APSE story on Web content

[Kaylee]

I don't get it.

Why are some writers terrified of this?

Even if the world goes cyber, there's still a need for people who can write clearly and concisely. Who's going to produce net content, IT guys?

 

[Montezuma's Revenge]

Why do people ashume that writers who don't like this are terrified of change?

If papers want to emphasize the on-line product, then put resources into it. Hire people to write specifically to produce on-line content. But don't double their writing loads and and then wring the hands because none of the content is any good.

 

[Gold]

I can see why writers might not be crazy about it.

There is the extra work, and it's possible less than 1,000 people will read it. Then you have to do a voice for a podcast or voice, and that is something which a lot of writers might not be very good at.

Also, when your stuff is printed in a daily newspaper, the fact that an editor runs it indicates that there is a certain standard. When you are on the net - well, any 15 or 16-year old kid who can figure a website can write whatever they want... so what have you achieved?

 

[SF_Express]

OK, a couple of things. And I'm a writer guy, so I don't want my writer brothers and sisters getting mad at me. Also understand, I'm talking about bigger papers with full staffs; if the Web starts leading to 90-hour weeks for the oppressed mashes at the smaller places, that's not what I'm talking about.

But I'm still unsure as to how this has to be that much "extra work," at least if it's done by good managers (time managers for the writers, people managers for the bosses).

You get a breaking news story; you bat out the 400 word core you'd have to write eventually, get it out of the way, it goes on the Web, and then that story will evolve into the final draft for the print edition (and eventually the Web, too).

So putting stories up in some fashion on the Web before you end up with the final version for print, and maybe blogs, which could just be a couple of hundred words whenever the urge arises -- those are the two main changes.

It's different kind of work, on a different schedule, but I don't know if it HAS to be a lot MORE.

Then again, perhaps I'm naive.

 

[SF_Express]

There is the extra work, and it's possible less than 1,000 people will read it.

That might be the place at some places today -- it's also not the case at a lot of places today; big breaking news story in a city, just try to get on that site when it's happening.

It's also not about today -- it's about the future of content delivery. And you have to start now so you're doing it right when it becomes critically important.

 

[lantaur]

There is the extra work, and it's possible less than 1,000 people will read it.

That might be the place at some places today -- it's also not the case at a lot of places today; big breaking news story in a city, just try to get on that site when it's happening.

It's also not about today -- it's about the future of content delivery. And you have to start now so you're doing it right when it becomes critically important.

I'm also wondering - if less than 1,000 people read it on the web, how many do you think are reading it in the paper?

If you write something on an NFL team in a city which regularly covers a team, I guarantee you it will do well more than 1,000 hits.

Also, to answer Gold's comment on how if its on the web any 15- or 16-year old can write whatever ... if you work for a paper (or national website), I'd like to think that holds a little more water with readers than little Billy's looser fanboy page.