Since the concept of online news first began, the internet has grown and evolved at speeds only known to the Japanese bullet train. So it was never going to be easy to predict and make promises of what web-based news had to offer. However back in 1995 a group of tech-heads tried, and a piece written by Nora Paul represents a good analysis of how right and wrong they were. She explores how far we have come, and whether online news has truly reached its full potential.Paul argues that most of the predictions made over a decade ago were based around the theory that the internet offers a "limitless newshole," an endless space that satisfies the 'give me more' that reporters thought news seekers were craving. Looking at online news today it is clear that this is not the case. Too often, news organisations recycle stories from other media platforms. Paul recognises that the text on screen has often already been edited for print.
This is sometimes true for newspaper websites, but visit a broadcast site such as the BBC, and its vast array of news articles are written specifically for the site. As more and more money is ploughed into online news, this could one day be common place. For now, editors of print publications are happy to get their writers to write content that is suitable for both print and online, meaning the task of getting their stories online a mere 'uploading exercise'. This also means that the promise of the 'limitless newshole' cannot be reached, as we are constantly being fed a "downstream product."
Central to this 'limitless newshole' was the trailblazer's promise that people would be hungry for context and looking to the net for deep content on the latest news issues. In reality when it comes to reading the actual text people just want the quick hit. Paul describes the web as an "alert service", where people with little time come to to get their quick bites of the latest up-to-date news. We have realised that long, time consuming articles are not suitable to be read on the computer screen, and instead the reader just wants a short, sharp fix. I agree with Paul that where news sites are taking advantage of the "give me more" factor is in the use of multimedia and hyperlinking.
We can see this evident with almost all online news from the major news sites. Take a look at the latest news developments offered by Sky News in regard to the Burmese
The above is a prime example of online news today. From this we can see that they were right in predicting that hyperlinking would be the biggest enhancement. Links have provided the audience with a greater context, and the link to the blog is proof that slowly but surely, big news sites and others are not scared to link to another site. Paul is correct in saying that most are still 'linking away' somewhat conservatively, and instead attempting to link to related stories and multimedia that is present on their own site.
However, even in the short 2 years since Paul published her article, there has been a growing acceptance that if you offer a good, insightful link away from your site to your readers, they are more than often likely to come back to you again, as they begin to build trust and familiarity with your site. This relationship can be further enhanced online through the communication between reporter and reader. Paul argued that back in 1995 they predicted through online news there would be no longer a "us and them" relationship, and instead the news will be democratised. Paul seems a little sceptical on how far we have come in regard to this issue. It may be that she wrote the piece in 2005, but I feel the web has allowed for a much greater and effective relationship between reader and reporter than that she gives credit for.
Sure, you can e-mail the writer, and are unlikely to receive a reply. However, comment facilities are ever-present at the end of online news pieces now, where readers can quickly leave their views and opinions, and reporters may post a comment in reply back. Blogs have rightly brought a "new wave of communication linkage" between reporters and their audience. And to disagree with Paul, almost all have comment links, creating live, emotional debate. Some news sites such as the Guardian, devote whole sections to blogs, such is the desire for them, and I feel they can adequately be up their punching their weight with the various discussion forums in the "community conversation" stakes.
Paul goes on to discuss how online news was thought to be able to offer a new expressive style, allowing the story to be told in a non-linear way. This is often not the case, because as said before, much of the online news text is the same online as its offline counterparts. However, blogs are a clear example of a new expressive form, allowing a more informal, intimate writing style.
On the whole, Paul offers a good insight into the growth and adaptation of online news over the last decade. However, one commenter on the piece offered a valid point. Paul had seemingly been blind to the numerous 'online-only publications', where all the news is written purely for the site, and many of the 1995 predictions have been convincingly fulfilled. Maybe at the time, sites such a CNET news were few and far between, but now there are many online-publications that clearly have one sole focus in delivering solid, interactive, online news content. In an attempt to generalise online news as a whole, she makes it feel that online news in it's entirety fails in fulfilling certain predictions, when in fact, there are probably news sites that are doing it, such is the vastness of the internet.
Possibly, online news has simply adapted to the demands of it's consumer. Many of the ideas brainstormed back at the "New News seminar" back in 1995 can be seen in online news today. Yet where certain ideas are not present, let us not see it as online news not fulfilling its true potential and instead see it as an example of how up-to-date, relevant, and ever changing online news is. Hey, that's half the appeal right?
No comments:
Post a Comment