Prev
Next

The new internet vomit

Paul Toohey

by Paul Toohey

02 Feb 05:55am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Blogging, Journalism, Media, Online, Paid Content, Writing

30 comments

A journalist has written a story complaining newspaper stories are too long.

Cartoonist Jon Kudelka - who has an excellent blog actually - in The Australian.

He says people like their stories short. Punchy. That’s why newspapers are dying, he says. That’s why the internet is alive.

The story was written by Michael Kinsley. A columnist for The Atlantic. Mr Kinsley complains that a 1,456 word report in The New York Times, on Obama’s health reforms, was too long. Mr Kinsley’s article, complaining about journalistic “verbiage”, ran to 1,940 words.

Mr Kinsley says journalists who provide context and scene-setting are the dinosaurs of the new media age.

He targets this introductory sentence from a Times story which appeared in November:

Handing President Obama a hard-fought victory, the House narrowly approved a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system on Saturday night, advancing legislation that Democrats said could stand as their defining social policy achievement.
Mr Kinsley argues ordinary people, when discussing the news of the day, have no interest in the broader political context. He says they don’t want to know that there’s been “a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system”.

He says what they really want to know is: “The House passed health-care reform last night.”

I don’t think I’m one of Mr Kinsley’s people. I don’t even think Mr Kinsley believes it, or he wouldn’t have taken 1,940 words to make his point.

Writing short, hard news is a real skill. Writing longer stories which unravel, and provide context, and don’t give the reader two black eyes in the first five seconds is also a skill.

Neither form is superior. Both styles will always exist, no matter what Mr Kinsley and others say.

Does Mr Kinsley think that when people start paying for their on-line news, as they soon will, that they will want only short, précised news?

Having been spoiled by free news for so long, people will expect more than ever in their paid subscriptions - a mix of hard news and feature stories, plus numerous other inducements (photo galleries, video, music and even advertising).

And if the inquisitive public don’t get context and back story from one source, they will look to another to provide it.

If the internet is slowly pounding its hammer to the head of newspapers, it has nothing to do with the demand for brevity, but the demand for more.

In newspapers, whether broadsheet or tabloid, reporters have to work within pre-determined space allocations for their stories.

But internet sites are far from being the home of punchy information. They are not space-limited and often lack self-control.

There’s a bloke who writes a blog that is linked to Crikey. He’s not a journalist, but the readers wouldn’t know that. He gets on the phone now and then and speaks to town council-types and relates every word – I mean every word – they say.

He colours the quotes in red.

He does this because, in his mind, he thinks it’s dishonest to deny his readers a single word (not that he ever rings anyone who might disagree with the line he’s pushing).

This bloke gets no apparent subbing. He’s not challenged by his editors. He represents the new internet vomit.

This is the writing that will fail in the online news age.

Once people start paying for news, sites such as Crikey are going to suffer. People are only going to commit to one or maybe two genuine on-line news providers. Other subscriptions will be cancelled as an unnecessary expense.

Online news sites will need to maintain standards because nothing on-line is ever expunged from the public record – everything that’s written is out there, somewhere. The potential for law suits – and the demands for accuracy - will be high.

The main adjustment will be whether people can actually enjoy the on-line reading experience. But I would suspect that fewer and fewer of us are hitting the print button when confronted by a longish on-line yarn.

Journalists and stories, of all shapes and sizes, are not finished with yet.

I hope.

Mr Kinsley concludes: “On the first day of my first real job in journalism—on the copy desk at the Royal Oak Daily Tribune in Royal Oak, Michigan—the chief copy editor said, ‘Remember, every word you cut saves the publisher money.’ At the time, saving the publisher money didn’t strike me as the world’s noblest ideal. These days, for anyone in journalism, it’s more compelling.”

Any journalist who sets off writing a story of the basis of saving their publisher money, whether in print or on-line, is a disgrace to journalism and should be taken to the back alley behind the pub and pummelled by his colleagues.

This story has been completed in 782 words.

