What happens when newspapers die and got to the www?

Almost from the beginning of the www there was talk about a different kind of writing necessary for the internet.
Shorter, more snippety, simpler.
Combined with the need to understand navigation of a site rather than page turning, and the techniques for that.
Links and all.

Is it true that writing for news reporting thereby had to change?
For insightful articles?
For information and white papers?

First, writing has changed over time. Even long before we got the world wide web.
It hasn't necessarily become shorter. Probably longer with techniques that made writing and publishing easier and quicker.

Now. If you look at some online papers and magazines today you find the exact same articles online as in the print version.
Is that because the writers of these publications don't know the rules?
Or is it because they ignore the rules?
Or is it perhaps that the rule book written by the early internet folks simply doesn't apply?

I believe in the latter.

There's always been a place for the short snippets. The outlines.
The sketches.
Alongside the long stories. The deep insights. The fact filled informative journal.
This will remain true whether we continue to read our words on printed paper or on a screen.

Amazon's Kindle, the electronic book, proves that the experience doesn't have to be all that different from printed paper.
With more sophisticated technology, screens less tiring for the eye, better resolution screens, and a better understanding of typography among the designers designing for the screen, the gap is shrinking as far as the reading experience is concerned.

Besides, the argument that people don't have time to read for as long on the screen as they would when reading a book or a newspaper is flawed.
It's got little to do with technology at this stage and more to do with choice.

Modern people in modern societies spend an awful lot of time reading stuff on the screen, working on the screen, and doing just about everything from a screen. Small or big.

Now add reading books and newspapers.

With thanks to John Kuczala and New York Times for the illustration.

It's not only the 30 second spot that's dead

In my world the whole TV thing is dead.
The only time i deliberately turn on the TV nowadays is when I stay in hotels.
It seems less lonely with the images flickering in the background and the sound on.
I don't necessarily watch anything.

I get all the news I need from New York Times' and CNN's online versions.
And the newspaper on the train in the mornings.

I watch the movies and odd programs I want to watch when I want to.
Tivo takes care of that.

So, yes i do watch TV sometimes, but not the way I used to, which was whenever I had time or felt lazy.
Or when I wanted to catch a certain program I didn't want to miss.

With the option to watch everything whenever there is not the same urgency as before either and more often I simply never get around to watch what I had in mind to watch.

The computer takes care of most of my information and entertainment needs nowadays.

TV commercials?. Nothing can be more annoying. I can live without them. As a consumer.
That's from me, who makes a living in advertising.
Although, that said, its mostly web-based nowadays.

Before the TV was the modern campfire.
A bunch of friends with a case of beer and a match to watch.
Or more recently, American Idol with my younger kids.
And even they are annoyed by the commercial breaks.
So all in all, we use the TV as something gather around once or twice a week.
Very targeted.

The Internet certainly changed my behavior.
My kids never got into the daily TV routine anyway.
To them 30 second TV spots are simply something to ignore or poke fun at.
Advertising will never again be as simple as it was for a while.
People, whether young kids or older adults, don't go to the web to watch commercials.
Advert sing has to become much more embedded.
Without destroying the experience.

I borrowed the image from getty images.
http://legacycreative.gettyimages.com