Comments on: Why newspapers are dying

By: Eric Jacksch

Eric Jacksch — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:55:34 +0000

Thanks, that’s a good one!

By: kingthorin

kingthorin — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:55:56 +0000

I know there’s a good crowd of security minded people around here so you might appreciate this loosely related article:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/164321/story_on_mcafee_security_hole_triggers_another.html
which highlights the problems with online syndication (or whatever you want to call it).

By: Evolving Squid

Evolving Squid — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:13:23 +0000

I can count 5 errors, not including grammatical errors, in Erin’s post

One thing newspapers (and books, for that matter) have going for them is a sense of ritual. When I want to research a topic, I want the information on-line. That is a must.

But when I want to read the news, there is more to it than just absorbing information. There’s the sitting in my comfy chair or other quiet place. There’s the feel of the paper – indeed, there’s the sort of comforting isolation of having that wall-of-paper open in front of me. On-line news can’t capture this (or at least I can’t figure out how it could capture that feeling).

There are other issues too. Short of being stolen or being victim to an actual fire, my copy of Farenheit 451 will be there tomorrow. It will be there next week. It will be there 10 years from now. I can take my book or newspaper anywhere. They don’t need batteries. Even if my newspaper tears or my book’s spine is broken, it’s still usable. Drop a Kindle and you’re out how many $? Are downloaded books even transportable between Kindles (I honestly don’t know)? When I’ve read my newspaper, I can still use it to wrap fish or line a bird cage. Granted, you could do that with a Kindle or an iPod I suppose, but it wouldn’t be the same.

I’m not convinced newspapers are in their death throes just yet. They certainly will end up there if they don’t adjust how they do business, but I don’t forsee the end of print media for many, many years to come.

By: Editor

Editor — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:17:08 +0000

The quality of online media certainly does vary. Most of our writers have worked in print. The major difference to us is that we can operate a daily without printing costs or killing trees

By: kingthorin

kingthorin — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:57:38 +0000

I didn’t mean to imply that print was infallible just that more attention or care “seems” to go into printed material.

People seem to think (at least subconsciously) that posting online should be less formal than full print. This is gradually changing but I still seem to encounter more errors in online media than in print.

By: Editor

Editor — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:58:59 +0000

For the benefit of readers who might not have noticed the four errors in Erin’s single paragraph, her comment is obviously tongue-in-cheek. Well done Erin, and thanks for your support!

By: Erin Nichols

Erin Nichols — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:15:19 +0000

Of course Eric/whatever, if you had actually read anything past the first paragraph the glaring error any ten year old would have picked up on wouldn’t have been miss. But then again that’s just you. You cant even comprehend an entire email. Of course it’s a blog for bloggers so I’m sure no one will notice.

By: Eric Jacksch

Eric Jacksch — Sat, 02 May 2009 21:28:37 +0000

Thanks for pointing out those errors. Every article that appears on TECHLife Post is edited, but our writers and editor do occasionally make mistakes.

But that has nothing to do with being online — I’ve seen plenty of mistakes in print publications…

By: kingthorin

kingthorin — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:39:04 +0000

One thing that online new sites seem to miss out on is the idea of reviewer/editor. Prime examples occur in this very article:

“…that it showed what the “brain trust” of editors though was important.”

thoughT

“…and the be stuck with having to recycle the product all the time.”

theN

The devil is in the detail.