by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Panpa Bulletin : August 2006
56 | PANPA bULLETIN august 2006 Internet journalism is still in its infancy. Yet already web- sites are a primary source of news and information for millions and the web seems certain to be- come the dominant journalistic medium within a few years. It's no secret why. Most simply and obviously, the Internet is the most versatile and complete of media - the only one that can mix words, pictures, video and sound and be constantly and instanta- neously updated. Our audience expects, when they log on, to get the very latest news. They don't want to wait un- til the next bulletin on the hour or the following day's paper. A news website can and should be like a newspaper that is pub- lished and republished every minute of every day. Even more important is the relationship that Internet com- panies encourage with their au- dience. We don't simply want to bring people the news; we want to be the medium through which peo- ple share and discuss what is go- ing on, through messageboards, chatrooms and blogs. The two big news events of 2005 - the tsunami and the July 7 London bombings - were key landmarks in Internet journalism as online sites such as AOL pro- duced compelling packages that mixed words, pictures, audio, video and contributions from witnesses and those involved in the incidents. Millions came to our sites to see the news unfold and to dis- cuss it and react to it. The mix of content we provided seems like the model for the way Internet journalism will develop. So where does this leave news- papers? On the most brutal view they are stuck on the hard shoul- der of the information super- highway. Circulations are falling but the press seems content to churn out a tired editorial mix that hasn't substantially changed in the past 40 or 50 years. The process of getting journal- ists' words to readers' breakfast tables is a daily organisational miracle but, compared with the immediacy of the Internet, is practically guaranteed to provide a product that is out-of-date be- fore it is consumed. The same malaise by and large infects papers' websites. In news- rooms geared up to the daily rit- ual of producing a print edition, the Internet is a poor relation. Journalists expect to see their best work in the paper. Editors and business managers want to preserve the commercial value of their print editions. So readers must wait until the following morning for the best articles, the biggest exclusives. Newspapers continue to cling to an'us and them' world in which journalists are clever, informed, well-connected experts who find out what is going on, decide what is important and what isn't, ana- lyse what it all means and present it to their grateful readers. And if readers have opinions on the issues of the day, well, the journalists are frankly not terribly interested. They may publish a handful of readers' letters but they don't re- ally want to know what you think. It's your job to listen to them - not the other way around. This is a state of affairs that clearly suits journalists and flat- ters their egos but readers seem to find it less satisfying. They want to have their say, to react to the news and to the media's take on the news. The Internet, with its messageboards, chatrooms and blogs, provides them with that opportunity. Newspapers initially ignored the phenomenon or looked down on it as a kind of inadequate, am- ateurish version of journalism. Even now, some newspaper sites still refuse to accept com- ments from their users, while others pre-vet and post only a 'representative selection'. In the face of a wave of media democratisation, many are still behaving rather like Iron Curtain commissars in 1989. Newspapers as dinosaurs lum- bering towards their own extinc- tion: that's the gloomy view of the current media landscape. But there are grounds for a more op- timistic outlook. Papers remain hugely power- ful brands. To say that someone is a Sun reader,Guardian reader or Mail reader is instantly under- stood shorthand and shows that papers still stand for something. It is possible to produce a newspaper that makes sense in the modern media age. Look at the Metro papers: rigorously designed to meet the needs of a young, time-pressured com- muter audience and hugely suc- cessful. Another positive sign is that newspapers are starting to ad- dress the Internet seriously. The Guardian's 'Comment if Free' site is a genuine attempt to get to grips with the blogging phenomenon. Several papers are taking cau- tious steps into 'web-first' pub- lishing.Time willtellwhether they are adapting quickly enough. Technology may yet ride to pa- pers' rescue. 'Electronic paper' - digital screens that you can roll up and stuff in your back pocket - has been promised for years and could soon be with us. When it finally arrives, it could breathe new life into the press. Most importantly, newspapers have the knowledge and resourc- es to provide great journalism. Though sites like AOL are pro- ducing more and more of our own content, in key areas like news and sport reporting, we continue to utilise the expertise of long-standing newsgathering organisations. We don't have reporters on the scene of breaking stories or networks of correspondents and experts around the world. One future for some newspapers may be as suppliers to big online brands. Some papers will manage to make the transition from print to online in their own right and those that succeed will do so be- cause of the quality of their jour- nalism. Specifically, what will set them apart is quality reporting in breadth and depth combined with radical thinking about how to present information in a new medium, rather than simply re- producing the conventions of print on a computer screen. Like any other medium, the Internet depends on great con- tent. Newspapers need to make sure they are in a position to sup- ply it. Journalism.co.uk. Pushing papers into the modern age Many newspapers’ websites are still behaving rather like Iron Curtain commissars in 1989 writes aol’s uK director Simon Hinde This is a state of affairs that clearly suits journalists and fatters their egos but readers seem to fnd it less satisfying We don’t have reporters on the scene of breaking stories or networks of correspondents and experts around the world. One future for some newspapers may be as suppliers to big online brands