Get The Punch on Facebook

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Most commented

30 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Liz says:

      06:59am | 02/02/10

      The joys of free speech!!!!

      Reply

    • Stan Wills says:

      08:33am | 02/02/10

      Mr Kinsley obviously has a very short attention span .....to help him perhaps every second paragraph should have something to do with sex and the like

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      07:00am | 02/02/10

      People are going to start paying for “news”? In your dreams.

      Journalists are no better than any other writer or producer, and the audience is starting to see that.

      Reply

    • BJ says:

      07:32am | 02/02/10

      I know Rupert Murdoch thinks he owns the world because he owns nearly every newspaper in Aus. But demanding people pay for news via the internet will be one of his greatest business flops.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      03:05pm | 02/02/10

      Keep buyin’ newspapers then.
      (Yer can swat yer girlfriends lover with when yer finished with it ).

    • Bill says:

      07:58am | 02/02/10

      ‘Having been spoiled by free news for so long…’

      What cut and paste from other worldwide websites is a skill that ‘spoils’ us?

      Let’s hope you get a promotion or at least a transfer Paul to a better location, for at least toeing the company party line.  Kudos!

      Australians won’t pay for the rubbish News Limited download for free, they will go elsewhere.

      Reply

    • Bill says:

      08:05am | 02/02/10

      ‘Any journalist who sets off writing a story of the basis of saving their publisher money, whether in print or on-line, is a disgrace to journalism and should be taken to the back alley behind the pub and pummelled by his colleagues.’

      What about stealing content from other websites and passing it off as both factual and your own?  (Is Brad and Ang divorcing - yes, no yes! Is Lady GaGa a man - yes, no, yes!  Does Tony Abott look good in his budgies - yes, no, yes!)

      That’s the kind of ‘real’ journalism I want to be paying for, there will be a lot of journalists joining the ranks of the unemployed when subscriptions are down because they write such crap and foolishly believe that they have made a contribution to society for the day.

      Reply

    • Mick Skinner says:

      08:07am | 02/02/10

      The future of journalism…. can anyone say ‘structural unemployment’.

      Ask someone who used to work as a typist before the PC arrived on everyone’s desk. They’ll explain how it works.

      Reply

    • DG says:

      08:21am | 02/02/10

      Some news sources (who shall remain nameless) are so lazy that they copy and paste stories from other sources and then add a disclaimer to the bottom saying something about not using Australian spelling.

      That is, instead of running the document through a spell checker and adding a minute to the total processing time, they copy and past a standard excuse to the bottom of poorly edited articles “sourced” from other newspapers.

      Worse still, some news sources attempt to write their stories from the articles in other papers. Rather than actually finding any information themselves they simply read from another site and rewrite the story, making the same observations and using the same quotes. Presumably the later journalist is too lazy to actually contact the person concerned, make their own observations or to add anything of their own to the reporting. Their editors clearly demand nothing more than regurgitated half stories. Personally I would rather read a well though out and meaningful story that I disagree with that a lazy piece summarising some other freely available source.

      Then at the very bottom of the heap is news “providers” that ask members of the public to do the reporting for them. “If you see anything, or know anything about this please e-mail us details so that we don’t actually have to do any research or anything else associated with journalism. We will then “report” on your news and our “journalist” will take credit for it.”

      As an aside - If people want to read shorter stories why do so many people choose to participate in discussions which involve more reading? I appreciate that it is a small number of readers who actually contribute, but isn’t it those persons that choose to immerse themselves in the “news community” (by way of posting and responding to stories) that are going to be willing to pay to keep that sense of community?

      Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect those who are after a quick fix at work between meetings, phone calls or just to pass time on a slow day are going to look at whatever is freely available?

      Reply

    • Matt C says:

      08:34am | 02/02/10

      So… Crikey has prospered with a paid subscription model when it’s competing with free news outlets, but it’s going to suffer when everyone else starts charging? That is some curious logic.

