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 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 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