I've noticed several papers are considering, or have decided to, charge for viewing news on their Web sites. Personally, I think this is something that should have happened from the get-go instead of spitting it out there for free. I think it's going to be a tough sell at this point.
I myself won't be signing up to pay for the privilege although I do check on papers' sites now to see what's up. But I won't pay for it; I know this because I also won't pay to read a story from the archives ($2.95 for ONE story?!!?!?) But seriously, I've gotten used to getting my news from the television. I know, I can hardly believe it myself. But the last time I saw a Dallas Morning News, the first 10 pages (after the front) were all briefs anyway, which is about the same amount of news as I get from the TV. So really, I'd only be reading the section fronts because the insides are just crap nowadays.
I've only scanned the DMN online a few times but I haven't seen any of the absolutely embarrassing mistakes that I've seen on other sites. I'm guessing the DMN at least attempts to edit its online copy. Back when I was at Denton, only edited copy was posted.
I was reading a column posted on the Chicago Tribune's site earlier and saw "Battletar Galactica." Listen, misspelling the name of the show you're writing about doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Neither does saying, "in the proceeding three episodes."
Did you lay off ALL the copy editors?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment