Posts
As readers' attention spans have shortened, and as newspapers literally have shrunk to save paper, article lengths at most newspapers, including The Forum, have gotten significantly shorter. But article lengths at major metro papers, including The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, remain comparatively long, especially for analytical pieces.
Newspapers face a dilemma and must strike a balance. On the one hand, article lengths can't be routinely so long that they turn away readers. On the other hand, as Kinsley notes, newspapers as a medium must distinguish themselves by providing context and analysis that broadcast outlets cannot.
It's true that the Internet and increasing popularity of mobile devices exert pressure to shorten story lengths. But it's also true that significant blocs of readers crave context, and there are hopes that devices like the much-discussed Apple iSlate could open a new market for books, magazines and newspapers -- for electronic media, in other words, that provide depth and nuance.
Here's Kinsley's piece. Read it and be prepared to discuss it in class. What do you think? We are beginning this class with the economical sketch form as our inaugural assignment for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the reader's shortening attention span.
I think one of the most ironic things about this story is that it itself is 1,829 words and should probably be cut.
ReplyDeleteAside from that, the author makes a good point. Even I don't often follow an article past the jump unless it keeps my interest. If I happen to get to the inside page and remember what the beginning of piece was about, I might finish it then, but I'd be more apt to read the whole thing without a jump and if it was a little shorter.
I do not agree, however, with the author's idea that newspaper articles should lose all of their descriptive language and just lay out the facts. I think it is important to get background information, and as long as the elaborate description doesn't interfere with the main point, I don't mind the extra 5-10 words. It helps to illustrate the sketch and also helps the reader understand exactly what happened. You could say, "Health care reform," but anyone who follows the health care debate would probably want to know about the Democrats' pride on the vote.
Usually, if I look at a story online and all I get is a paragraph of facts, I get frustrated. I want to know why. I want to know how. I want to read something that makes me feel like I was there, not just reading the cliffnotes.
So, I've contradicted myself a little bit... but I'd like to see a happy medium. I think stories should be short enough so they do not all jump to another page. But I think that there should be more meat to the story than what Mr. Kinsley is looking for.
I thought it was strange that Kinsley said Internet articles get to the point and that's why people are abadoning print newspapers. I was under the impression that most news organizations use the same articles in print as they do online.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with his argument that providing context provides only horse-race hype. I think that's true in some cases, especially as it relates to politics, but I really don't think that providing a context, analysis, or further explanation automatically generates horse-race hype.
I did think it was hilarious that the example quotes he pulled used so many words to ID the speaker. No one cares that the representative is also the chairman of x committee.
While I agree with Kinsley that some newspaper stories are too subjective, I also think that complete objectivity is sometimes impossible, or ludicrous. I don't think it's wrong to say that wrong that x company's CEOs are corrupt if documents prove that they stole money.
Finally, newspapers often do take up too much space with background or trivial information. As Kinsley said, if they're reading the article, they probably are already informed of the topic/issue thus far. If they're not, they can seek out that additional information they're lacking on their own.
I agree with Emily on this one. I read the first three and a half paragraphs of the column before losing interest in it and wondering why the author was taking so long to make his point.
ReplyDeleteI like both newspaper and internet stories, but I get overwhelmed when I see on the bottom of the page that I have six more clicks to go before the story ends. The washington Post and the Smithsonian online both list how many pages there are to the story and by page three I'm done. In a newspaper at least you know the story may spill over to another page but it won't spill over more than one page.