Comments on: Walter Williams vs. Web 2.0

By: hyalineskies 6.0 beta 3 » The new editorial control

hyalineskies 6.0 beta 3 » The new editorial control — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:55:23 +0000

[...] Traditional editors, however, see this lack of control and structure disappointing, displacing, and, in some cases, excrutiatingly immoral. In a meeting a few months ago, my own editor-in-chief expressed this lack of editorial control as driving his own position into obsolescence. He felt that editorial control was the only reason people were exposed to (and sympathetic toward) the victims of the Darfur genocide. Editorial control was what gave the information its organisation. Editorial control was what gave a newspaper its purpose. Editorial dictatorship over the media’s priorities where what gave news to the stupid hordes. The reputability of a paper, in this case, seems to ride on its editorial control and the steadfastness of its uneditable paper media rather than the quality of its individual journalists. (And yes, to those who are journalists: you’ll probably say this is an oversimplification of the reputability of a paper. It may be, from a universal perspective, but not for the sake of a new media argument.) [...]

By: hyalineskies 6.0 beta 3 » With open source and open ears

hyalineskies 6.0 beta 3 » With open source and open ears — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:39:05 +0000

[...] As designers, developers, and technologists riding the bleeding edge of web design, usability, and Internet culture, it’s easy for us to become wildly arrogant and unruly on our own sites. We let our egos space to roam free, listing our professional accomplishments and allowing our fiery arrogance burn higher when something we do gets widespread recognition. It’s easy for us to tell our readers that the reason they visit our sites is because they are there to learn from us. We are the designers. We are the creators. We, as dictators, much like the editors at my newspaper, should dictate the editorial and design directions of our own work. [...]

By: Katie

Katie — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 04:33:40 +0000

First of all, I don’t think it’s unfair at all. I am just suggesting that the Daily should pick their stories more carefully. For example, they have no place trying to take on any world issue — unless they put a new spin on it, such as how it affects us in A2, or keep it in the opinion section. There are some very important stories that students should be reading, it’s true, but just because it is on the top of the fold of the Daily doesn’t mean that it will get read. If they choose to print stories that offer the same information as those published in the Times, they stand no chance. Again, no offence to the writers, but as a small city paper, certain types of stories ought to be addressed if they expect to be read, and not others.

By: eston

eston — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:33:02 +0000

Good point, Katie – at the same time, don’t you think it’s somewhat unfair to compare the Daily to the Times? No offence to the people I work with, but there’s a huge disparity between the journalistic talent of the NYT journalists and the ones that work for us.

By: Katie

Katie — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:07:40 +0000

Agreed — Because of my own particular fondness and loyalty to the printed page, it would be easy to side with the other managing editors. However, this could only happen if the Daily’s content would remain consistently worth reading. The only way to convince a reader to spend time with a story that would not usually be of interest to them is by having it presented in an original manner, and, please, well-written. Perhaps the Daily has to reconsider its content, keeping in mind the competition with the Ann Arbor News, the Times, and the Post, especially because these papers are so accessible online.