Even in print, there is only one NewYorker. There are some other mags that are almost comparable, but it's not like there are scores of them to choose from.
And how exactly does longform help websites advance their dodgey advertising tactics?
It's just my opinion but I honestly think writing on the web was better in the 1990's. These type of websites would likely be criticized today as "walls of text" and for not having enough JavaScript or using enough of the latest CSS or HTML features.
The more interesting question to me is the relationship between talented journalists and website developers. They do not necessarily see the world the same way. They operate from different models.
What if salaried journalists committed to the craft of writing (not pandering to advertisers or search engines) had the technological empowerment to build high speed, highly organised distribution (publishing) systems without the need to consult with web developers and accept developers' dreams of dodgey pay by the click web advertising? Do I believe there is a disconnect between the two groups? Yes.
There are still middlemen in publishing. They are just new middlemen. Alas, they can't afford to pay salaries as their predecessors could.
Perhaps what needs to be taught is the technical skill so that ageing journalists schooled in long form can cut out the middleman, start their own publishing businesses and hire the top talent to train the young people entering the field.
The idea is good i.e. teach journalists to hack.
But there's a conflict of interest. Look who's doing the teaching. Mozilla and Google are in business together.
Mozilla != journalists
Mozilla == web developers == middleman
FAIL. (It's been tried before: Web developers purporting to "help" journalists. The results have not been good.)
I'm glad you are not offended by my remarks. It may seem like I'm taking a shot at developers or Mozilla. As a user who hates bloated web browsers and Java, maybe I am. But from an objective viewpoint, I'm not. I'm just saying journalists and developers have as yet not been able to find common ground, even though they both know they need each other. Something is amiss.
Meanwhile solid journalism is deteriorating.
As for me, I am taking action, but at a lower level. The stuff I'm working on is much bigger than page views, pay per click, or even news. I'm interested in software that can alter paradigms. I want to see the original version of the internet. No middlemen.
Hyperbole. I'll believe it when I see it.
Even in print, there is only one NewYorker. There are some other mags that are almost comparable, but it's not like there are scores of them to choose from.
And how exactly does longform help websites advance their dodgey advertising tactics?
It's just my opinion but I honestly think writing on the web was better in the 1990's. These type of websites would likely be criticized today as "walls of text" and for not having enough JavaScript or using enough of the latest CSS or HTML features.
The more interesting question to me is the relationship between talented journalists and website developers. They do not necessarily see the world the same way. They operate from different models.
What if salaried journalists committed to the craft of writing (not pandering to advertisers or search engines) had the technological empowerment to build high speed, highly organised distribution (publishing) systems without the need to consult with web developers and accept developers' dreams of dodgey pay by the click web advertising? Do I believe there is a disconnect between the two groups? Yes.
There are still middlemen in publishing. They are just new middlemen. Alas, they can't afford to pay salaries as their predecessors could.
Perhaps what needs to be taught is the technical skill so that ageing journalists schooled in long form can cut out the middleman, start their own publishing businesses and hire the top talent to train the young people entering the field.