I spend a lot of time on Facebook as part of my job so it’s no surprise that I learnt of the impending #Brandgelina divorce on Tuesday afternoon. It didn’t take long for my social media timelines to be flooded with the Jennifer Anniston GIFs; for what it’s worth I find these infantile and really rather unnecessary, this circus like modern day commentary is akin to digital voyeurism. I also find it rather indicative of our perceived priorities as a society that there were more visible posts about the newly filed for divorce than meaningful conversation about the continuing atrocities in Syria.
But this is not what this post is about. The question I am asking is: since when did there become double standards for online publishing as opposed to print publishing? Do they even have to hold themselves to the same standard? What do we expect as both print and digital consumers of information?
This afternoon Refinery29 UK’s Facebook post popped up on my feed about how the New York Post had put a photo of Jennifer Anniston on the cover laughing and how that was ‘not cool’. Whilst I completely agree, it didn’t take much scrolling back through their timeline to find their roundup of all the best Jennifer Anniston reaction GIFs with the quote, “And that, my friend, is what they call closure”. Do Refinery29 UK see no double standards? Is it ok for online information sources to jump on a pop culture moment but not print? And is it ok that they call said print publication out when they have done seemingly the same thing?
The articles were written by two different contributing writers so one could argue that they represent differing opinions that aren’t necessarily contradicting of each other. However print media has many different writers and yet these very quickly set the tone for that particular publication and is often steered… Hello editing.
In a media landscape that is a far cry from what it was five years ago, never mind twenty, and one that will continue to evolve at lightening pace is this to be expected? Or should online publishing be held to the same standard as print? Yes the way we as a world access and consume information is more instantaneous than ever, yet does that mean that editing is null and void and do we even care if it’s contradictory as long as we get our hands on the latest GIFs.
To be regarded the same as print, surely online publishing must operate within the same defining parameters to deliver content to it’s varying audiences, and must hold themselves to the same high standard as which they judge print.
Comments
22 responses to “Print Publishing Vs. Online Publisihing: A Seemingly Double Standard”
Great point – double standards indeed. Despite the fact that most sales etc are made online, there is a tendency to treat it as a ‘casual’ space, where one can get away with a lot more!
The media here always winds me up. Sometimes you can get the most accurate information of twitter but then again it could all be trolling. You never really know what to believe or what to support.
Big double standard, they’re catering for both sides but how can you!? I suppose this is what happens in the media. They definitely can get away with more with online publishing, editing etc.
I see your point – if I want news I look at The Times but if I want entertainment I’ll scroll through Twitter.
Totally get your point and agree with you, but it sells paper and gets hits and that is why the whole story is so big x
I definitely see your point here, I think it is a major double standard. Editing definitely plays a part in it all or should we say lack of editing properly in some cases x
I think the answer to your initial question is…since always. I can’t remember a time that online publishing held particularly high standards in comparison to print publishing. It dilutes the name of ‘news’ and makes for a reading audience with the attention span of a goldfish.
I think there are double standards between online and print and I think people forget that online is just as important as print now x
What a fascinating post. Never really looked at it like that – but you are so on the mark here. We do live in this celebrity news world, which is a bit of a shame actually… but often find myself reading it all!
And this is why I pretty much avoid the media like this. Total double standards!
That is most definitely double standards! I can’t believe they didn’t even think before posting – surely even though it was two different writers, they’d know what other content was up on the site?
There does seem to be a lot more to be gotten away with online. For the record, I’m sure Jen has moved on… a long time ago.
Totally double standards here not sure why they didn’t think before posting. even if it was by 2 different writers.
Perhaps maybe not to look bias? But totally double standards! Media annoys me so much its ridiculous!
I think catchy headlines and pictures are what sell the clicks. Online publications probably don’t care about contradictions anymore!
I think they do have double standards but then you would expect a better quality from print as it is generally paid for.
Totally agree. Perhaps it’s more relaxed online and maybe more throwaway. We prefer to read the news in print and listen to newsreaders. Better monitored and regulated.
There is definitely a double standard isn’t there! Online is just as important if not more in 2016
Totally agree sadly it’s all about money and what sells
Can defiantly see the double standards their! The media can’t make their mind up
Print secures a copy now in online to get with the trend. One of the big differences is how people read on each medium. They tend to read quicker and undetailed online.
I was a magazine journalist for 20 years and the major difference between print and digital at the moment is that print stories would go through four, five, six people – and often an entire legal team – before it got printed. Digital often relies on a cheap or free pool of writers that can self publish without any kind of checks or subediting. I totally agree – digital HAS to up its game and its professionalism before it can truly be taken seriously.