A lot of editors seem to think that online news sites are simply digital copies of print. You have a newspaper. Online is a duplicate version. No more, no less. Of course, that is the lazy way to do one's job. You simply trawl through what already exists and post it up. Maybe you nip or tuck a headline, but that's it.
I've experienced an editor who, instead of interviewing a celebrity who came into the building, chose to rather pull a New York Times story. Another editor defended this practise...and who the hell am I? Am I a trained journalist? Oops, sorry for expressing my opinion, I thought this was a democracy.
As it happened, audiences loved the movie and the US-based reviewer hated it. Who was to know when the editor didn't trouble himself to go and watch it himself?
I've also heard a lot of questionable practises defended in the name of 'editorial Independence'? What IS editorial independence except he editor expressing his or her opinion when it suits? If you're going to express your opinion at least have the guts to own up to the fact that you're doing it.
Incidentally, online is all about what people think, conversations, expressing some form of bias. Headlines do this all the time, like today's Babbelaas Malema misses Meeting [The Times]. Newspapers often seem to reflect what they guess is public sentiment - they do this on Mugabe [Pack your bags] but this is hardly a display of editorial independence.
The other problem with shovelling, is that you're getting a generic version, with very little local gist. This means your content is interchangeable with everyone elses. Very damaging to one's brand, and very dangerous if you want to stay in business.
While some may accuse me of hypocrisy (since this blog comprises so much clipped content) I do provide commentary and take the time - without remuneration - to write columns and provide video and photography for this site. I also provide insights and take the time to try to interpret the news. I don't see much of that happening in the mainstream media.
There are paid professionals who do far less for their brands.
Online has the potential to be an exciting, kickass medium. I have an idea some Media Groups try to put print first and online second. This is counter intuitive. And I agree with Buckland. How often do you read the same story in 3 or 4 different newspapers and on their websites?
Online will break with scoops when it (and it's proponents) are truly embraced, treated with respect rather than with fear and suspicion.
I've experienced an editor who, instead of interviewing a celebrity who came into the building, chose to rather pull a New York Times story. Another editor defended this practise...and who the hell am I? Am I a trained journalist? Oops, sorry for expressing my opinion, I thought this was a democracy.
As it happened, audiences loved the movie and the US-based reviewer hated it. Who was to know when the editor didn't trouble himself to go and watch it himself?
I've also heard a lot of questionable practises defended in the name of 'editorial Independence'? What IS editorial independence except he editor expressing his or her opinion when it suits? If you're going to express your opinion at least have the guts to own up to the fact that you're doing it.
Incidentally, online is all about what people think, conversations, expressing some form of bias. Headlines do this all the time, like today's Babbelaas Malema misses Meeting [The Times]. Newspapers often seem to reflect what they guess is public sentiment - they do this on Mugabe [Pack your bags] but this is hardly a display of editorial independence.
The other problem with shovelling, is that you're getting a generic version, with very little local gist. This means your content is interchangeable with everyone elses. Very damaging to one's brand, and very dangerous if you want to stay in business.
While some may accuse me of hypocrisy (since this blog comprises so much clipped content) I do provide commentary and take the time - without remuneration - to write columns and provide video and photography for this site. I also provide insights and take the time to try to interpret the news. I don't see much of that happening in the mainstream media.
There are paid professionals who do far less for their brands.
Online has the potential to be an exciting, kickass medium. I have an idea some Media Groups try to put print first and online second. This is counter intuitive. And I agree with Buckland. How often do you read the same story in 3 or 4 different newspapers and on their websites?
Online will break with scoops when it (and it's proponents) are truly embraced, treated with respect rather than with fear and suspicion.
Where is the online scoop? When last did a newspaper or broadcast news brand refer to an exclusive by an online publication? Has it ever happened in South Africa? The Sunday Times and Mail & Guardian, as well titles out of the Independent group and Media24, regularly break big stories that send the media industry into a flurry. Has this ever happened in the online world? South Africa’s online publications simply won’t scoop the big, exclusive stories until they change the way they run their own news operations. Online news publications in South Africa are too reliant on wire services like Sapa, I-Net, AFP, AP and Reuters. Has anyone noticed that the top five online news publications often publish and lead with identical stories from these wires? So much for original journalism. Online’s other major content source is traditional print media. This content is derisively known as “shovelware” – it’s simply shovelled from print to the web.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment