By I.J. Hudson.
Is there a difference in how much and what type of information we glean from paper vs. pixel? The physical newspaper exposes us to a wide range of topics as we scan the pages, even though we have developed a routine of what we plan to read. It’s like a route marked on a map, with an occasional stop to see something interesting just off the path. The digital version hits us one page at a time and we make quick choices, often reading just the first few sentences or paragraphs of a story. We skim the surface or choose to dive in, follow links to learn more about fewer topics.
But the two big takeaways about the digital world are broad access and no deadlines. The Internet opens the door for us to sample thousands of sources of news. The equivalent paper versions would block our driveways and lawns. The recycling bins would really be full on pick-up day. The lack of deadlines means information is posted or tweeted constantly, from anywhere, about anything - from tens of thousands of sources.
Those sources range from longtime trusted sources, not-as-trusted-as they-were sources, and sources with credentials confirming only they can use a keyboard, and aren’t picky about spelling or research. Unfortunately, instant posting matches our need to know what we want to know “right now,” even if the information is not accurate. The speed of blogs can be much faster than the truth, and often is lacking context to make information more useful.
Online news updates obviously are faster than standard print deadlines, but how we use online media may not provide the breadth or depth of information that makes us more informed - unless we take the initiative to seek out sources that challenge our usual thinking. “Digital” opens the doors to countless sources of information if we have the time and the interest. Bloggers, tweeters may well have information, pictures and video we won’t find in our local or national paper’s pages or website, or may provide widely divergent perspectives if we choose to seek them. A tourist with a cameraphone can be an instant on-scene source of a major news story. It makes for fascinating reading as speculation is replaced by facts in developing stories.
Ultimately, the difference and value between paper and pixel is measured by the needs of the readers. What do they want to know about? How much detail do they want? How often do they need their news, and from which sources they choose to get it: the papers in the driveway or the thousands of sources on what we once called the information superhighway?
I suspect, like cable and satellite TV, where there are sometimes 500 channels but nothing to watch, people will settle on a limited number of news sources, then add specific sources when topics of interest pop up. For example, political news junkies may consider Maryland Politics Watch a “must read” and share links to MPW when the Maryland General Assembly is in session or there is a particularly hot issue in Montgomery County.
There is little question that a growing number of us have a fulltime thirst for news, sports and weather information. While the fact that anyone can be a news source online provides endless potential for coverage we can’t find in the paper world, it demands that we be vigilant editors – to separate fact from fabrication so the information we use to form our opinions is credible.
I.J. Hudson is the Communications Director for Garson Claxton LLC, a Bethesda, MD law firm, and a former television reporter for NBC4 Washington.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Paper or Pixel? Part Three
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Paper or Pixel? Part Two
By I.J. Hudson.
Advantages/Disadvantages
Paper advantages: Newspapers, like books, are physical things that have weight and, until laptops, Wi-Fi and the Kindle, were easier to take with you and to share with a small group of people. “I’ll take the Metro section; you take sports – then we’ll trade.” The paper was “the record” of that date in history. On a slightly sentimental side, the local paper was something used to create a scrapbook of a kid’s life. Dad gave me a scrapbook on my 40th birthday, complete with pictures and articles I had written or that had mentioned my name - awards in grade school and high school - successes of my baseball and basketball teams, decorations in the Navy, my wedding announcement, etc. The paper was a source for community news and a personal archive for those of us who lived in small towns. And “the paper” had a place for everything. You knew where the funnies were, where to find sports, the classifieds, the obituaries, the editorials and letters to the editor. The news you were looking for was a physical location – you could feel it, pull out the appropriate section.
Digital advantages: It just requires a device with Internet access. Any hometown newspaper is yours if it’s online. An online version of the Southeast Missourian is available online in Helena, Montana, or in Bethesda, Maryland. It’s also an evolving record of yesterday, today, and the moment – much as the digital papers that changed headlines and pictures in the “Minority Report.” Is the online version the identical to the real paper? Not usually. Some stories are hyped as available only for print subscribers and vice versa.
Another benefit: Online provides an instantly searchable archive for additional background if you need/want it. Often links to recent stories about the same subject eliminate the need for searching, unless you to cast a broader net for the subject. And sometimes online stories (old news) and pictures linger on the front page for several days, indicating a dwindling staff covering fewer new stories; but, like the print side, space must be filled.
Those latent links are a good thing to help people understand a story and its evolution; it’s a bad thing if your bad news made the front page and you want it to disappear. Bad news has a tendency to linger online and stay on the front page (as a link) for several days or until a crush of “new” news pushes it to the next page, or makes it disappear entirely. In the paper world, the bad news disappears from the newsstand until there is a follow up story.
