A Print Giant Embraces the Web
Have you been tracking what the Washington Post has been doing online lately?
Praised for its intrepid move to the Web at a time when most print publications would rather bury their heads in the sand, and long recognized for its high-end online production values and creative use of online new media tools, the venerable newspaper has been extending its Web presence in ways even bolder than usual.
Reading the Sunday edition of the Post I realized that the main story on the front page, “Citizen K Street,” was really about the fact that it would continue online as the weeks progressed. Not via the print edition, mind you…but primarily online…the exception being the first and last articles.
Aided by online media tools such as broadband video interviews with the principals of the firm, additional photography, and bios, the series is setting the standard for how print stories can be augmented online—indeed, for how a newspaper should be augmented online. Instead of fearing the Web, the Washington Post has decided to embrace it, and I say bravo!
The Post is obviously not afraid of using the series to generate commentary either. Embracing the ethos of open participation, the feedback they are generating on the site is both critical and laudatory of the reporter, the newspaper, and the industry being covered. I am reading the series online on a daily basis and enjoying the passionate conversation that it’s generating.
As the emergence of broadband video on the Web has many television executives discussing the YouTube threat and their obvious fear of a subsequent drain on TV advertising dollars, it takes a business that emerged out of the older technology of print to lead the way. How ironic is that?
Of course, newspapers have been dealing with the same problem for far longer than television and they’ve had the time to react. I’m hoping that eventually we’ll see some innovative TV executives and producers begin to respond by embracing the Web rather than fearing it.
Del.icio.us, 
Digg, 
Technorati, 
Furl, 
Reddit,
Spurl
RSS
sara isacson said,
on March 6th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
So true, Aldo. The relationship between the Post’s online and print divisions has been pretty interesting to watch. They’ve always operated–both formally and informally–as such separate entities. In many ways, they’ve actually been each other’s fiercest market competitors. Good to see that they’re integrating efforts…
USA Today is also trying to get innovative with it’s online presence. A few days ago they launched an entirely revamped Website—all based on building an online community (almost like a social network). Per its Editor:
“Our Website has a new look. But the real change is in the approach, not the appearance.
While we’ve refined the design, we’ve also expanded the journalistic mission: Our ambition is to help readers quickly and easily make sense of the world around them by giving them a wider view of the news of the day and connecting them with other readers who can contribute to their understanding of events.â€
(read the whole article at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/2007-03-02-editors-note_N.htm)
Also, while I completely agree with your thoughts on opportunities lost by the television industry’s lack of willingness (or foresight) to embrace the Web, some individual TV programs ARE embracing it whole-heartedly. In fact, just this week, the “Today Show†launched a new homepage at http://www.todayshow.com. The new domain builds on the show’s content by including a video blog from Al Roker, an Ann Curry page, performances from the show’s concert series and more…
But my favorite example a TV show using the Web is the Sci Fi Channel’s “Battlestar Gallactica†site, which along with standards like blogs, podcasts and “make your own episode†promotions, actually created a subseries of online-only Webisodes to keep the storyline going and keep viewers engaged during the show’s offseason. The site also posts extra “not-broadcast†scenes after show airing. Check it out at http://www.scifi.com/battlestar .
The times they are a’ changin’…
Aldo Bello said,
on March 6th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Great to know about the “Today Show” Sara…I’ll have to check it out.
Is anyone aware of any professionally-produced programming, originating from a television entity, that has been produced for Web only viewing?
Chris O'Leary said,
on March 6th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Wish I had a good Bowie ‘change’ quote to lead in but can’t pull it up right now. I agree, Sara that some broadcast or cable entities have seen the light. Many use the web to expand their programs or hook viewers into the pod feeds-some for a fee. As video becomes more standardized through more robust compression tools and protocols, we’ll obviously see even more video on-line along with the additional blogs, interactive features etc.. I do wonder though about those newspaper companies that have so long been rooted in a craft like journalism where the written word and storytelling are the foundation for their fan base. Expanding the written word from paper to the web seems but a tactile difference to some. Let’s face it, they write on computers and transfer it to analog print if you will. So the craft is in tact. But moving the author’s sensibilities of the English language
into a video format on the web with narration and images that leave little for the imagination, does this alter the source’s core building blocks? Are we now watching, not reading, with a prejudice of a “60 Minutesâ€, “Fox at Fiveâ€, or another video format that has been imbedded in our psyche from the bombardment that TV tends to lend itself to. Is that good or bad? Not saying…can’t.
Sara Isacson said,
on March 7th, 2007 at 9:55 am
That’s definitely one of the trickiest things about video–esp. news video….footage is kind of inherently biased (even BEFORE it’s edited to portray a particular POV)…Reading a straight newspaper story about an IED going off in Iraq and killing a dozen civilians is a whole lot different than seeing footage of it on the news.
You’re absolutely right Chris, they are completely different ways of telling a story–newspaper & web articles give audience members far more opportunities to make up their own minds about things–even if a publication has a particular slant, articles generally provide a decent set of facts and background info. But news video is all about capturing a particular moment–all about making an impact–any background info in the narration is secondary.
Aldo Bello said,
on March 7th, 2007 at 11:05 am
I completely agree that video has a much more overt emotional punch and tends to be visceral, whereas print goes deeper to make you really think…generally speaking — for TV CAN be pretty deep, as proven by the professional staffs of “Frontline” or “American Experience.” It just happens to be much more time intensive to go that deep in TV, bigger staff, more people involved, more expensive. So I think that it’s the economics of the medium that keep it from being deep, not the medium itself…let’s not forget Murrow (and many others I could list).
New Web 2.0 tools could change this, as they give viewers the chance to ask additional questions, clarify, join the conversation and generally participate in a deeper way with the story. It’s possible that short, professionally-produced videos could be used as emotional catalysts that unleash a much deeper understanding of the topic…given the right tools and the right topic, communities could aid in this process and video on the Web would only be a part of the experience.
Sara Isacson said,
on March 7th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Good point–the essence of what Web 2.0 is really all about and where it’s going…the interactive experience…
Chris O'Leary said,
on March 7th, 2007 at 11:44 am
True . I hope the videos, as short or peripheral as they may be, remain professional and the “economics” you mention do not create a dip in the standards. It could be argued they are already declining in TV itself because of their expansion to 500+ channels and the need for programming hours. But that’s another discussion. Hail Web 2.0!
Chris O'Leary said,
on March 7th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Aldo, in response to your question on original web only programming from broadcast entities-
ABC Family has greenlit a series of Internet-exclusive episodes that will serve as a prequel to its top-rated original series “Wildfire.” and The Sci-Fi channel had run an animated series (from the creators of MST 3000) for online distribution only called Edward the Less ..way back in 2001. And CBS has a reality show called Inturn about young twenty-somethings going after the same job and living together. A web exclusive.
Aldo Bello said,
on March 7th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Thank you Chris…I was not aware of these efforts…obviously.