March 03, 2004
What You See is Not What You Get
Or, how everyone thought that major newspaper websites online represented the content of the print edition and were wrong.
I'm apparently in the 1/3 minority, but I didn't really think they'd be the same thing. For one, I don't expect that the content would be released simultaneously with the print edition. Also, I'm a big proponent of making sure a web site isn't just a free version of something you sell, because I've been through the dot.com crash and I know where that sort of thinking leads.
Of course, I am in the newspaper business, so I have a different perspective.
Maybe it seems a little obvious; I didn't think the content was identical before. But what surprised me was that the very editorial control of the online version is different; you can't read nytimes.com and say that it is The New York Times.
Of course, this is kind of anecdotal. Who knows if this holds for most/all dual online/print papers or magazines?
The guardian's online content certainly gives more prominence to international stories than the paper does, I'd say. Probably to maximise advertising revenue from all the American's who read it, I suppose.
The Times offers a premium pay service that allows you to see the paper exactly as it is printed in paper form online.
Is the difference that actual articles might be slightly different? And some not included, of course. But will any articles appear online that don't in print?
The Guardian website certainly has articles and features which only appear online. I don't know about any of the others, though.
The Guardian and the Observer are available online as 'digital editions', which are exactly the same as the print editions. It's a paid-for service as of a few days ago, and costs £10.78 per month for both. Admittedly that's a lot cheaper than buying both every day, but pretty steep all the same.
« Older A small victory in the fat war | Semen Warriors Of New Guinea Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
