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.
