![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm not sure this hasn't been written better before by brighter minds than me, and I recognize that it's a contentious statement. However, in light of a recent post by mathowie about the current plight of metafilter, I thought I would reiterate (or perhaps initially state) my opinion on the matter:
Quality online journalism, editing and curation is worth more -- in terms of what you should be willing to pay for it -- than print.
I believe this despite never having worked directly in either business. I write programs for a living, so take this with a major grain of salt. Still: I think -- with some reasons, I'll elaborate here -- that the burdens of working with text online are actually higher, and the value delivered to the reader also higher, than is typically found in print.
It is true that print carries with it the physical production costs of laying things out and printing things on paper, binding them, shipping them to places for sale (or through the post). That is the place where print costs more, and if you enjoy the collecting-of-paper-books (which I do), that is the place print delivers more.
In most other regards, however, I believe online is harder and delivers more.
Online requires, first of all, that you keep the machines running. You cannot credibly run an online publication "print run" and then shut off the lights and go home. You are in the business of running a permanent, 24/7, ever-growing, globally-usable archive, whether you like it or not.
Online requires, to be taken at all seriously, an investment in interoperation, with search systems, syndication, incoming links, trackbacks, format conversion, multiple device formatting, translation and localization, takedown notifications and so forth. You cannot credibly run an online publication "autonomously", washing your hands of responsibilities to your reader once you've done the writing, layout and printing. Your presence is more than just an archive, it's an ongoing technical dialogue with ever-shifting terms and rapid obsolescence.
Online probably requires active moderation, because it usually requires conversation. It's a rare publication online that has no facility for commenting. Print publication often has "letters to the editor" but they are hand-picked and rate-limited in a way that online moderators can only dream of.
Online generally requires timeliness in a way that print does not. One is expected to respond to criticism in real time -- or within minutes-to-hours -- make amendments and corrections in real time, follow stories developing in real time. Online is less likely allowed to even "wait for the staff to wake up": a credible operation usually has staff members in enough timezones to "hand over" the workday continuously.
Online must actively defend against technical and nontechnical attackers, usually in real time: denial of service, spam, fraud, flaming, griefing, trolling and vandalism. Not to mention ad blocking (which I use). Few print publications have to deal with readers who subscribe through a post office that automatically cuts all the ads out, as a service.
And for all these costs, I believe online also delivers more to its readers. It is almost always searchable, both current issue and all archives, often from our phones in our pockets. It usually permits sharing between friends, both directly and by linking, and can often be syndicated. It permits conversations, often very rapid ones, where print might take months or years of back-and-forth between articles and letters to the editor. Online is usually more timely and often has a global perspective, both from globally distributed staff and reader conversations. Online can usually provide better and easier-to-follow references to primary sources, visualizations and comparisons, and reference-inversion ("who cites this"?)
I'll admit the volume of online writing, and the ... highly variable quality of it (this post included) leaves much to be desired. It is a bit like going to a public library with 700 floors full of $0.25 photocopied zines. There is so much to dig through. And thus we come to the key word in my opinion: quality. When you find quality writing, editing and curation online, I encourage you to realize just how much effort it takes to produce and sustain, and consider paying for it.
Quality online journalism, editing and curation is worth more -- in terms of what you should be willing to pay for it -- than print.
I believe this despite never having worked directly in either business. I write programs for a living, so take this with a major grain of salt. Still: I think -- with some reasons, I'll elaborate here -- that the burdens of working with text online are actually higher, and the value delivered to the reader also higher, than is typically found in print.
It is true that print carries with it the physical production costs of laying things out and printing things on paper, binding them, shipping them to places for sale (or through the post). That is the place where print costs more, and if you enjoy the collecting-of-paper-books (which I do), that is the place print delivers more.
In most other regards, however, I believe online is harder and delivers more.
Online requires, first of all, that you keep the machines running. You cannot credibly run an online publication "print run" and then shut off the lights and go home. You are in the business of running a permanent, 24/7, ever-growing, globally-usable archive, whether you like it or not.
Online requires, to be taken at all seriously, an investment in interoperation, with search systems, syndication, incoming links, trackbacks, format conversion, multiple device formatting, translation and localization, takedown notifications and so forth. You cannot credibly run an online publication "autonomously", washing your hands of responsibilities to your reader once you've done the writing, layout and printing. Your presence is more than just an archive, it's an ongoing technical dialogue with ever-shifting terms and rapid obsolescence.
Online probably requires active moderation, because it usually requires conversation. It's a rare publication online that has no facility for commenting. Print publication often has "letters to the editor" but they are hand-picked and rate-limited in a way that online moderators can only dream of.
Online generally requires timeliness in a way that print does not. One is expected to respond to criticism in real time -- or within minutes-to-hours -- make amendments and corrections in real time, follow stories developing in real time. Online is less likely allowed to even "wait for the staff to wake up": a credible operation usually has staff members in enough timezones to "hand over" the workday continuously.
Online must actively defend against technical and nontechnical attackers, usually in real time: denial of service, spam, fraud, flaming, griefing, trolling and vandalism. Not to mention ad blocking (which I use). Few print publications have to deal with readers who subscribe through a post office that automatically cuts all the ads out, as a service.
And for all these costs, I believe online also delivers more to its readers. It is almost always searchable, both current issue and all archives, often from our phones in our pockets. It usually permits sharing between friends, both directly and by linking, and can often be syndicated. It permits conversations, often very rapid ones, where print might take months or years of back-and-forth between articles and letters to the editor. Online is usually more timely and often has a global perspective, both from globally distributed staff and reader conversations. Online can usually provide better and easier-to-follow references to primary sources, visualizations and comparisons, and reference-inversion ("who cites this"?)
I'll admit the volume of online writing, and the ... highly variable quality of it (this post included) leaves much to be desired. It is a bit like going to a public library with 700 floors full of $0.25 photocopied zines. There is so much to dig through. And thus we come to the key word in my opinion: quality. When you find quality writing, editing and curation online, I encourage you to realize just how much effort it takes to produce and sustain, and consider paying for it.