<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Written content is still my favorite online</title>
	<atom:link href="http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2008/05/03/written-content-is-still-my-favorite-online/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2008/05/03/written-content-is-still-my-favorite-online/</link>
	<description>Random musings from a technologist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:43:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Newspapers websites lack for love; you can help</title>
		<link>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2008/05/03/written-content-is-still-my-favorite-online/comment-page-1/#comment-3397</link>
		<dc:creator>Newspapers websites lack for love; you can help</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 00:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=260#comment-3397</guid>
		<description>[...] we ought to be more direct on the Web. The Journalist Iconoclast is dead-on when he notes that the written report on many newspaper websites is often bloated and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] we ought to be more direct on the Web. The Journalist Iconoclast is dead-on when he notes that the written report on many newspaper websites is often bloated and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Journalism Iconoclast &#187; I do watch video online, just not newspaper video</title>
		<link>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2008/05/03/written-content-is-still-my-favorite-online/comment-page-1/#comment-3281</link>
		<dc:creator>The Journalism Iconoclast &#187; I do watch video online, just not newspaper video</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 18:23:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=260#comment-3281</guid>
		<description>[...] About Home The Pat Thornton Files     &#171; Written content is still my favorite online [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] About Home The Pat Thornton Files     &laquo; Written content is still my favorite online [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pat</title>
		<link>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2008/05/03/written-content-is-still-my-favorite-online/comment-page-1/#comment-3280</link>
		<dc:creator>pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 18:13:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=260#comment-3280</guid>
		<description>@Alex,

I&#039;m going to try to find some studies that look at this. I think video has to be viewed as a tool in our bags as reporters, not the main tool. A lot of newspapers are putting too much time and energy into video and not enough into just making a more relevant Web product.

I know I listen to podcasts, and I&#039;m not alone. I think the average newspaper, however, does podcasting pretty poorly. I wrote a post awhile back &lt;a href=&quot;http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=174&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;where I describe podcasts that work&lt;/a&gt;.

@Hartnett.

Excellent point. If I don&#039;t feel lazy later today, I might edit my post.

The figures are tangential to my post at best. It would be better if I could find a study documenting what people like to view online as well (comparing video to written to audio to Flash to database to etc). I suspect people enjoy viewing newspaper video less than newspapers want to believe. Whether that is an indictment of video or newspaper video remains to be seen.

I do watch a lot of video on the Web at places like Hulu and YouTube. Outside of CNN.com, I almost never watch journalism-related video on the Web.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Alex,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m going to try to find some studies that look at this. I think video has to be viewed as a tool in our bags as reporters, not the main tool. A lot of newspapers are putting too much time and energy into video and not enough into just making a more relevant Web product.</p>
<p>I know I listen to podcasts, and I&#8217;m not alone. I think the average newspaper, however, does podcasting pretty poorly. I wrote a post awhile back <a href="http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=174" rel="nofollow">where I describe podcasts that work</a>.</p>
<p>@Hartnett.</p>
<p>Excellent point. If I don&#8217;t feel lazy later today, I might edit my post.</p>
<p>The figures are tangential to my post at best. It would be better if I could find a study documenting what people like to view online as well (comparing video to written to audio to Flash to database to etc). I suspect people enjoy viewing newspaper video less than newspapers want to believe. Whether that is an indictment of video or newspaper video remains to be seen.</p>
<p>I do watch a lot of video on the Web at places like Hulu and YouTube. Outside of CNN.com, I almost never watch journalism-related video on the Web.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William M. Hartnett</title>
		<link>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2008/05/03/written-content-is-still-my-favorite-online/comment-page-1/#comment-3278</link>
		<dc:creator>William M. Hartnett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 17:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=260#comment-3278</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s incidental to your point, but as I mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/05/03/more-writers-than-readers/#comment-374320&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at Jeff Jarvis&#039; post&lt;/a&gt;, there&#039;s a difference between the number of newspapers sold and the number of times newspapers are read. The way I read that 57 million figure, it represents the number of Internet users who in 2006 said they had &lt;em&gt;ever&lt;/em&gt; read blogs. I suspect the number of American who have read a newspaper at least once in their life would be well above the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_newspapers_intro.asp?media=3&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;roughly 120 million people&lt;/a&gt; who still read one on a typical day. Not that any of that changes the obvious trends, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=253&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;getting the math right&lt;/a&gt; is important, eh? :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s incidental to your point, but as I mentioned <a href="http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/05/03/more-writers-than-readers/#comment-374320" rel="nofollow">at Jeff Jarvis&#8217; post</a>, there&#8217;s a difference between the number of newspapers sold and the number of times newspapers are read. The way I read that 57 million figure, it represents the number of Internet users who in 2006 said they had <em>ever</em> read blogs. I suspect the number of American who have read a newspaper at least once in their life would be well above the <a href="http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_newspapers_intro.asp?media=3" rel="nofollow">roughly 120 million people</a> who still read one on a typical day. Not that any of that changes the obvious trends, but <a href="http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=253" rel="nofollow">getting the math right</a> is important, eh? <img src='http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Parker</title>
		<link>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2008/05/03/written-content-is-still-my-favorite-online/comment-page-1/#comment-3267</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Parker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 05:01:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=260#comment-3267</guid>
		<description>Um, forgot my point...some video is cool, but it is hard to figure out what a lot of stories are about. You&#039;re right. You can get the gist of a print story in 10 seconds. Not always the case w/ video, which is why it needs to be either incredibly compelling or entertaining. Not gratuitous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, forgot my point&#8230;some video is cool, but it is hard to figure out what a lot of stories are about. You&#8217;re right. You can get the gist of a print story in 10 seconds. Not always the case w/ video, which is why it needs to be either incredibly compelling or entertaining. Not gratuitous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Parker</title>
		<link>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2008/05/03/written-content-is-still-my-favorite-online/comment-page-1/#comment-3266</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Parker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 05:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=260#comment-3266</guid>
		<description>I wonder if any studies have been done on reader habit w/ regards to video. I think some video is cool. I really like the ones from the Chicago Tribune, and I&#039;m getting better at making mine for the LJWorld, but I wonder who&#039;s watching them...and if anyone listens to newspaper podcasts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if any studies have been done on reader habit w/ regards to video. I think some video is cool. I really like the ones from the Chicago Tribune, and I&#8217;m getting better at making mine for the LJWorld, but I wonder who&#8217;s watching them&#8230;and if anyone listens to newspaper podcasts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

