Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Megan Berry is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Megan Berry and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Megan Berry is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Megan Berry and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
We don't have the attention span to read the long articles and so no one's writing them anymore. Is this a change we're okay with? Do we have a choice?
There’s been this idea for some time now that the internet is democratizing communication. Anyone can have a blog and their ideas with the world. Anyone can be a journalist. It’s easy; it takes 30 seconds to post something. But should it?
I wonder if the ease of communication is making what we’re saying shallow. If I can post on my blog whenever, do I spend as much time on each post? There’s very little opportunity cost to communicating online — clearly that leads to more quanitity — but is it decreasing quality? Mark Slouka, author of War of the Worlds: Cyberspace and the Hi-tech Assault on Reality, says in a Harper’s Magazine forum “there’s an incredible shallowness to most on-line communication. I realize that there are good things being said on the net, but by and large the medium seems to encourage quickness over depth, and rapid response over reflection.” Do you think before you type?
Do you read articles written by professional journalists or hobbyists? I find this new form of citizen jouralism most helpful when it comes to tech news/blogging. Before, you would have had to subscribe to a magazine that would have become obsolete by the time it comes out. Now, I subscribe to RSS feeds of the top tech blogs and I know when a new product comes out instantly. Even if the posts aren’t always top-quality writing, what I care about is the news, the annoucement, the main idea — not who wrote it.
But who’s doing the long-term journalism projects? Who’s writing long thoughtful pieces about, well, almost anything? And does anyone read them, if they do exist? I find myself only reading the first page of articles and then skimming the rest. Is this change in journalism a demand or supply problem (or both)? We don’t have the attention span to read the long articles and so the newspapers aren’t writing them anymore. Is this a change we’re okay with? Do we have a choice?
The medium helps define the format. Being a magazine guy, one of the strengths that we've had is long form writing. But long form writing has always been harder to swallow and the fun of magazines is that we work with type and photos to make it easier to consume. With the Internet, there's yet come a form to break up your articles with the design element. It is typically long strips of text with maybe an image in there, but that doesn't come close to the amount of detail we put into magazines. So its limitations help dictate what its format is now - quick and easy. That's not to say long form doesn't exist, its just the short pieces are at the height of popularity. So for the moment, I don't think its going away, but as our other mediums (magazines, newspapers) are slowly disappearing, I think the Internet is adaptable enough to come up with some solutions to make design and viewing customizable for both the creators and the readers.
I think the Internet is making everyone more informed. As someone who went to college pre-Internet explosion (I graduate in 1993), we just did not have the access to so much information so quickly. If you were reading something and there was an event or term you weren't real famiar with, it may have taken a trip to the library to get the answer. Today, I just hop on the computer.
If you look at academic journals, they always have a summary at the beginning so you know what you're going to be reading about. The Net is kind of like that. Any blogger who's any good links back to the original document or news article.
As a former journalist, I can tell you that "professional" journalists are not very willing to evolve with the times. We don't read the same kind of books we did 100 years ago, we don't speak the same English, why would we get our news the same way?
Another great thing about the Internet is this: When I graduated from journalism school, someone else decided if you got to be a journalist. Sure, you could write something and make copies and pass them out, but if you didn't work for a paper or a broadcast affiliate, nobody read/heard/saw your stories. Today, YOU get to decide if you're going to be a journalist.
Most of what is written is shallow, yes, and most people scan rather than read when they are online.
On the other hand, I think there are more people writing for public consumption today than ever before, and those who take that even remotely seriously are thinking critically and processing at a fairly deep level.
I'm not arguing that writing balances the trade-off in depth of reading materials, but I do think the ease of mass communication today fosters deeper thinking for a large group of participants who are writing than what we would see otherwise.
I think there's a place for both in-depth, journalistic pieces and quick "sound-bites" of information. For instance, I would never visit Cuteoverload.com for a 3-page article about baby pandas. But I enjoy structured and well thought-out pieces I find in the NY Times or even some other blogs I frequent.
I agree with you that there MAY be more shallow content out there now, but I think more content is better than less - regardless of depth. (Just as long we keep the longer, more informative pieces, too).
I think it depends on the type of content you're looking for, and why you're reading. If you're reading tech blogs for tips and the latest products, quality writing and journalism isn't as important as the news being delivered. But good journalism is still out there, and lots of professional journalists are evolving with the times. The New York Times has some of its columnists blogging -- Nick Kristof, Paul Krugman -- and writers like that are able to make a point and make it well, while still using the short format of blogging. At least in political blogs, I have seen plenty of great writing and serious journalism on the part of political bloggers, even in shorter blog-post style-- so I think the well-written, thoughtful journalism is definitely still out there.
Definitely. Online content is often too shallow and far from being well thought out ... then again, there is online content that is the opposite of this which is really rewarding to read.
Both can be ok and both can be inappropriate depending on your mood and the context.
I've seen evidence of both here at BrazenCareerist.
Hi Megan,
I read your post yesterday and found myself agreeing with you. I suffer from Internet ADD and even if an article is on a fascinating subject, if it's too long, I can't finish it.
Then I stumbled upon a feature piece on ESPN.com and even though it was lengthy, I was captivated. Why? Because, like Smith+Fritzy said, the format of the piece had a magazine-like feel that kept me interested. A well-designed title, large pictures, detailed captions, and personal videos all added dynamic to what could have been a flat page.
So, while I agree that there is a place on the Web for both short and long pieces, the longer pieces are going to need to do more so people actually read them.
I wrote a post about this, too, which you can find at megroberts.wordpress.com. I liked to you in it, too!
Best,
Meg
As a web designer and developer, it is my profession to study the form and function of the Web. Writing for the Web comes in a wide variety of flavors, from the succinct Tweet to the lengthy e-zine.
In general, monitor technology has not yet advanced to the point where reading something on a computer is comfortable for most people. While we've come a long way since the CRTs of the late 90s, LCDs still cause eye strain that forces users to spend less time reading. This, too, affects the length of material written for the Web.
This has caused content writers to become more creative in how they produce online material. Many borrow from the magazine format of breaking up text with images. Frequently, web content creators take advantage of the medium to add things like video, Flash applications, and interactivity to content, thereby breaking up the text further while still retaining the user's full attention.
Online content, then, is not shallow so much as different.
I remember reading somewhere that, while book reading is down significantly for Gen Y as compared to Gen X, the actual amount of reading in general is drastically increased. If anyone knows where that observation was published, please post it here!
Don’t judge based on popularity or blind reciprocity, instead make sure they “get it” and just as importantly, that their followers “get it”. More...
2 people have recommended this.
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Email
Print
