the whole point of the genre.
posted by jnerone at 4:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home