      Reply

    • Bob Gosford says:

      09:00am | 02/02/10

      Oh, do lighten up just a little bit Paul! I haven’t read such tendentious tosh for quite a while.

      I put the quotes in the same ochre colour as the NT flag and much of the soil in this wonderful part of the world - hence the name of the blog: The Northern Myth.

      There I try from time to time to lift the scab off some of the more precious parts of life here and have a poke around inside with a sharp stick.

      Sometimes it works - other times not.

      Other times I just write about things that give me pleasure or that I find interesting or amusing.

      And by the way - thanks for the plug!

      Reply

    • lantana says:

      09:36am | 02/02/10

      A journo writing about another journo writing about other journos?

      The silly season seems to be even longer than usual.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      11:27am | 02/02/10

      When that happens on the internet, it’s called Trolls Trolling Trolls Trolling Trolls. That will be the name of my paid Australian Financial Review column when it shifts to a paid content model.

    • Schmavo says:

      10:28am | 02/02/10

      Sorry, couldn’t finish the article it was too long for me.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      10:47am | 02/02/10

      The problems with this article are many and varied but the key message is that the state of Australian journalism has little to do with the mess they’ve made of things over in America.

      American newspapers have shot themselves in the foot, and taken too long to realise it. (This hasn’t stopped Oz newspaper owners using the US model to argue thru cuts here, of course) 

      As Tina Brown pointed out in the Daily Beast, US newspapers failed to start reinventing themselves back in the 80s and are paying for it now. UK and Oz newspapers have been much more proactive.

      So stop trying to compare us to the Yanks. What they’ve done to their newspaper industry is very different to what we’ve done to ours ...

      Reply

    • Harquebus says:

      10:56am | 02/02/10

      I gave up my daily newspaper so that I could get the internet. I don’t pay for anything online and I get heaps. Also, I never use my real name.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      11:03am | 02/02/10

      You may not pay for anything but none of this is free. As journalists are cut, standards dive and expectations lessen. Culturally, this is a disaster.

    • Harquebus says:

      01:52pm | 02/02/10

      Wot! Helen, are talking about that edited propaganda being passed off as news that we have been spoon fed for years?

    • Bob says:

      11:29am | 02/02/10

      I can’t remember the last time I purchased a newspaper. I rarely even read the free one they hand out at the train station. And if this is an example of the direction online journalism is headed then I won’t be needing my Internet connection much longer either.

      Still, it isnt as bad as the articles on news.com.au where some work experience kid gets to report on the comments made on another article published earlier. “Joe Schmuk of Woop Woop said….” Ah, the news reporting on itself. And you have the nerve to call ather peoples stuff vomit?

      Reply

    • 6clegs says:

      12:23pm | 02/02/10

      was mildly interested in the article… Then I got to the little reminder that ‘yeah, we’ll suck you in and you will get used to visiting this site daily - until one day, unless you give us yer credit card details yer won’t be able to read anything’ -jab.

      guess what Punch (Rupy) - I’ll get used to another (FREE) news site just as quickly as I did this one. RM is IMO quite well off enough, he don’t need my few paltry dollars to keep him in the manner he’s accustomed.  wink
      (it’ll probably be “Zeta’s’’ blog, if and when he/she/it starts one.)

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      12:49pm | 02/02/10

      @Helen 12:03:

      No, it won’t be a cultural disaster. Journalism wasn’t all that good in the first place - it only thrived because of high entry costs keeping competition down.

      There’s a reason that polls on public perception of professional trustworthiness consistently rank journalists down with politicians and used car salesmen.

      Now that journalists are directly competing against everyone with a keyboard and a connection, they’re losing mindspace. The situation in the US now is what we will have in five years. And in ten years, the number of jobs in journalism will have fallen by 90 per cent.

      Society will be better served, though, with multiple new sources of information and critical analysis made possible by giving everyone a voice.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      02:00pm | 02/02/10

      I couldn’t disagree more, Eric, on every single point you make.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      02:20pm | 02/02/10

      But I should be more specific.