A big digital advantage: You can share digital articles with anyone, anywhere, anytime. No clipping or copying required, and certainly no stamps – just an email address, or post a link to the story in Twitter or Facebook. The digital paper is super interactive with more information available for the mining. You find video, links to previous stories, to similar topics in other online publications, and, of course, big pop-up ads that cover the screen until you figure out how to close them.
The buzzword in media is interactive – let the readers participate. That can be a good thing or a bad thing – really bad, in my opinion, in the “comments” accompanying an article. No need for a lot of thought and a stamp, and most publications don’t require a real name. Comments often start out with, “last time I checked,” or “let me get this straight.” Occasionally, the comments contain useful information, but frequently become name-calling skirmishes pushing agendas that have little or nothing to do with the story. You see the same people (screen names) adding their vitriol and exchanging insults on a regular basis. Well-considered comments are not as frequent. Exercise: click on a screen name and check to see how much commenting they do. You may be surprised to find it’s almost a full-time job for some folks.
Finding what you’re looking for in an online paper is not as intuitive as in a paper. Online structure is different, and several clicks may be required to find those editorials. Search engines, both on the page itself and in your browser, help you find names and topics of interest. But the ability to move between stories or sections with a click permits you to skip a lot of content. Some of it could be of interest, but you won’t have the opportunity to decide. It’s like taking a trip directly from New York City to Los Angeles without having the opportunity to sample Columbus, OH, Manhattan, KS, Phoenix, or Las Vegas. It’s not a matter of time, it’s a matter of having an interest in exploring.
I.J. Hudson is the Communications Director for Garson Claxton LLC, a Bethesda, MD law firm, and a former television reporter for NBC4 Washington.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Paper or Pixel? Part One
By I.J. Hudson.
Quick! On which page will you find the editorials/letters to the Washington Post? Which section of the Post is Metro?
“Below the fold,” “Buried on page 23,” “We need the Bulldog Edition” are phrases tied to physical newspapers where ink dries and deadlines are hours apart.
For decades, newspapers ritually have been tossed in our driveways, stacked in news stands at convenience stores, a row of stands at metro stops and hawked by street vendors at long traffic lights.
The physical newspaper has maintained a time and place in our daily routines – whether it involves a breakfast table, a bathroom, the first cup of coffee at the office or a lazy weekend morning. But the number of people wed to those routines is decreasing, as is the viewership of the 6 o’clock and 11 o’clock news. The newspaper also has been a physical prop to hold up when trying to make a point about a team or about politics – or about almost anything. “It says right here….” “It’s in the paper, so it must be true.”
But as the Internet has filled almost every other open space in our lives, so, too, has online become synonymous with getting the news now. And that raises basic questions about the differences between how people “interact” with their physical papers and the online editions.
The First Encounter
The newspaper, its sections and inserts neatly nestled inside, greets us. It is complete – as is. The New York Times motto: “all the news that’s fit to print.” The big headline, the big picture which we can see from 10 feet away, touts the big story of the day. Then we scan the headlines of the rest of the front page and then either read the rest of the paper sequentially like a book, or skip to sections of interest. As you turn the pages, something may catch your eye, but all-in-all, it’s generally a linear experience.
For Metro riders and other commuters, folding the paper “just so” to keep it out of your seatmate’s face has been a time-honored tradition. Sometimes we leave the paper behind for another rider. But more often we read the paper, and then we’re done with it - unless there is a bird cage to be lined, fish to be wrapped or a floor to be “re-papered” for 75 cats. (makes for a handy archive).
Reading news online should be similar to the physical paper, right? Not always. It’s hard for a picture on a computer screen to match the impact of a front page picture (like the shot of Bill Clinton and Kim Jong Il). And often we reach online news by an indirect route. Lee Rainie of the Pew Internet Project told me there is anecdotal evidence that many of us don’t go directly to the online paper – that the editors of online news sites say the majority of their traffic comes from referrals – links from other sources like search engines, blogs, email digests - not from someone starting at the paper’s website. Of course we all have our favorites “bookmarked,” but I’m constantly finding new sources through other sites.
Once there, people can scan a page for interesting links and jump directly from Sports to World News to whatever. That suggests there is less chance of spotting something of interest on web pages that surface only on command. You don’t turn pages, you click to new topics or on links to old topics that still reside on the page (even the front page). It’s primarily a non-linear experience, although you may get accustomed to reading things in order, even online - Front Page (quick look, not full read); Metro – Maryland – Montgomery County – Prince George’s – Technology - Opinions. You get the picture.
I.J. Hudson is the Communications Director for Garson Claxton LLC, a Bethesda, MD law firm, and a former television reporter for NBC4 Washington.
