Deborah Howell’s ombudsman column in yesterday’s paper talked about some of the differences between the Washington Post newspaper and the Washington Post website, pointing out (for the benefit of those who might not know) that they’re actually separate entities. The discussion in the column mostly centers around the issue of Dan Froomkin’s White House Briefing column, which apparently causes some consternation for the paper because it’s considered too slanted, and there’s concern that people mistake it for an official newspaper column.* Personally, I don’t see what the problem is, as the column is clearly labeled as part of the Opinion section of the website, and I also think it contributes greatly to the discussion between the public and the press, but remember, I’m biased myself.
As Deborah points out, though, since many people see the website as an extension of the paper she ends up fielding issues regarding online content in addition to those raised by readers of the print edition, but in practice the two operations have certain distinctions that make it hard to judge one by the other. It’s a tough issue, whether to regard online content separately from the print edition. It also raises interesting questions about where such oversight will come from in a world where news is aggregated rather than delivered. Who’s responsible for policing the content of one’s favorite Google or Yahoo news feed, for instance? And do consumers of such services care? I know, always with the questions. But they’re fun ones.
Finally, in the column there’s another comment which stands out to me:
Some Post reporters don’t appreciate that links are put on the Web site to what bloggers are saying about this or that story — especially when the bloggers are highly negative.
I hope this isn’t a pervasive attitude across the river. I think the Technorati partnership is one of the most important things WPNI has done this year, and I think it’s already reaped benefits not just for the website but for participatory journalism as a whole. The ability to turn a news story or a column into a discussion is one of the great benefits to come from the emergence of the …. man, I can’t believe I’m using this word again this year… “blogosphere” (graaaaahhhggghhh), and taking that away would be a serious setback, in my opinion. Granted, there’s a lot of crap out there, and I personally don’t think much of websites on either side of the aisle whose sole purpose is to turn discussion into bombast, but let’s face it: the news is going to get discussed, pulled apart, disseminated, and parsed, and we might as well serve as the jumping-off point.
Earlier this month, our esteemed overseer Don Graham made the argument that the web is key to the future of the corporate flagship. As a WPNI employee (and please, bear in mind that everything you read here is my opinion, not necessarily my employer’s) and all around student of technology, you might expect me to agree wholeheartedly. Well, I do, but I think it’s more complicated than that. I see both the print and online editions feeding off each other, and making each other better while remaining unique in their own respects. I don’t necessarily know how, exactly, but it’s hard for me to think of one without the other, until proven otherwise.
none