A new study on online magazines by the Columbia Journalism Review has the media world buzzing. CJR Editor Victor Navasky proclaimed the findings — which showed that fact-checking and copy-editing are substantially less rigorous online — "depressing." New York Magazine, on the other hand, argued that Navasky's gloom-and-doom is an overreaction, stating that magazine websites are still in their infancy, and naturally need time to streamline their operations.
Our view? Digital reporting and writing may suffer from lax standards today, but that's not a foregone conclusion tomorrow. Typos and inaccuracies are not endemic to web journalism — they're just natural for a young, rapidly-changing medium. As online magazines evolve and mature, and as more and more readers migrate to the Web, standards will inevitably rise —if for no other reasons consumers will demand it.
In the meantime, how would you improve online writing and editing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
© 2008 Gotham Ghostwriters, All rights reserved.
Posts
1 comment:
Poimajotflili
[url=http://www.ekccc.org]adipex versus phentermine[/url]
Nadafuele
[url=http://noweatthis.net]cheap ambien[/url]
Fizalefeera
[url=http://www.thegibsoncompany.com]maximum lorazepam dose alcohol withdrawal[/url]
expemybrootte
Post a Comment