Slate Magazine, which was founded by Michael Kinsley, with funding from Microsoft, was, in my mind, a far superior publication than its most obvious competitor, Salon.
Yes, was. As in, in the past
Now, this may be a contentious point, so I will start with this: I respect and still read many of the writers in the magazine, which often publishes very insightful essays, political and otherwise. And, I have no qualms with the journalistic style, which very often involves first person narratives. In fact, I'm often struck by how much more that style resonates with me (and I would assume, the average reader) than the staid, straight journalistic style that can kill even the most emotive stories.
And for a very long time, in fact for as long as I have read Slate (I believe I first read a Jack Shafer article in early 2002), I have respected the fact that, despite its corporate beginnings, this newsmagazine became the populist, free online newsmagazine, while Salon, originally founded in this role, moved to a paid subscription.
Slate is not yet at this point. And, this summer, I began to notice that some of the new multimedia features - videos and audio embedded in articles which reference them, superb slide shows - were really good. For instance, instead of using a proprietary multimedia platform, the tech editor opted for a far more universal, standard: Flash. As the user of a computer not directly part of the Microsoft network, I appreciate the quick load times and in-browser support.
But, I've discovered increasingly intrusive advertisements. It's not that I have an issue with journalistic endeavors that make money. It's more when the business model a) casts doubt on the journalistic integrity of the publication, and b) actually interferes with the journalistic endeavors show cased in the publication, that I take issue.
For instance, the videos which I earlier praised now feature a commercial before they begin. If the videos truly are taking advantage of the spontaneity of the Internet to improve how news is delivered, I would think they wouldn't want to front load these "extras" with off-putting advertisements.
Now, this may be a contentious point, so I will start with this: I respect and still read many of the writers in the magazine, which often publishes very insightful essays, political and otherwise. And, I have no qualms with the journalistic style, which very often involves first person narratives. In fact, I'm often struck by how much more that style resonates with me (and I would assume, the average reader) than the staid, straight journalistic style that can kill even the most emotive stories.
And for a very long time, in fact for as long as I have read Slate (I believe I first read a Jack Shafer article in early 2002), I have respected the fact that, despite its corporate beginnings, this newsmagazine became the populist, free online newsmagazine, while Salon, originally founded in this role, moved to a paid subscription.
Slate is not yet at this point. And, this summer, I began to notice that some of the new multimedia features - videos and audio embedded in articles which reference them, superb slide shows - were really good. For instance, instead of using a proprietary multimedia platform, the tech editor opted for a far more universal, standard: Flash. As the user of a computer not directly part of the Microsoft network, I appreciate the quick load times and in-browser support.
But, I've discovered increasingly intrusive advertisements. It's not that I have an issue with journalistic endeavors that make money. It's more when the business model a) casts doubt on the journalistic integrity of the publication, and b) actually interferes with the journalistic endeavors show cased in the publication, that I take issue.
For instance, the videos which I earlier praised now feature a commercial before they begin. If the videos truly are taking advantage of the spontaneity of the Internet to improve how news is delivered, I would think they wouldn't want to front load these "extras" with off-putting advertisements.
The front page has also received some new advertisements. Looking at this front page, of the immediately visible section, approximately 1/3 is advertisement. Online journalism is very different from print journalism, in many ways, but readers are not. When even the simple act of reading the day's top headlines is interrupted by advertisements, its hard to imagine a reader who wouldn't at least give some thought to finding another news source.
But what really set me off was last week's - and I apologize for not yet having a picture - Applefest. Right below the navigation bar, in the spot which the publication normally reserves for a photo illustration, and embedded text links to their most important and/or interesting stories, was a nice, old fashioned banner ad with an Apple logo. And along the righthand side was a large video ad, with sound turned on, featuring the two characters Mac and PC. So the first thing you see when scanning the page is an Apple, and the last thing you see while changing lines of text is two very recognizable characters.
So when Slate publishes flowery articles like this one, its hard to believe there was no influence. Reading this "article," however, I am convinced of the influence.
And with no discussion of the relationship between the two companies (Apple and Slate), how are we to know when the advertising budget becomes more important than journalistic integrity. Or, even, if it already has.
1 comments:
danny--nice post. what's funny is that i was reading slate and decided to look you up and ta da! also another funny thing about advertising...in the article you cited about the iphone, there's a link embedded in it to the chipotle website, but it's basically an advertisement. weird.
Post a Comment