To those who haven’t done both, writing for the web might seem very similar to writing for print, but the two are very different. Print media is largely governed by its finite space. Stories have to be not only a certain length, but also a certain size so that they may be squeezed into what is affectionately known as the “news hole.” Online content, of course, does not suffer from this, as space is limited merely to the size of the server, and where text is concerned, that limit approaches realistic infinity.
They are different. Really.
A second large difference is in deadlines. Print media has fixed deadlines. Sure, the less frequently the material is published the more wiggle room an editor has, but at some point the material must go to the printer. Print media is also published regularly, which means that it can only be so current. There will always be some lag between print media and real time events. While this might seem like a drawback, writing for the web, especially as a news source, is a constant operation. Publishing a story because it’s late means you are not breaking it, you are merely reporting on a story that is already broken.
And of course, working on such a regular deadline means that print media has both the luxury and the obligation to fact check what is printed. Making a change in a newspaper requires the printing of a retraction. Such retractions can never really undo the damage done by a story, and as noted earlier, in a finite resource like a newspaper or magazine, they must take valuable inches away from either advertizing or content. Online publishers don’t always have this kind of liberty, as research must be balanced against timeliness. This brings us to one very closely guarded online writing secret: the glaring omission.
In print journalism, the writer gets the story right the first time around. A team of editors, lawyers, and fact checkers make sure of that. However, the web is a two-way street and the “team” is often one person wearing all of the above hats. This means that readers are able to respond. Most articles tell you to end your article with a question. I’ve found that leaving out something obvious, whether it is part of your carefully constructed argument or merely Godfather 2 from a list of “Best Sequels”, will stir up a sense of superiority in the reader and the reader will almost be forced to respond.
Granted, the comments won’t be the best, they likely won’t even be nice. Honestly, the lowest point of the written word might just be the YouTube comment, but you’ll get comments. You’ll get comments that are written before the reader even bothers to scroll through any other comments that you have acquired. And the reader, still in that sense of superiority, will likely link to you, so that his or her friends can see just how much you were “pwned.”
Truly a low and utterly narcissistic tactic, but hey, it’s the internet.