      Journalism was (and some of it still is) very good indeed. Eric, perhaps you don’t understand what journalism is. Yes, journalists do make themselves unpopular, sometimes with good reason, sometimes with bad. C’est la vie.

      Journalists are not in competition with everyone. They’re being crowded out by amateurs, who are being used by Internet businesses and newspaper owners to provide free content. That’ probably won’t be too long-lived.

      The US is one specific arena; it’s a mistake to assume Australia is the same place. As to journalism jobs, yes they’re falling. Free amateur writing (most of it pretty lame)  is being used by bosses to replace decent content. It will probably fail to keep advertising revenue coming in, and this model will change.

      Don’t worry, though. You’ll still be able to self-publish online. Whether anyone will bother looking is another matter. A fewblogs etc will of course be worth reading, most not.

      As to wide sources, they’ve always been available. And now they’re more widely available than ever. Wonderful. Destroy journalism and society shoots itself in the foot by removing a vital, professional stream of enquiry and criticism. Politicans & business people rather like that idea for obvious reasons.

      That’s it from me. Over and out.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      03:48pm | 02/02/10

      I understand journalism very well indeed, Helen. I’ve seen it from inside and outside - and that’s why I have such a low opinion of it.

      Journalists used to be in competition with a handful of other journalists at the other paper in town. Now they’re in competition with not only every other journalist in the world, but also with anyone who cares to post something to the Internet.

      Amateur content will never go away, because it’s a work of passion by people who have other means of supporting themselves. Therefore, making profits or attracting government funding are simply irrelevant to many of these competitors.

      Furthermore, a lot of these ‘amateurs’ are actually professionals in the fields they choose to cover, and thus provide better quality information than a journalist could. A genetic engineer who blogs about genetic engineering will almost always provide greater insight and factual knowledge than a journalism major who writes about the subject once a month.

      Journalism is not “a vital, professional stream of enquiry and criticism”. It’s a bunch of people who went to the same schools, did the same degree, and largely hold the same opinions. And those opinions infect everything they write. Moreover, the arrogance of journalists means they are easily manipulated and fooled by those who really know the subject.

      Journalism was the result of a near-monopoly, and consequently it became corrupted by ideology and self-interest. Now that monopoly has been broken, ever fewer people will be willing to settle for the biased, ignorant, out-of touch product it offers.

    • gavin says:

      08:21pm | 02/02/10

      This article typifies the school of thought within world-wide western profitable media which peddles the view “everybody has the right to know…” but really mean “...by those WE think are qualified to tell it.”

      Reply

    • Bill says:

      09:10pm | 02/02/10

      ‘Destroy journalism and society shoots itself in the foot by removing a vital, professional stream of enquiry and criticism.’

      95% of journalists in Australia fail to achieve this ‘professional’ standard of enquiry and criticism.  They’re not journalists any more, the art of investigative journalism is long, long gone, they’re internet bloggers - nothing more, nothing less.

      Reply

    • martinX says:

      03:25am | 03/02/10

      Blah blah something something. Is there a summary of this somewhere?

      Reply

    • rod sexton says:

      05:06am | 04/02/10

      Steven Mayne’s blog is obviously more widely read than Mr Toohey’s.

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      04:43am | 12/02/10

      I agree totally about the length of many articles, mostly on blogs. Most just want to create filler. A site that has been around since about 96 online that does brevity so well is slashdot.org. They get you the gist of a story in a few paragraphs. No filler.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 20 May 13 01:01PM

@Chritana01 No. NSW state

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 12:53PM

@FreeDannyJovica Hi guys, I sent you a Facebook message. What's the latest on Danny Jovica?

tory_maguire

_Tors 20 May 13 12:47PM

RT @johnluu: Amazing story of how a @triplej journo does her job visually-impaired. Goosebumps. http://t.co/N0ApEppril (via @abcmarkscott)

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 20 May 13 12:44PM

Writing column on orgasmic birth. Needed last line. Inspired by this necklace I bought. http://t.co/PgQ7jtGxaE

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter