본문 바로가기
Online_journalism

[펌] 가디언의 온라인저널리즘

by 수레바퀴 2006. 11. 23.

“Web-first” publishing at the Guardian: balancing between speed and quality

Newspaper deadlines are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Stories that once had to wait for the morning delivery to be read can now be posted on a paper’s website as soon as the news breaks or the second the last editor gives it her final approval. In June 2006, The Guardian became the first British paper to adopt a “Web-first” policy. The meaning behind the name is self-evident, but what does the policy mean for newsrooms? Foreign Editor for the Guardian, Harriet Sherwood, described the effects of “Web-first” on print newsrooms in an email interview with the Editors Weblog.

The Guardian began its experiment with its foreign and business desks, each for different reasons: the foreign desk “because the world's time zones make a nonsense of once-a-day publication once you have the means of a 24-hour news service,” and the business desk because a “lot of business news is released early in the morning” and it doesn’t seem logical to wait until the following morning’s paper to publish the news.”  On numerous occasions, the home and national desks have also printed stories on the Web before they appeared in the print version, but, said Sherwood, “We decided that our home/national desk wouldn't go web-first until we had cut our teeth on the foreign and business news.”

Some papers are
still skeptical about Web-first publishing, especially The Independent which holds stories until the next day under the premise that more people will buy the paper to read the news if they haven’t already read it on the Web. But Sherwood doesn’t foresee this practice lasting for very long:  

EW: Is Web-first publishing at the Guardian considered more of an experiment or do you think that online-first publishing will become the norm? Will newsrooms at other papers eventually institute the same policy? Why or why not?


HS: Once there is the means to get news to your audience on a rolling 24-hour basis, there's no logic to holding it back for a once-a-day newspaper deadline. Consumers of news increasingly expect to be able to access news at a time which suits them, rather than times determined by newspaper deadlines or fixed tv/radio news broadcasts. I do indeed think that web-first will become the norm. Once you start publishing web-first there is no going back. That's not to say it is not an evolving policy - we are learning what is possible all the time, and refining and reviewing our processes -- but the idea of abandoning web-first is unthinkable. I think other newsrooms will follow suit (
the Times already has done so).

EW: What are the risks of online-first publishing? For example, is it still possible to sufficiently factcheck and vet an article in the age of rapid online publishing?


HS: The main difficulty with online-first publishing is getting the balance right between speed and quality. Speed is of huge importance for any news website, but quality and accuracy are at the heart of the Guardian's journalism and I think it would be wrong to sacrifice or compromise on those. At the moment, if there is a big breaking foreign news story we tend to get an agency (AP) version on our website as soon as possible or a very quick version written by one of our London-based web reporters. Then we get our correspondent on the ground to file a web version as soon as he or she can reasonably do so which replaces the earlier version. I am at pains to stress the importance of accuracy - and the importance of giving the correspondent enough time to do some proper reporting. The risk is that the speed imperative could override meeting the high standards we set ourselves.


EW: What are the advantages of online-first publishing? For example, is this the future of breaking news instead of waiting for the nightly newscast or morning’s paper?

HS:
But - having said that - speed is the obvious advantage of web-first. If something happens in the morning in, say, Beijing or Jakarta, it is ludicrous that a Guardian reader should have to wait more than 30 hours before they can read a Guardian report on the story. By publishing straight to the web, a reader should be able to access a Guardian account almost 24 hours ahead of it being published in the newspaper. Stories can also be updated regularly. The second advantage is that the web does not face the same space constraints as a newspaper and there are always far more stories available to write than any print newspaper has room for. This isn't to say we should fill our website with verbiage, but it does mean we can accommodate stories and pieces of reportage that we may previously have had to say no to.

EW: What have been the consequences in the newsroom? Has it changed the way in which journalists and editors interact? Are editors even relevant in an online-first newsroom?

HS:
Yes, it has changed the way editors and journalists interact, although this is still evolving. We now consider how to 'feed' both platforms, usually in consultation with the reporters. There is a process of negotiation on deadlines for the web, given the need for both speed and accuracy/thoroughness. We are learning to think about mediums other than print - audio, pictures (both still and video) - plus blogs. We are offering training to our correspondents in these areas. I have considered whether the move to digital journalism makes editors irrelevant – wondering whether it should offer the reporter more autonomy in deciding the appropriate treatment of or platform for a story. However, our correspondents tell me they value interaction with an editor in discussion of a story. And I do feel that the role of an editor in how a story should be approached (eg straight news, reportage, news analysis etc), the content (the top line, balance etc), the most appropriate platform - plus acting as the 'first reader' (does this make sense, is it engaging, is it too long/short) is invaluable. But then I would, wouldn't I?

EW: Is there now a mentality of “publish first, edit later”? If so, do you think this is at all dangerous for the reputation of the paper?

HS:
I think there are considerable dangers for the reputation of the paper, but with care and commitment to our fundamental principles they shouldn't be overwhelming. All web-first stories go through an editing process before being posted - firstly by an editor, then by a sub (copy editor). Of course mistakes are made - as they are in newspapers - in which case our policy is to correct as fast as possible. We can't compete with the wire services, and we shouldn't try to - we should be offering something special that people can't get elsewhere.

EW: What has been the general reaction of staff at the desks where online-first publishing has been implemented – favorable or reactionary? Why do you think they reacted in this way?

HS:
The reaction has mostly been positive. Foreign correspondents generally access the Guardian via the website anyway - and other news sources  - so they are pretty open-minded about the potential. They like the fact that their work is read by people all over the world - and they get feedback from all over the world too. There are inevitable and justifiable concerns about speed-v-quality, but I hope these have been allayed over the past few months. I think there has been an enormous sea-change in the in the past year among journalists about the future of our industry, and most recognize that change is inevitable -- and many are really excited about the possibilities and challenges of digital journalism. I think it is easier for younger journalists, but change is always easier for the young.

EW: What are the general implications of online-first publishing for the future of journalism? Will it change things completely? Does it heighten the sense of competition between newsrooms at different papers?

HS:
We have to recognise that the web has changed people's expectations of how news is delivered and respond to that. Yes, it will change things completely in terms of delivery - but I think the issue of trusted sources of news become ever-more important when the sources are so many and varied. That's why we have to keep quality at the heart of everything we do. I'm not sure if it will change the sense of competition between newsrooms – I don't have a sense of that at the moment, but that could change.

EW: Overall, do you think that online-first publishing will improve or harm journalism?

HS:
There are both great possibilities and dangers for journalism. But I'm an optimist, so I think improvement will outweigh harm.

 

출처 

 

 

반응형

댓글