Online journalism still means real journalism
I am tired of seeing people stick random content on their Web sites to see what sticks.
I am tired of seeing people place reject stories, photos and graphics from the print edition on their Web site.
I am tired of people believing that any story can be told well by any means.
Sometimes you might want to leave that video camera at home. Other times, you may not want to try to force that photo gallery or slideshow. And if a written story wasn’t written well enough for the print edition, what makes you think that online readers want to read it?
Online journalism is real journalism, and it has to be treated as such. I can’t even count all the times in the last few years I have been asked to stick something on a Web site that didn’t make it into the print edition because “the Web site has unlimited space.” The Web site is not your attic.
I’m glad to stick extra photos with a story as long as the photos are compelling. You will regularly find more photos on Stripes.com than in the print edition, because we believe in publishing extra content on our Web site that is worthwhile. But I also get harassed by photographers, editors, etc about putting up additional content that didn’t make it into the print edition because it wasn’t that good.
If it wasn’t good enough for the print edition, it sure as hell isn’t good enough for the Web site. Web sites reach a much bigger audience. Why would you want to stick your b-team content there?
In addition, online journalism doesn’t mean you have to try to force things. Yes, everyone loves photos. I’m not convinced everyone loves slideshows all the time, especially when the content sucks. I’m not sure what possessed the editors, produces or photographers at The New York Times to think this photo gallery about Mike Huckabee was a good idea, but it’s not.
It is the worst slideshow I have ever seen in my life. The first photo is a close up of someone’s hands as they fill out a commitment card for the campaign. Um, who cares?
The second is a close up of a Huckabee pin on someone’s sport coat. I think I know what a campaign pin looks like. There is no caption, although no words could describe how worthless this photo is.
Most of the photos don’t have captions, and those that do have very short ones like, “Meeting supporters at a community college near Des Moines.” Thanks New York Times.
This is a clear cut case of someone trying to force content where there is none. Just because you make a slideshow doesn’t mean you have created journalism. This slideshow could have worked if it was made into a photo essay, with big captions that talk about Huckabee’s campaign, how many volunteers he has, how much money he is raising, quotes from supporters in the photos, etc.
You know, tell a story. Frankly, there is no story being told, just 13 random pictures. Jeff Jarvis noted “newspaper online sites tend to use slideshows too much, just because the Internet lets them.” (Jeff pointed out the same less-than-stellar NY Times slideshow.)
That’s not journalism. Online journalism is real journalism, and it must be treated as such with standards and thoughtfulness. Our readers deserve better.
Howard Owens has similar thoughts. He wants us to try new forms of story telling, but we should be doing them appropriately:
Let’s be clear, we should do a lot of blogging, and a lot of video, and a lot of slideshows/photo galleries, and multimedia packages, and so on.
But we also need to start doing a better job of learning how to do each of these things well and appropriately.
Print journalists need to start thinking like web journalists.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:24 am
So true….
“The Web site is not your attic.”
But thats how its commonly viewed, the place for substandard journalism.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Sadly also, a lot of web journalists are trained as well as print journalists or are just technical types adding in html, CSS and other code - basically online subs instead of online reporters.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Geez, Pat, you’re so right about that Huckabee gallery at The New York Times — it’s ridiculous. What a dull and pointless collection of pictures. I wonder what they were thinking? They just felt a sudden urgent need to promote Huckabee, maybe?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 am
John, the Web should be a clearing house for the best, most-up-to-date journalism. But most print people think of it as an attic — a moldy one.
Craig, a lot of reporters and editors view online people more as online subs or tech people than real journalists. Basically, they want people to clean up their stories, add some bold tags here or there, plug in some photos and do some Web “magic.” But that’s all really basic stuff that any non-technical person could learn.
Sometimes I have to remind people that just because I know a lot of Web technology doesn’t mean I don’t have a journalism degree, because I have one — an honors degree. In reality, my skill set should be more of the norm, not the other way around.
Mindy, I’m not sure what exactly happened here. It could be a case of a photographer learning to a do a photo gallery for the first time, and the Times was willing to accept a sub-par showing for the first time. I’ve heard the “it’s his or her first time, give them a break” excuse too much. Of course, readers don’t care if it is your first time. They want quality, not excuses.
Or it could be a case of quotas. Maybe someone was told they had to make a gallery, regardless if the content was there or not.
It’s also possible that the NY Times Magazine is doing a gallery for every candidate and this is all they got for Huckabee. In that case, it’s a bit more understandable. I could see how they would feel like they need to do the same for every candidate to be fair.
Or maybe, as you suggested, they felt the sudden urge to ramp up their Huckabee coverage because his popularity is exploding.
What I am certain of is that no one made this gallery because they legitimately thought it was a good idea or that it made good journalism. Something else (hopefully) is going on here.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:39 am
[...] times, you may not want to try to force that photo gallery or slideshow. And if a wr source: Online journalism still means real journalism, The Journalism [...]